From daemon Sat Mar 1 03:19:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h218JbA07699 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h218Ja607693 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.7a.39e49a01 (3980) for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:19:27 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Message-ID: <7a.39e49a01.2b91c70f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:19:27 EST Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10632 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4909 In a message dated 2/28/2003 3:25:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: >Nah, as much as I did enjoy our sparring, no wiggly worms, chopped mollusks, or >other fish lures were being dangled with your name on them. ;-) As Homer Simpson would say "Mmmmmmmmmm, mollusks". Love them slimy shellfish. >The Supreme Court made the effect of the Supremacy Clause abundantly clear > when they ruled last year that these state medicinal marijuana laws did not provide >any bar to Federal prosecution (I believe the decision was unanimous, if memory >serves). (snip) >The power to trump state law is certainly not absolute, only when state law >conflicts with federal law that the Constitution authorizes the Feds to make in! >the first place. >One can debate which powers are or are not rightly granted to the Feds by the >Constitution, but the Supreme Court has consistently supported Federal drug >control laws for around 100 years now; 100 years? Has it been that long? Seems like only yesterday that Laudanum was sold over the counter. Oh wait, that was that Kurt Russell movie I was watching the other day. :^) >and they are the final arbiter of what is "constitutional intent." According to their >rulings, the power to regulate drugs IS rightly derived from the Constitution (at least >until such time, if any, that they change their opinion about it). You of course are >free to disagree with them but their opinion, not yours or mine, is controlling, and >the Constitution itself grants them and them alone the power to make legally >binding interpretations of Constitutional content and intent. Hey, I disagree with >some of their rulings too, but I'm not in charge of interpreting the Constitution - they > are. Yea, your right of course. I don't agree that the Constitution empowers the feds to prohibit the use of mind altering chemicals but I have not been empowered to interpret the law. Good thing too. While I am sure my opinion on this issue is right, I would no doubt screw up our whole legal system if the task of interpreting the Constitution and congressional intent fell to me. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their rulings regarding the Constitution (or my belief that those decisions are politically motivated), it is undeniable that the USSC is empowered to make those rulings by the Constitution. As important as I may find any individual issue, those issues are all moot if I ignore Constitutional authority. But in this case they are wrong damnit. >BTW, if my "what a joke" sidebar about medicinal marijuana laws irked you and >was what you resisted responding to, you probably misunderstood my intent - see >my reply to Tom Abercrombie. I wasn't irked. This list was instrumental in teaching me that "reasonable people can disagree on important issues." I've embarrassed myself on this list far to often to reply out of anger. At least I hope I've learned that lesson. >Good hearing from you. Don't lurk so much - you've always had worthwhile things >to say whenever you've spoken up. Be careful what you invite. Think back to some of the volumes of emotionally driven blather I posted in the past. Back in the 1990s, when I became disillusioned with the American justice system, I could drone on through hundreds of words without ever discussing forensic science. Most of the list members were very long-suffering with me. That same passion still lives in me but I have tempered it since then. I was significantly stifled in my criticism of law enforcement misconduct by the events on September 11. That morning I adopted a revised set of priorities. I still oppose corruption amongst government agents but our common security has become the prevailing issue. My experience with criminally abusive agents seems somehow less important in the shadow of the smoke from the Pentagon and WTC. I have some serious concerns about exploitation of the terrorist threat by politicians who would weaken Constitutional protection against government infringement of civil rights, but I've gotten into the habit of refraining from comment on non forensic science issues here. That is unless prompted by an irresistible invitation like your post. Hay, I'm human and some temptations are just too inviting. :^) Thanks for the kind affirmation but my ability to contribute to forensic science is quite limited. I'll continue to learn quietly from reading posts to the list, and the occasional spats between list members helps to remind me that we are all human, with human strengths and weaknesses, no matter how many letters we have after our names. When the issue and mood strikes me you will hear from me. With respect, Bill Holden RLAT, CDAC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Mar 1 03:38:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h218cIi08294 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:38:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h218cG608288 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 03:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-134-208.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.134.208]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.7/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h218cD5h021910; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 00:38:15 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030301002016.00acba20@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 00:36:04 -0800 To: "Robert Parsons" , From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2527 At 05:59 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: > If we know the attorney, then all we require for a report is a request > on their official letterhead identifying themselves as an attorney of > record in the case. For the work product, they still need a specific > court order. Once the case is closed, then it's public record and anyone > can see it by law. What is "work product" and how does it differ from "report" and why do people who are entitled to the report have to jump through some extra hoops to get the "work product." I'll betcha the report is not reviewable without the "work product". >We answer to the courts when it comes to casework, not to them[attorneys]. Does this mean the courts control discovery in your jurisdiction? That is rather unusual, I suspect. Courts may enforce discovery, but generally the obligation is on the attorneys. For example, the courts do not have any obligation under Brady to provide exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor does. In California the discovery statutes explicitly provide for discovery to be provided by counsel on an informal basis (a letter generally requesting it is all that is required). It is only when there is an allegation that one side or the other is not complying with the discovery requirements that a court order forcing compliance will be sought. Of course, attorneys can only provide what they are asked for, and what they have. Record keeping procedures in forensic laboratories vary widely and unless one is familiar with the practices in a particular lab, one does not know what records might exist. For example, a cartridge case from a crime scene may be compared with many guns which are recovered in unrelated incidents. Some of those comparisons may be inconclusive (or, to put it in the words of the attorney, the casing cannot be eliminated as having been fired in the gun). At some point one of those inconclusive comparisons may be in a case in which a defendant is developed and prosecuted based on other evidence. The report of the comparison of the gun associated with that defendant may be discovered, but all of the other prior inconclusive comparisons may not be divulged. Even if the prosecutor who is responsible for the discovery knows about those other comparison he may feel no need to divulge them since they are not exculpatory. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Sat Mar 1 15:44:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h21Ki3q18224 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:44:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h21Ki2618218 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from Bttrfly361@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1a3.117154ad (15875) for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from aol.com (mow-m31.webmail.aol.com [64.12.137.8]) by air-id07.mx.aol.com (v90_r2.5) with ESMTP id MAILINID72-0301154354; Sat, 01 Mar 2003 15:43:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 15:43:54 -0500 From: Bttrfly361@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: New develpoments MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <04850C4F.3E50A18D.0B0DFA7D@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 203 Hi. I have to give a speech on the new developments and frontiers of forensic science and I was wondering if anyone on the list could give me some information. Anything would be helpful. Thank you, Jen From daemon Sat Mar 1 16:31:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h21LV0I19023 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:31:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.uri.edu (RockyPoint.uri.edu [131.128.1.58]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h21LUx619017 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.32]) by pete.uri.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h21LV0P25650 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:31:00 -0500 Received: from DIRECTOR ([131.128.32.152]) by terms.uri.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id h21LUxB25719 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:31:00 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20030301163115.00e00cd0@postoffice.uri.edu> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 16:31:15 -0500 To: From: Dennis Hilliard Subject: RE: BAC by GC In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4026 Bob, Since Fred is a now a lawyer and is not practicing in your county, you should be a paid consultant for him, especially since he seems to have lost his sense of scientific logic and is in defense attorney mode...let's challenge everything, no matter what the basis. Fred, most experts that I know who provide this type of information to lawyers will charge them anywhere from $100 to $500 per hour...so let's take out the handy calculator...you owe Bob at least $1000.00. Send him an invoice Bob! Very Truely (causing least harm) Yours, Dennis C. Hilliard F.S. Fred, you should look into joining the DWI-lawyers list, they would love to hear your arguements. Also consider attending some forensic science regional, national or international meetings. The FBI must of had you in a closet all those years. At 07:40 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >Fred, > >First, "how many compounds are in blood" isn't the proper question. The proper question is "how many volatile compounds that pass through a polar GC column and are detectible by FID can be in ante mortem blood in similar quantities to that found for ethanol without being fatal or at least acutely toxic?" To find the answer, all you have to do is look at the levels we're talking about - tenths, or at minimum, hundredths of a per cent (parts per thousand or parts per ten thousand), extremely high levels in a living creature - and begin comparing those levels to the levels at which other volatiles naturally found in the blood exist; then compare them to the sustained systemic levels at which other organic solvents become fatal or acutely toxic. You'll quickly begin to realize that there are few other possibilities. As a chromatographer, you'll also conclude that modern chromatographic methods should have no difficulty resolving those few things. Try it, as an academic exerc! >ise. > >You ask to see a paper that proves all this is so. As you know, no research can "prove" there are no exceptions to a stated principle, but I've seen a wealth of studies over the course of my career that support the contention that there are no realistic exceptions to this one. If I have time over the next week or two during my lunch hours I'll dig some up for you. In the meantime, why not see if you can prove the opposite? See if you can find data indicating it is NOT so; try to find a single paper that presents an analytical interferent in ante mortem BAC determination that realistic conditions and modern analytical methods cannot account for. Try searching the issue in PubMed for a start - that will keep you busy for days. In the end you'll find there has been plenty of research and that all the things which "could" reasonably interfere are eliminated by modern techniques, proper procedures, and the normal passage of time between exposure and sampling. > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Regional Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] >Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 17:47 >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: BAC by GC > > >List >So now if I am understanding this, we have narrowed down the universe of >compounds that might elute from that blood extract introduced into that GC >from the whole universe of compounds to just those that might be in blood. >And only ethanol in blood elutes at the same time as ethanol, nothing else? > >How many compounds are in blood? What are they? And who says so? And how >do we know that any of those don't coelute with ethanol? Sort of like, when >I was in college and we said something, we didn't get to declare it so, we >had to prove it so. Or we had to see the paper from the scientific >literature that established it. Can anyone give me the cite or even maybe >possibly a copy of that paper. > >Fred Whitehurst > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- > From daemon Sat Mar 1 17:15:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h21MFXx19729 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 17:15:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.187]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h21MFW619723 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 17:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from adsl-65-69-121-8.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net (HELO price) (ultrastructure@sbcglobal.net@65.69.121.8 with login) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2003 22:15:31 -0000 Message-ID: <004501c2e03f$b5a36120$6501a8c0@price> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: References: Subject: Re: GC in BAC Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 16:12:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 11897 Agree generally but one has to look at the number of tests done on these biological fluids and realize even in food there can be metabolic products of bacteria and metabolic products of other ingested compounds, some of which we are not even aware of. I've seen some of the best ergot chemists in the world with FDA review have a spot hidden under another on TLC and everyone just assumed they knew what they were looking at. I don't know what the common wisdom in chemistry is today but I always treated all chromatography as separation and not identification. JTP. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC Fred, When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools that don't prove anyth! ing beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the matrix). As analysts, we ! need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i compound possible considering the nature of the sample. BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with something that gives the same retention times but! could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other types of exams. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Mar 1 21:18:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h222IPE23422 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h222IN623416 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 21:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.7/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h222IN9x373605; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 18:18:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030301164254.00bea5b0@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:22:00 -0800 To: "Robert Parsons" From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat Cc: "Forens" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 901 At 06:08 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >In Florida, to satisfy the law with regard to charges or penalties based >on specific weights or numbers of exhibits, we must prove that we have >ANALYZED and identified that weight or number of items as controlled >substances. Bob, I am curious as to how the law is framed. Is it a felony to possess X quantity of a certain drug only if the prosecution proves it in a particular way, but not a felony if the prosecution manages in some other way to prove it to the jury's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt? I can believe you if you tell me that is the case (we are told that Sharia's definition of rape works that way), but the principle seems wrong to me. Such a law would be at least part way to the philosophy that is the standard credo of the dishonest: an act is not wrong by itself; it's only wrong if you get caught. Charles From daemon Sat Mar 1 23:40:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h224eaJ24855 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:40:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h224eZ624849 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1c9.5f7be5f (4446) for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:40:33 -0500 (EST) From: Prantoci@aol.com Message-ID: <1c9.5f7be5f.2b92e540@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:40:32 EST Subject: Who do we work for? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 180 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 565 dch@uri.edu Dennis, Is not a forensic expert supposed to be just that? We do not work for the prosecution or defense. We are finders of truth and work equally for both prosecution and defense. I think your are painting a very gray picture. I think you should review your comments. I think you should think of how you represent the state of Rhode Island. Respectively Yours, Phil Philip R. Antoci, MS, M.Phil., FABC Office 718-558-8759 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Mar 3 03:56:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h238utD13213 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 03:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub1.shef.ac.uk (mailhub1.shef.ac.uk [143.167.1.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h238ur613207 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 03:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from swineshaw.shef.ac.uk ([143.167.107.251]) by mailhub1.shef.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #4) id 18plkT-0005mo-02; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:56:37 +0000 Received: from SWINESHAW/SpoolDir by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 3 Mar 03 08:56:37 +0000 Received: from SpoolDir by SWINESHAW (Mercury 1.48); 3 Mar 03 08:56:27 +0000 Received: from swineshaw (143.167.157.128) by Swineshaw.shef.ac.uk (Mercury 1.48); 3 Mar 03 08:56:23 +0000 From: "Robert Forrest" To: "Robert Parsons" , Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:39:42 -0000 Message-ID: <010901c2e160$6f55d000$809da78f@shef.ac.uk.shef.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 9409 About 6 years ago, I was looking for a short project for a placement student who was in my lab for a couple of weeks. A Police officer, obsessed with the pursuit of the Chubb, the carp and other coarse fish, gave me some of the hemp seed that is boiled up and used with other things to use as ground bait to attract fish to the match fisher's pitch (These guys do it competitively!) I gave the stuff to the student who did a simple liquid liquid extraction and devivitisation and happily demonstrated THC in the seeds... Possession of the seeds isn't an offence in the uk. Making a "preparation" from them is. So all these competitive coarse fishermen out there are breaking the law..... Robert Forrest Sheffield UK > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert > Parsons > Sent: 28 February 2003 23:33 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog > > > Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > "Interesting. During the late 70's when I was being > trained as a controlled substances analyst, my mentor > purchased a two-pound bag of 'Wild Bird" seed, and had > me go through it and pick out the marijuana seeds (in > previous training, I had successfully grown mj from > seeds). The next step was a viability test on the > seeds I found (germination), and if I recall > correctly, out of close to 50 seeds, at least a couple > (but less than five) germinated and later grew to be > identifiably mj. So I guess there's a lot of folks > out there who, if they lived in good ol' Florida, > would or should be in the joint!?" > > I've seen MJ seeds in birdseed too, in fact I remember them being > part of the mix I used to feed to wild birds in my backyard as a > kid. Of course, I didn't realize those seeds were MJ until I > became a forensic chemist (no, I never used pot and would never > have recognized it without my training - although I was familiar > with the smell of burning pot due to exposure to other kids who > were users). On the "single seed" issue, I agree that's a > concern. The MJ seed in bird seed was supposed to be sterile > even back then, but no doubt it was not 100% so. I don't think > there is any MJ in birdseed today, since commercial hemp cannot > be grown here legally anymore, but your concern is still a > legitimate one. I don't know if anyone has ever been charged > based on simple possession of a few seeds alone, but it is in > fact illegal in my state. I do recall a few cases where > germinated seeds were key to proving charges of cultivation or > paraphernalia - in each case there was other eviden! > ce but no identifiable plant matter other than the seeds. In > those cases I think using the seeds for prosecution was entirely > appropriate, but I agree wholeheartedly that an overzealous > enforcement (in the absence of other corroborative evidence) > could easily result in an innocent being wrongly prosecuted. > Hopefully, this is an area where police and judicial discretion > makes up for insufficiently astute lawmaking. In my experience, > it has. I've seen very few cases based on seed alone, and never > without other evidence of drug possession. On the other hand, > I've seen plenty of cases where the exhibit was a large amount of > seeds with residual particles of leaf and flower mixed in. Call > me cynical, but I would find it hard to believe that possession > of a 1 pound bag of entirely MJ seed was intended for bird > feeding or any other innocent use. > > Tom also wrote: > > "Amazing. After working in drug analysis for close to > 25 years and being involved in some huge and really > arcane mj cases (from species issues to medicinal > uses), I honestly cannot recall anyone saying that > they were keeping the seeds for their oil to use in > painting or cooking." > > Oh, I didn't mean I'd experienced those claims in a case (I have > not, and I've been doing this work for 21 years), but those are > in fact historical legitimate uses for the oil. Check out any of > a variety of drug abuse references, e.g. Karch's "Drug Abuse Handbook." > > > Then Tom wrote: > > "I absolutely agree about the flowering tops containing > a high amount of resinous THC. However, back in the > "old days", flowering tops were essentially > unavailable, and the common practice was to utilize > the culled leaf material that had been finely ground. > Another factor that I think takes away from using > flowering tops (and weed in general)is the cost - - > most folks would not be disposed to make brownies or > cookies with them. My experience has shown the > flowering tops or any portion of the plant that > contains a large amount of THC to be utilized solely > as smoking material." > > I agree. Ground up leaf material is/was used. This might > include some flowering tops in "home grown situations," as any > live plants grown to maturity will eventually produce flowers. > The point I was trying to make was that while it was possible for > a few seeds to wind up in the brownies, seeds were certainly not > the main ingredient, contrary to what another list member had thought. > > Finally Tom wrote: > > "And now, for something completely different - - > > Even after being in this business as long as I have, I > understand and appreciate comments about the use (or > abuse) of medicinal marijuana. However, a friend of > mine who was researcher in this area at UCLA a number > of years ago showed me a treasure trove of work that > empirically validated the use of mj (or it's active > ingredients) in long-term analgesia, anti-nausea, etc. > - - and that was back in the mid-80's. And even more > work has been done since then to show that it works > for some folks who are suffering from various types of > chronic illnesses. True, many (if not most) people > may be able to get a sympathetic doctor to sign some > bogus scrip that "allows" them to buy mj, but after > watching a close friend battle their way through the > agony of chemo-therapy and seeing them actually > improve their quality of life via the use of some > medicinally prescribed weed has mollified my position > in this area somewhat. Do I think that mj is a > dangerous drug? Yes - it truly fits the definition of > "threshold" drug. But it also can have an undoubted > beneficial affect on those who truly need it." > > I again agree completely that THC and possibly other Cannabinoids > have potential medicinal uses, some of which have already been > well established. The problem of course is in the delivery > mechanism for the drugs. The AMA and the vast majority of > researchers in the field agree that smoking is neither an > appropriate nor a safe delivery means, due to the adverse general > health effects of smoking, the concurrent delivery of other > unwanted substances in the plant, the inducement of a "high," and > the unregulated, widely varying potency of the desired components > in the plant material being produced by "patients" and suppliers. > It is the "medicinal marijuana" laws in place, not the true > medicinal potential of the plant, that I find "a joke" (and why I > put the word "patients" in quotes). The majority of people using > marijuana under the guise of these laws have no legitimate reason > to do so, and are simply taking advantage of the poorly written > laws. These laws allow virtually an! > yone to get and use pot for recreational reasons under the false > pretense of medicinal purposes, and the proponents of these laws > worked hard to intentionally make them so loosely worded, > specifically to allow such recreational use (in that light, > perhaps the laws were skillfully written after all). The > proponents of recreational drug abuse couldn't get marijuana > "legalized" for recreational use, so this was the way to make it > happen under the cloak of "medicine." It's widely known that the > "smoking clubs" that sprung up after passage of these laws > (ostensibly to allow patients to receive their medication) are in > many and perhaps most cases sham institutions created for the > specific purpose of recreational drug abuse, and that abuse and > illicit sale by "patients" growing their so-called "medicine" at > home is rampant. It all reminds me of the booze bottles that > alcoholics keep handy "for medicinal purposes." > > This is why in all but a few states the vast majority of the > American public (including medical professionals) oppose > legalizing "medicinal marijuana." "Medicinal cannabinoids," > delivered by tablets, inhalers, skin patches, or other > legitimate, regulated medical devices I can and do support - but > smoked "medicinal marijuana" I cannot and do not support. It's a > shame that the drug abusers have co-opted the legitimate need of > some desperately ill people for their own purposes, and it's a > greater shame that a handful of legislatures have either been > duped into being, or have willingly conspired to be, complicit > with their scheme. "Medicinal marijuana" is not the answer to > the legitimate need; continued research into isolation of the > specific beneficial cannabinoids and the production of an > effective, abuse-resistant cannabinoid delivery mechanism is the answer. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > From daemon Mon Mar 3 07:53:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h23Crlt15683 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:53:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h23Crk615677 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:53:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id r.151.1c96a8c6 (2612); Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:52:54 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <151.1c96a8c6.2b94aa26@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:52:54 EST Subject: Re: GC in BAC To: rparsons@ircc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 515 Bob Can you give me some literature cites for these studies. Thanks. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 2/28/2003 7:12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has > been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 > years since GC instrumentation became widely available. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Mar 3 09:51:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h23EprL18186 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.133]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h23Epq618180 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:40:51 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A156@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: GC in BAC Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:48:41 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5505 Fred, Baselt's 6th ed., Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, has about 40 citations in the ethanol section. Using the criteria of [ethanol AND analysis AND "gas chromatography"] against PubMed, limited to reviews, I get the following: 1: Hammett-Stabler CA, Pesce AJ, Cannon DJ. Related Articles, Links Urine drug screening in the medical setting. Clin Chim Acta. 2002 Jan;315(1-2):125-35. Review. PMID: 11728415 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 2: Laposata M. Related Articles, Links Assessment of ethanol intake. Current tests and new assays on the horizon. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999 Oct;112(4):443-50. Review. PMID: 10510667 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 3: Tsukamoto S, Kanegae T, Isobe E, Hirose M, Nagoya T. Related Articles, Links Determinations of free and bound ethanol, acetaldehyde, and acetate in human blood and urine by headspace gas chromatography. Nihon Arukoru Yakubutsu Igakkai Zasshi. 1998 Jun;33(3):200-9. Review. PMID: 9701997 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 4: Fukunaga T, Yamamoto H, Tanegashima A. Related Articles, Links [Determination methods for human blood acetaldehyde] Nihon Arukoru Yakubutsu Igakkai Zasshi. 1998 Jun;33(3):190-9. Review. Japanese. PMID: 9701996 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 5: Eskridge KD, Guthrie SK. Related Articles, Links Clinical issues associated with urine testing of substances of abuse. Pharmacotherapy. 1997 May-Jun;17(3):497-510. Review. PMID: 9165553 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 6: Nakamura C, Miyaishi S, Ishizu H. Related Articles, Links [Determination of alcohol in biological materials] Nippon Rinsho. 1997 Feb;55 Suppl:659-64. Review. Japanese. No abstract available. PMID: 9078806 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 7: Cooper SD, Raymer JH, Pellizzari ED, Thomas KW. Related Articles, Links The identification of polar organic compounds found in consumer products and their toxicological properties. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 1995 Jan-Mar;5(1):57-75. Review. PMID: 7663150 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 8: Eriksson CJ, Fukunaga T. Related Articles, Links Human blood acetaldehyde (update 1992). Alcohol Alcohol Suppl. 1993;2:9-25. Review. PMID: 7748353 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 9: Tagliaro F, Lubli G, Ghielmi S, Franchi D, Marigo M. Related Articles, Links Chromatographic methods for blood alcohol determination. J Chromatogr. 1992 Sep 16;580(1-2):161-90. Review. PMID: 1400821 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 10: Marumo Y, Kishi T, Seta S. Related Articles, Links Drunken driving and breath alcohol test at the scene of violence in Japan. Arukoru Kenkyuto Yakubutsu Ison. 1992 Apr;27(2):143-51. Review. PMID: 1586285 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 11: Rohrig TP, Prouty RW. Related Articles, Links Fluoxetine overdose: a case report. J Anal Toxicol. 1989 Sep-Oct;13(5):305-7. Review. PMID: 2693835 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 12: Fateev VA, Titov NS, Diunov AG. Related Articles, Links [Determination of volatile compounds in biological media by gas chromatographic analysis of the equilibrium vapor phase (review of the literature)] Lab Delo. 1983;(5):3-6. Review. Russian. No abstract available. PMID: 6191099 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 13: Tomilin VV, Gurochkin IuD, Krasovskaia EA, Sergeev SN. Related Articles, Links [Ethanol concentration in the internal organs at different postmortem periods in acute alcoholic intoxication (review of the literature)] Sud Med Ekspert. 1982 Oct-Dec;25(4):45-8. Review. Russian. No abstract available. PMID: 6758216 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 14: Jain NC, Cravey RH. Related Articles, Links A review of breath alcohol methods. J Chromatogr Sci. 1974 May;12(5):214-8. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 4597347 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 15: Cravey RH, Jain NC. Related Articles, Links Current status of blood alcohol methods. J Chromatogr Sci. 1974 May;12(5):209-13. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 4151273 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 16: Mason MF, Dubowski KM. Related Articles, Links Alcohol, traffic, and chemical testing in the United States: a resume and some remaining problems. Clin Chem. 1974 Feb;20(2):126-40. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 4591459 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 17: Jain NC, Cravey RH. Related Articles, Links Analysis of alcohol. II. A review of gas chromatographic methods. J Chromatogr Sci. 1972 May;10(5):263-7. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 4560023 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 18: Sohn D, Simon J. Related Articles, Links Rapid identification of psychopharmacologic agents in cases of drug abuse. Clin Chem. 1972 May;18(5):405-9. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 4558407 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 19: Vessell ES, Passananti GT. Related Articles, Links Utility of clinical chemical determinations of drug concentrations in biological fluids. Clin Chem. 1971 Sep;17(9):851-66. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 4105897 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Bob Can you give me some literature cites for these studies. Thanks. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 2/28/2003 7:12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has > been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 > years since GC instrumentation became widely available. From daemon Tue Mar 4 16:16:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h24LGGD22577 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:16:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h24LGF622571 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:16:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net (82.white-plains-02rh15rt.ny.dial-access.att.net[12.79.130.82]) by mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <2003030421161411100dgfs1e>; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:16:14 +0000 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:16:56 -0500 Subject: Forensic Forum at SUNY SB Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "E. J. Wagner" Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 617 Dear List, I'm pleased to tell you that the third annual Forensic Forum at SUNY SB will be held on Sat evening, April 5th, 2003.Title is "Prescription for Poison;Medical Murders from Britain to Long Island.". Guest speaker is Forensic Medical Investigator Robert Golden, who worked the Swango and Angelo cases in Suffolk County NY. Details are on my website listed below-just click on "Whats New". Directions to the venue at ESS Building are also on website. EJ - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 12-Jan-2003 From daemon Thu Mar 6 23:06:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27462j02970 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27461602964 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:06:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from DavidB7818@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.11b.1f21a26b (4552) for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:05:57 -0500 (EST) From: DavidB7818@aol.com Message-ID: <11b.1f21a26b.2b99747d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:05:17 EST Subject: Just testing To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 150 Please ignore this message. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Mar 7 07:36:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27CaHi09551 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:36:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27CaG609545 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 07:36:16 -0500 (EST) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVb0fPBRQmpaLjv1hasjjF8I99kGwgt896hb50fF4UzOEADubuak5bdCPutFsJGT6Gc= Received: from pool-151-197-180-214.phil.east.verizon.net ([151.197.180.214] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 18rH5F-0004Ah-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:36:18 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307073211.00bb4e98@pop.rcn.com> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 07:36:25 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: Street children murder investigation - online discussion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1225 This might be an interesting way to exchange information about a subject dealing with forensic investigation. John French ________________ Online chat available for expert on killings By the A.M. Costa Rica staff A U.S. expert on the murder of Honduran street children will be chatting online today from 11 a.m. to noon, Costa Rican time, according to Casa Alianza. They said he is Asma Jahangir, who went to Honduras in 2001 to tour Tegucigalpa, the capital city, and San Pedro Sula, and last year published a report that presents and analyzes information on the extrajudicial killings of Honduran children and juveniles, said Casa Alianza. The report concurs that security forces have been involved with a number of killings and recommends that the government needs to take a more active role in the investigations to signal to the police that their blatant abuse of human rights will not be tolerated or go unpunished, said an announcement from the child welfare organization. Since 1998, more than 1,600 street children and juveniles have been murdered, the organization said. The online meeting with Ms. Jahangir will be in English and is open to the public and will take place at http://chat.dfn.org. From daemon Fri Mar 7 18:17:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27NHHk25751 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27NHG625745 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:17:16 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Cannabis by catalog Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:17:15 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Cannabis by catalog Thread-Index: AcLaGacWDwM6hUJhSCGtPrNVMns/7gB/6/1w From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forensic Science Mailing List" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h27NHG625746 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4275 I agree, Jerry Lewis is far more worthy to be called a hero than any modern comedian, much less the foul-mouthed, unsportsmanlike, drug enhanced, overpaid and underdiscliplined "sports heroes" kids look up to. He takes a lot of abuse in this country for having a supposedly unsophisticated style of humor, but he's a true humanitarian and his style of humor is well appreciated by many Americans and others around the world (not just the French). Jerry's dedicated his life to worthy causes and to making millions laugh - even when personally he was in physically and spiritually down and almost out. I'll take him any day over modern so-called comics like Seinfeld who seem to think that they have to be vulgar to be funny. Real comic talent can make you laugh without using four-letter words or sexual references - just look at the classic comedians from the silent era through the 1960's, and compare them to the talentless, in-your-face comedians of today. I challenge anyone to watch a classic Martin and Lewis flick, or some of Jerry's early solo efforts (like The Delicate Delinquent), without having a bunch of chuckles and at least a few genuine belly laughs at his antics. Jerry Lewis is cut from the same cloth as Chaplain, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, Burns & Allen, Lucille Ball, Cid Caesar & Imogene Coco, Red Skelton, and Bill Cosby, but I guess today's "sophisticated" audiences don't think any of them are funny either. Perhaps, like the Three Stooges, his comic abilities will not be fully appreciated until after his death - but his humanitarianism should be recognized by all today. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist, Fan of classic slapstick & corn, and of REAL heroes. -----Original Message----- From: John Bowden [mailto:jbowden45@attbi.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 21:14 To: Forensic Science Mailing List Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog Shaun, et al. Not to excuse the actions of my fellow Californians, but there are probably a few (thousand) kids with Muscular Dystrophy who already consider Jerry Lewis to be a hero. His Labor Day Marathon has raised $1.6 billion for the MD Association. Among many other things this has allowed the MDA to work on other neuromuscular disorders such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), for which there is now an FDA approved medication. We are much closer to understanding MD than ever before. Mr. Lewis has already received very significant honors, such as the French Legion of Honor, the American Medical Association Lifetime Achievement Award, and the U.S. DOD Medal for Distinguished Public Service. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides that Jerry has brought humor to millions of people world wide. Even though he was born in Newark NJ, we native Californians are happy to welcome him to our state. Happy Friday! John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" ----- Original Message ----- From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Carol Define MD" ; "Tom Abercrombie" Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 9:25 AM Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > Carol and List: > > > I'm sure it's just my perspective, but it sure seems like whatever it is the > rest of the country is doing, California has to do the opposite. It can only > be a matter of time before Jack Kerouac and Jerry Lewis are named 'national' > heros. > > > Shaun > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carol Define MD" > To: "Tom Abercrombie" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:26 PM > Subject: Re: Cannabis by catalog > > snip........ > > > > > But, that's what I was thinking...that > > it would be a federal offense (if it really is marijuana) because the > > seller is in California, and the buyer might reside in another state. > > > > Carol Define MD > > Baltimore > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Tom Abercrombie wrote: > > > > > Yep - it's illegal. However, there are some outfits > > > that have been selling a "simulated" mj (cannabis > > > sativa l.) which, upond cursory examination, does look > > > pretty convincing (like good Thai stick). Any type of > > > of closer examination easily indicates it is NOT mj. > > > From daemon Fri Mar 7 18:18:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27NI0625863 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27NHx625844 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:18:00 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:18:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Reporting of Khat Thread-Index: AcLgYgYm25PKL6a8TS6ypFRmTS8YxwC3UqxA From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forens" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h27NHx625845 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3544 Charles, The law is based primarily on identity, with weights factoring only into the severity of the charge and the sanctions authorized thereunder. It is a felony to possess any amount of any substance listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act under any circumstances, or to possess any amount of any substance listed in Schedules II through V of the Act without a valid prescription from a licensed physician. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug and possession is therefore a felony, UNLESS the total amount is less than 20 grams. Possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana is a third degree misdemeanor. This is the only controlled substance for which there is a misdemeanor exception. All others are always felonies. Possession of "drug paraphernalia" is also a misdemeanor, unless the paraphernalia contains a felony drug - in which case you could be charged with both misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia AND felony possession of the drug. Possession of amounts of any felony drug above certain limits specified by law elevate the crime from "possession" to "trafficking" and the charge to a higher-level felony. There are usually several break points - e.g., for cocaine they are 28 grams, 200 grams, 400 grams, 150 Kg and 300 Kg. Each higher weight level constitutes a more serious felony punishable by a harsher sanction. "Sale and/or delivery" of controlled substances also constitutes higher-level felony charges and penalties, even if in quantities less than the "trafficking" amounts. What constitutes proof of the weight levels specified is for the most part not codified in our statutes. This has instead been defined by case law (i.e., precedent set by judicial rulings). It is those rulings (especially those handed down by the Florida Supreme Court) which have mandated the sampling procedures we must follow: e.g., to support a charge of trafficking in cocaine, we must analyze enough individual bags of cocaine to total more than 28 grams net weight of the drug; so if each bag has only two grams of powder in it, then we must analyze at least 15 bags (2 x 15 = 30g) to justify a charge of "trafficking in cocaine." From a scientific standpoint, I support these judicial rulings. I'm unclear as to how your analogy using Sharia's definition of rape would apply. Perhaps you could elaborate? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 21:22 To: Robert Parsons Cc: Forens Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat At 06:08 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >In Florida, to satisfy the law with regard to charges or penalties based >on specific weights or numbers of exhibits, we must prove that we have >ANALYZED and identified that weight or number of items as controlled >substances. Bob, I am curious as to how the law is framed. Is it a felony to possess X quantity of a certain drug only if the prosecution proves it in a particular way, but not a felony if the prosecution manages in some other way to prove it to the jury's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt? I can believe you if you tell me that is the case (we are told that Sharia's definition of rape works that way), but the principle seems wrong to me. Such a law would be at least part way to the philosophy that is the standard credo of the dishonest: an act is not wrong by itself; it's only wrong if you get caught. Charles From daemon Fri Mar 7 18:20:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27NKab26481 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27NKY626475 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:20:35 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: GC in BAC Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:20:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC Thread-Index: AcLgQm/zBKuBEfFdTa2sbNk2YgXH9ADNpD6A From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h27NKZ626476 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 13605 J. T. Price wrote: >Agree generally but one has to look at the number of tests done on these >biological fluids and realize even in food there can be metabolic products >of bacteria and metabolic products of other ingested compounds, some of >which we are not even aware of. Not at these levels. The only alcohol produced endogenously by the natural flora in the living human body is produced in the gut, and the amounts are negligible - they produce blood levels far below the detection limit of routine blood alcohol analysis, and will return a negative result. As far as food, certainly you can get alcohol into your system by eating spoiled fruit (for example), but that's irrelevant. The law makes no distinction as to the source of ingested alcohol, only as to it's amount. However you became intoxicated, you're still intoxicated - what you ate or drank to get there is irrelevant. If you mean other types of organic compounds that might co-elute, again, not at these levels - they would be fatal. The only things that can appear (i.e., have ever been demonstrated) in ante-mortem human blood, at levels detectible by these GC methods, are clearly resolvable by the same GC methods. >I've seen some of the best ergot chemists in the world with FDA review have >a spot hidden under another on TLC and everyone just assumed they knew what >they were looking at. I don't know what the common wisdom in chemistry is >today but I always treated all chromatography as separation and not >identification. As a general rule you are correct, but in this specific application the general rule does not hold. The resolution power of TLC is paltry compared to capillary GC, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, again, with the TLC you are trying to eliminate a huge number of other things, whereas in ante-mortem BAC via GC you are only trying to eliminate a few - the few that can exist at underivatized, non-enhanced, FID-detectible levels in living human subjects. Apples and oranges again. When the possibilities are limited, known and understood, and have proven to be resolvable, chromatography can and does positively identify analytes. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC Fred, When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools that don't prove anyth! ing beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the matrix). As analysts, we ! need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i compound possible considering the nature of the sample. BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with something that gives the same retention times but! could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other types of exams. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Mar 7 18:30:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27NUcq27029 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27NUa627023 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:37 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:30:35 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Confidential" Data Thread-Index: AcLfzeje9wXbCejCS/G0TDgWmQegMwDpaoeg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h27NUb627024 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 13058 Peter Barnett wrote: >What is "work product" and how does it differ from "report" and why do >people who are entitled to the report have to jump through some extra hoops >to get the "work product." I'll betcha the report is not reviewable >without the "work product". We've had this discussion before, Pete, and I know you and a few other private practitioners have a very different idea of what constitutes an analytical "report" than most analytical lab personnel do. You look for the report to be like a research report, including all underlying data, but that's not an appropriate model for an analytical report. An analytical report is a summary report - it describes the sample, names the type of testing, lists the results, and when appropriate presents a conclusion or discussion regarding the results. It doesn't include all instrumental data, charts, print-outs, photographs, and other documentation produced during the analysis. You won't find all that supporting data in the analytical reports of any field, regardless of whether it is forensic, environmental, regulatory, medical, or any other analytical science. The purpose of an analytical report is different from that of a research report. A research report is intended to show all data leading to the report's conclusion so that the experiment can be repeated, the data reproduced, and the conclusions re-confirmed. An analytical report is simply designed to answer a question posed by the user in a way that will be understood by the user, and do so as simply and concisely as possible. The users of research reports are fellow scientists, but the users of analytical reports are often lay people. A forensic analytical report is therefore not supposed to be "reviewable" in the way that you mean. You mean to allow another expert to examine all the underlying data to confirm the conclusions, but that's not the purpose of the report. The report isn't being written for some expert who might possibly, could perhaps, may conceivably, at some time in the future, be hired in something far less than 1% of the cases we work. It's written for the primary users: cops and attorneys, people who would have no use for (much less understanding of) the supporting analytical data. It would be useless, wasteful of tax dollars and lab resources, and stupidly pointless to routinely include reams of paper that would have no meaning, no utility to the primary users. The analytical report tells them what they need to know: what was analyzed, how it was analyzed, what the results were and what those results mean. They neither need nor care about the rest, so it isn't included. The report gives the users what they need succinctly, in a one or few-page summary, instead of inundating them with the dozens or hundreds of pages of meaningless (to them) analytical data. In the rare case where an outside expert is retained to review the analysis, the analytical report is still "reviewable" in the sense that a reviewer can tell what the extent and nature of testing was and, if the reviewer has the expertise, judge whether or not that extent of testing is considered sufficient for the types of conclusions being made. If the underlying data forming the basis for the conclusions needs to be examined so that the reviewer can judge the _correctness_ of the analysis and conclusions (rather than simply the extent of them), that data can still be had. That's the work product, and it's available upon court order (which is simple to get in our state; you merely have to make the effort to file a motion). So it's not much of a "hoop" to jump through. The court order "hoop" merely demonstrates that the work product is desired for a specific purpose (i.e., review by another expert), and is not being simply requested routinely, mindlessly, and wastefully. We don't mind spending time and killing trees to respond to a request for something that is actually going to be used (we just copied and turned over two 100+ page files this week), but we're not going to do it routinely (and certainly not when it isn't even requested) if it's going to wind up in a file or trash can 99% of the time WITHOUT ever being meaningfully "reviewed" by anyone - and that's what would happen if we routinely attached work product to every report. You may as well stop harping on this Pete - no responsible public lab will ever voluntarily be that wasteful with public funds; it's just not going to happen unless the courts order it, and so far they haven't (nor are they ever likely to). Attorneys and cops, not retained private experts, are the primary users of forensic lab services and they simply have no need or interest in a lab's "work product" records, only in the results. If other experts become involved who do need to review the work product, it's a relatively simple thing for them to get it. >>We answer to the courts when it comes to casework, not to them[attorneys]. > >Does this mean the courts control discovery in your jurisdiction? That is >rather unusual, I suspect. Courts may enforce discovery, but generally the >obligation is on the attorneys. For example, the courts do not have any >obligation under Brady to provide exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor >does. In California the discovery statutes explicitly provide for >discovery to be provided by counsel on an informal basis (a letter >generally requesting it is all that is required). It is only when there is >an allegation that one side or the other is not complying with the >discovery requirements that a court order forcing compliance will be sought. I don't understand what point you are trying to make above. My point was that the prosecutor doesn't dictate anything to us, not who we talk to, not what we release to the other side, not how we operate. We don't answer to him anymore than we do to the defense attorney. We answer to the law as defined by the legislature and the courts, not as interpreted by the adversaries. However you slice it, the rules of discovery determine what each attorney is or isn't entitled to and what each attorney is or isn't obligated to turn over to the other side. The public information laws determine what government documents individual citizens are and are not entitled to, and conversely, what agencies are or are not obligated to withhold. The courts interpret and enforce those rules and laws. We comply with the rules and laws as we understand them and in all cases with rulings of the courts - we don't comply with attorney demands or desires, unless such demands or desires are supported by those rules, laws and judicial rulings. >Of course, attorneys can only provide what they are asked for, and what >they have. Record keeping procedures in forensic laboratories vary widely >and unless one is familiar with the practices in a particular lab, one does >not know what records might exist. For example, a cartridge case from a >crime scene may be compared with many guns which are recovered in unrelated >incidents. Some of those comparisons may be inconclusive (or, to put it in >the words of the attorney, the casing cannot be eliminated as having been >fired in the gun). At some point one of those inconclusive comparisons may >be in a case in which a defendant is developed and prosecuted based on >other evidence. The report of the comparison of the gun associated with >that defendant may be discovered, but all of the other prior inconclusive >comparisons may not be divulged. Even if the prosecutor who is responsible >for the discovery knows about those other comparison he may feel no need to >divulge them since they are not exculpatory. First, the report should indicate if some items were examined with inconclusive final results; in fact, it should indicate all final results - positive, negative, and inconclusive - (ours do), so the prosecutor should always know about all of them. Second, the supporting documentation for those inconclusive results (if testing is complete and "inconclusive" is the final result) should be retained in the case file just as conclusive results would be. Third, I would disagree that inconclusive results are not at least potentially exculpatory. They could go toward the weight of evidence. In Florida, the defense would get whatever the prosecution had received from the lab. Here, the prosecutor is required to turn over everything we send him, whether he thinks it's exculpatory or not. Example: I issue a notification with my blood alcohol reports that lists any legal defect in the blood sample even if that defect doesn't affect the analysis, e.g., incomplete labeling on the vials according to the requirements of the Implied Consent statute. Even if the required information is recorded on exterior packaging (meeting the spirit but not the letter of the law) I still report it as non-compliance with the statutory specifications, but I also report the presence of the information elsewhere. Even though the prosecutor knows the sample still meets the "substantial compliance" provision in the case law and so also knows it will be admitted and is not exculpatory, he must still turn my "non-compliance" notification over to the defense along with my report - because he must turn over everything I give him. If this is not true in California, that's too bad, but then according to your legal system it would be his prerogative to withhold it. If that's the case, it's not the lab's fault and you should look to your legislature for the solution, not to crime labs. It isn't reasonable to ask the labs for unsupportable resource expenditures to try to make up for a deficiency in your legislature's own "work product," especially if the prosecution doesn't turn over everything routinely (as they do here), then defense attorneys should know it is up to them to demand discovery of all results provided by the lab, exculpatory or not. The decision would then lie with your courts, because regardless of who is statutorily obligated to do what, the courts are the final arbiters of discovery - so yes, the courts do ultimately control discovery in California, in Florida, and everywhere else. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 03:36 To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: "Confidential" Data At 05:59 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: > If we know the attorney, then all we require for a report is a request > on their official letterhead identifying themselves as an attorney of > record in the case. For the work product, they still need a specific > court order. Once the case is closed, then it's public record and anyone > can see it by law. What is "work product" and how does it differ from "report" and why do people who are entitled to the report have to jump through some extra hoops to get the "work product." I'll betcha the report is not reviewable without the "work product". >We answer to the courts when it comes to casework, not to them[attorneys]. Does this mean the courts control discovery in your jurisdiction? That is rather unusual, I suspect. Courts may enforce discovery, but generally the obligation is on the attorneys. For example, the courts do not have any obligation under Brady to provide exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor does. In California the discovery statutes explicitly provide for discovery to be provided by counsel on an informal basis (a letter generally requesting it is all that is required). It is only when there is an allegation that one side or the other is not complying with the discovery requirements that a court order forcing compliance will be sought. Of course, attorneys can only provide what they are asked for, and what they have. Record keeping procedures in forensic laboratories vary widely and unless one is familiar with the practices in a particular lab, one does not know what records might exist. For example, a cartridge case from a crime scene may be compared with many guns which are recovered in unrelated incidents. Some of those comparisons may be inconclusive (or, to put it in the words of the attorney, the casing cannot be eliminated as having been fired in the gun). At some point one of those inconclusive comparisons may be in a case in which a defendant is developed and prosecuted based on other evidence. The report of the comparison of the gun associated with that defendant may be discovered, but all of the other prior inconclusive comparisons may not be divulged. Even if the prosecutor who is responsible for the discovery knows about those other comparison he may feel no need to divulge them since they are not exculpatory. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Mar 7 18:32:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h27NWcE27283 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h27NWb627277 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:32:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:32:38 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BAC by GC Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:32:38 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BAC by GC Thread-Index: AcLgP2NyWFQUCvsOQOmekl7IfrxdTgDOY2wA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h27NWb627278 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5105 Hey, thanks for the sentiments Dennis. I could always use some more income, and your figures are several times more than my going rate for private work; but then I don't depend on private work for my livelihood, I consider it more of a public service. However, I've always felt that if I can answer questions like these and educate attorneys to the point that they know they're barking up the wrong tree, everyone will be better off. It will be better for the attorneys (who won't be wasting their time and energy only to ultimately look foolish in court), better for their clients (who won't be wasting money paying their attorneys to fruitlessly flog expired equines), and better for us (who won't have to keep repeating ourselves quite as often explaining these negligible, inconsequential issues). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Hilliard [mailto:dch@uri.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 16:31 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BAC by GC Bob, Since Fred is a now a lawyer and is not practicing in your county, you should be a paid consultant for him, especially since he seems to have lost his sense of scientific logic and is in defense attorney mode...let's challenge everything, no matter what the basis. Fred, most experts that I know who provide this type of information to lawyers will charge them anywhere from $100 to $500 per hour...so let's take out the handy calculator...you owe Bob at least $1000.00. Send him an invoice Bob! Very Truely (causing least harm) Yours, Dennis C. Hilliard F.S. Fred, you should look into joining the DWI-lawyers list, they would love to hear your arguements. Also consider attending some forensic science regional, national or international meetings. The FBI must of had you in a closet all those years. At 07:40 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >Fred, > >First, "how many compounds are in blood" isn't the proper question. The proper question is "how many volatile compounds that pass through a polar GC column and are detectible by FID can be in ante mortem blood in similar quantities to that found for ethanol without being fatal or at least acutely toxic?" To find the answer, all you have to do is look at the levels we're talking about - tenths, or at minimum, hundredths of a per cent (parts per thousand or parts per ten thousand), extremely high levels in a living creature - and begin comparing those levels to the levels at which other volatiles naturally found in the blood exist; then compare them to the sustained systemic levels at which other organic solvents become fatal or acutely toxic. You'll quickly begin to realize that there are few other possibilities. As a chromatographer, you'll also conclude that modern chromatographic methods should have no difficulty resolving those few things. Try it, as an academic exerc! >ise. > >You ask to see a paper that proves all this is so. As you know, no research can "prove" there are no exceptions to a stated principle, but I've seen a wealth of studies over the course of my career that support the contention that there are no realistic exceptions to this one. If I have time over the next week or two during my lunch hours I'll dig some up for you. In the meantime, why not see if you can prove the opposite? See if you can find data indicating it is NOT so; try to find a single paper that presents an analytical interferent in ante mortem BAC determination that realistic conditions and modern analytical methods cannot account for. Try searching the issue in PubMed for a start - that will keep you busy for days. In the end you'll find there has been plenty of research and that all the things which "could" reasonably interfere are eliminated by modern techniques, proper procedures, and the normal passage of time between exposure and sampling. > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Regional Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] >Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 17:47 >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: BAC by GC > > >List >So now if I am understanding this, we have narrowed down the universe of >compounds that might elute from that blood extract introduced into that GC >from the whole universe of compounds to just those that might be in blood. >And only ethanol in blood elutes at the same time as ethanol, nothing else? > >How many compounds are in blood? What are they? And who says so? And how >do we know that any of those don't coelute with ethanol? Sort of like, when >I was in college and we said something, we didn't get to declare it so, we >had to prove it so. Or we had to see the paper from the scientific >literature that established it. Can anyone give me the cite or even maybe >possibly a copy of that paper. > >Fred Whitehurst > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- > From daemon Fri Mar 7 22:21:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h283LTo00383 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h283LS600377 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:21:28 -0500 (EST) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVb2Xhj+1nxy6DZBlYERRXWi1qLbyM+FQU/M5pGle0r3UPSGCS1G+d3p7m3rLlIiTmw= Received: from pool-151-197-60-69.phil.east.verizon.net ([151.197.60.69] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 18rUtj-00079z-00; Fri, 07 Mar 2003 22:21:20 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030307221753.00b89610@pop.rcn.com> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 22:21:28 -0500 To: ADD_MED@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: Oxycodone Death Research Study - Cross Posted Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2453 Oxycodone Involvement in Drug Abuse Deaths: A DAWN-Based Classification Scheme Applied to an Oxycodone Postmortem Database Containing Over 1000 Cases. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 27, March 2003, pp 57-67. http://www.jatox.com/JAT-Oxycodone.pdf This newly published review of 919 deaths involving oxycodone makes some important strides in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of standard reporting systems, as presently used. A total of 889 cases had at least one contributory drug in addition to oxycodone. Oxycontin brand, the drug most touted in the media as problematic, was identified in only 22% of the cases, based on evidence found at the scene, credible witness reports, or identification of tablets in gastrointestinal contents. Diazepam took a solid first place (n=304, or 34%) as the most frequently found "other contributory drug" among the 97% of all cases that involved multiple contributing drugs. Hydrocodone was second (n=255, 29%) and ethanol was third (n=232, 26%). Only if ethanol was present at a level above 0.02 g/dL was it counted as contributory. The vast majority of cases were White (93%), and males (67%). A surprising 15% of cases were judged to be suicides. This study bares out the common wisdom that benzodiazepines are widely used to "boost" narcotic highs. It also points to the importance of using standardized data to inform the health profession and the public of the real issues, before gossip forms public opinion. The data in this study do not allow for estimates of comparative risk for oxycodone and other narcotics or non-narcotic drugs. But they do allow for the clear interpretation that multiple drug use is a major cause of the deaths. Certainly Oxycontin is a dangerous drug to use in excess, and the opportunity exists for such excess based solely upon the large amount of oxycodone contained in time release Oxycontin. It is clear that a good prevention strategy based on harm reduction is to make users aware of the attenuated risks for multiple drug use. It would also help if DAWN data based on tox reports were more quickly available to respond to epidemics of specific drugs, along with clarifications of exaggerated media reports. Now, if they can only remember that message when they are getting high, we could save some lives. Maybe we could have some Joe Garbage-man commercials (without offending sanitation workers, of course). John French From daemon Fri Mar 7 22:50:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h283oSV01001 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.hyp.com.au (mail.hyp.com.au [203.33.34.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h283oQ600995 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:50:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from max (ppp-2026241-177.hyp.com.au [202.62.41.177]) by mail.hyp.com.au (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:54:33 +1100 Message-ID: <001801c2e526$12556720$b1293eca@max> From: "lynn " To: Subject: Drug Related Crime Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:51:58 +1100 Organization: Surf Coast Secretarial MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h283oSW01001 Content-Length: 395 Hi y'all Can anybody recommend some good reading material on Drug Related Crime for my Bachelor in CJA course assignment? Anything and everything is appreciated. And to John French, your article was timely and I've certainly printed that out! Regards Lynn Coceani CSI --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Mar 8 11:08:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h28G8dc09023 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h28G8c609013 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:08:38 -0500 (EST) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbxhCsf2wxX7+GigffoPCu0O+wbcaW7FuKQqdG6TfjWMJlFPIy5P0foDustS2PKE0U= Received: from pool-151-197-27-92.phil.east.verizon.net ([151.197.27.92] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 18rgsI-0001y1-00; Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:08:39 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030308101844.00b9b558@pop.rcn.com> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:08:47 -0500 To: ADD_MED@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: Re: Oxycodone Death Research Study - Cross Posted Cc: Dr.Sidney.H.Schnoll@pharma.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5829 Hi Terry, Sorry, I should have made the relationship with Purdue clear in my review. But having read every single blessed word of the study, I had actually dismissed from my mind the thought that it was tainted. Their disclosure statement is simple and clear. As to the data being incomplete, I too noticed that WV had only 4 cases, but I also noticed that they had a VERY positive commentary by the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of West Virginia appended to the article, so I figured they gave WV their best shot. Terry, they got their data from each jurisdiction, not from DAWN, from which they used the cause and mode of death classification system. They queried jurisdictions known to have reported oxycodone deaths, based on a review of several sources, including their own adverse affects registry (and I assume, including DAWN, although they did not name specific sources other than Purdue's registry. I did a study in the early 1980s with Liz Feuer, an epidemiologist at our NJ DOH, of glutethimide and codeine compared to other OD deaths, and i tell you unequivocally, it is AWFUL trying to make sense of death data. As in this study, we used tox reports, police reports, autopsy reports, and worked with a fully cooperative State ME, and Toxicologist, who gave us a lot of their time, yet we still had to spend WEEKS pouring over and interpreting reports. So I brought to my reading of this article my own experience. As to the authors having a point to prove, yes, i think they do, like all other authors i know. And the study is far more likely to be published if the point is made, than if it is not. This is a truism :) The question is if they are biased in making the their point. For me, the findings say they worked hard at minimizing bias through careful categorization and standardizing of data. Distinguishing Oxycontin from other oxycodone forms is difficult at best. The article says "Identification of the specific drug product OxyContin was based on either evidence obtained at the scene; a credible witness; identification of OxyContin tablets; or the presence of OxyContin "ghost tablets" (tablet matrix after active ingredients have dissolved) in the gastrointestinal tract." If the tablet was not ground up, they would be more likely to find the ghost, and if it was ground up, it was more likely to cause a death, so the ratio of Oxycontin to other oxycodone implication is DEFINITELY on the low side. They could have emphasized more the difficulty of finding evidence specifically pointing to Oxycontin. So i give them an edge on being biased toward Oxycontin compared to other oxycodones, but for me that is not the major point of the study, even though the results might serve Purdue well in trying to slow down the media attention. Here's another truism. The larger the dose, the happier the addict. Of course addicts will get Oxycontin if they can find it. 80 mgs??? You bet! 160mgs??? I bet there were addicts that cried when they appropriately cancelled that one. Does the benefit afforded to legitimate patients by Oxycontin outweigh the added risk? Without Oxycontin addicts will have to hustle more tablets of oxycodone to get the same high. (And that will be easier for them, given the media and Drug Warrior hype about Oxycontin.) Without Oxycontin pain patients will have less smooth pain treatment. For years I have listened to people shouting down from their white chargers about the danger of death from this or that particular drug, including MARIJUANA fur chris sake, and citing deaths that were in fact more likely due to other multiple drugs, to support their demonizing of this or that drug. My own reading of the study, and why I found it so informative, was based on its reporting of multiple drug overdose deaths. Only in that sense can it be seen as an apologia for Oxycontin, in my opinion, by showing that ANY drug used alone is apparently less likely to result in death. So yes, we should read the edges of thus report very carefully. It is on the edges that it discusses and presents a system of categorization that might help MEs get through the difficulty of assigning cause of death to a specific drug. Sorry I didn't have the energy to make this shorter :) John French P.S. Again, i am cross posting to the forensic science list at forens@statgen.ncsu.edu - whose members can request to join ADD_MED by emailing me their resume or a brief description of their professional interest in Addiction Medicine. ADD_MED is a collection of a couple of hundred pro's who are serious about the problem, want to share information, and on occasion like to debate it :) At 01:14 AM 3/8/2003, you wrote: >It's always instructive to search the edges of a report before going >directly to the findings and conclusions. > > > >Interesting. (for those who didn't know, Purdue Pharma is the >manufacturer of OxyContin). >Read the report, and see if you don't have a dozen questions of your >own. > >A study's conclusions can be no stronger than its methods. And if >the authors have a point to prove, they usually do. > >Terry Rustin > >---------------- Reply Separator -------------------- >Originally From: John French >Subject: Oxycodone Death Research Study - Cross Posted >Date: 03/07/2003 10:21pm > > >Oxycodone Involvement in Drug Abuse Deaths: >A DAWN-Based Classification Scheme Applied to an >Oxycodone Postmortem Database Containing Over 1000 Cases. >Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 27, March 2003, pp 57-67. >http://www.jatox.com/JAT-Oxycodone.pdf > >This newly published review of 919 deaths involving oxycodone makes >some >important strides in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of >standard >reporting systems, as presently used. From daemon Sat Mar 8 12:18:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h28HIBd09932 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:18:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h28HIA609926 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h28HIA111130; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:18:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:18:09 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: cdefine@mail To: John French cc: ADD_MED@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Dr.Sidney.H.Schnoll@pharma.com Subject: Re: Oxycodone Death Research Study - Cross Posted In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030308101844.00b9b558@pop.rcn.com> Message-ID: References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030308101844.00b9b558@pop.rcn.com> X-Organization: BCPL.NET Internet Services X-Complaints-To: abuse@bcpl.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 578 >From a public health issue perspective, the fact that the study identifies multiple drug use as being more pervasive and far more dangerous than single drug use is important information. Multiple drug use is also likely to be a factor in the increase in methadone deaths. I believe this is especially true for combinations that include benzos. For almost a year now I have been asking my patients about prescription drug abuse, and with prescription drug abuse, the trend is toward multiple drug use, and it is very rare for a person to use only one drug. Carol Define MD From daemon Sat Mar 8 15:20:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h28KKkg12254 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h28KKi612238 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h28KKfkg444622; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:20:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030308093830.00bd18b0@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 12:24:29 -0800 To: "Robert Parsons" From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat Cc: "Forens" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3796 Robert, At 06:18 PM 3/7/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >What constitutes proof of the weight levels specified is for the most part >not codified in our statutes. This has instead been defined by case law >(i.e., precedent set by judicial rulings). It is those rulings >(especially those handed down by the Florida Supreme Court) which have >mandated the sampling procedures we must follow: e.g., to support a charge >of trafficking in cocaine, we must analyze enough individual bags of >cocaine to total more than 28 grams net weight of the drug; so if each bag >has only two grams of powder in it, then we must analyze at least 15 bags >(2 x 15 = 30g) to justify a charge of "trafficking in cocaine." which substantially answers my question, how can the law be phrased so as to mandate a particular form of proof. I'm of two minds about your comment: > From a scientific standpoint, I support these judicial rulings. From a practical standpoint I defer to your experience and judgement. If there is a high volume of drug offenses, then the judicial processing needs to be reduced to being almost formulaic. Philosophically though -- and therefore scientifically -- I am dubious. I posted earlier about the difficulty that the prosecution faces in making a statistical proof, based for example on testing 2 bundles of a 100-bundle shipment, and trying to persuade the trier of fact that other, untested bundles are similar. However, I don't see why the prosecution should not be allowed to attempt such an argument even if it is novel for the jurisdiction. Speaking just to the principle of the matter and putting aside practicality, suppose the prosecution has eyewitnesses, confessions, computer records, and signed criminal contracts and bills of lading, that say that the accused had tons of contraband. That should be allowed to constitute a proof, if the jury feels it is. >I'm unclear as to how your analogy using Sharia's definition of rape would >apply. Perhaps you could elaborate? It pertains particularly to my last hypothetical above. To prove rape under Sharia law, a woman must produce four male witnesses. This has been mentioned in the news lately, a few cases in Nigeria and elsewhere where women were nearly stoned as adulteresses because they couldn't give satisfactory proof that really they were raped. To be fair, I suppose the rendition of the rule as I've cited it may be slanted; no doubt the news reporting was by people unsympathetic rather than sympathetic to Muslim fundamentalism. Be that as it may, the rule as stated is what I referred to. It suggests the principle that the law should not insist on a particular form of proof. Charles >From: Charles Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] >Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 21:22 >To: Robert Parsons >Cc: Forens >Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat > > >At 06:08 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: > >In Florida, to satisfy the law with regard to charges or penalties based > >on specific weights or numbers of exhibits, we must prove that we have > >ANALYZED and identified that weight or number of items as controlled > >substances. > >Bob, > >I am curious as to how the law is framed. Is it a felony to possess X >quantity of a certain drug only if the prosecution proves it in a >particular way, but not a felony if the prosecution manages in some other >way to prove it to the jury's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt? I can >believe you if you tell me that is the case (we are told that Sharia's >definition of rape works that way), but the principle seems wrong to me. >Such a law would be at least part way to the philosophy that is the >standard credo of the dishonest: an act is not wrong by itself; it's only >wrong if you get caught. > >Charles From daemon Sat Mar 8 15:36:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h28KaDt12914 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:36:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp800.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp800.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.179]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h28KaC612908 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 15:36:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from adsl-65-69-121-8.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net (HELO price) (ultrastructure@sbcglobal.net@65.69.121.8 with login) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 20:36:12 -0000 Message-ID: <022501c2e5b2$01844420$6501a8c0@price> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: References: Subject: Re: GC in BAC Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 14:33:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 14100 Hmmm .. volatile compounds and we know them all with our techniques? Most health care workers can recognize the smell of persons with advanced solid tumors, certainly anyone who has spent time around a morgue is familiar with the distinctive odor. What is the chemistry of these volatile compounds? Where is it reported? JTP. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC J. T. Price wrote: >Agree generally but one has to look at the number of tests done on these >biological fluids and realize even in food there can be metabolic products >of bacteria and metabolic products of other ingested compounds, some of >which we are not even aware of. Not at these levels. The only alcohol produced endogenously by the natural flora in the living human body is produced in the gut, and the amounts are negligible - they produce blood levels far below the detection limit of routine blood alcohol analysis, and will return a negative result. As far as food, certainly you can get alcohol into your system by eating spoiled fruit (for example), but that's irrelevant. The law makes no distinction as to the source of ingested alcohol, only as to it's amount. However you became intoxicated, you're still intoxicated - what you ate or drank to get there is irrelevant. If you mean other types of organic compounds that might co-elute, again, not at these levels - they would be fatal. The only things that can appear (i.e., have ever been demonstrated) in ante-mortem human blood, at levels detectible by these GC methods, are clearly resolvable by the same GC methods. >I've seen some of the best ergot chemists in the world with FDA review have >a spot hidden under another on TLC and everyone just assumed they knew what >they were looking at. I don't know what the common wisdom in chemistry is >today but I always treated all chromatography as separation and not >identification. As a general rule you are correct, but in this specific application the general rule does not hold. The resolution power of TLC is paltry compared to capillary GC, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, again, with the TLC you are trying to eliminate a huge number of other things, whereas in ante-mortem BAC via GC you are only trying to eliminate a few - the few that can exist at underivatized, non-enhanced, FID-detectible levels in living human subjects. Apples and oranges again. When the possibilities are limited, known and understood, and have proven to be resolvable, chromatography can and does positively identify analytes. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC Fred, When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools that don't prove anyth! ing beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the matrix). As analysts, we ! need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i compound possible considering the nature of the sample. BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with something that gives the same retention times but! could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other types of exams. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Mar 10 14:35:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2AJZWw25539 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:35:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from paiol.terra.com.br (paiol.terra.com.br [200.176.3.18]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2AJZU625533 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from itaim.terra.com.br (itaim.terra.com.br [200.176.3.76]) by paiol.terra.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91EF7D047; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:35:30 -0300 (BRT) Received: from Micro1 (dl-sjp-rip-C8B129A9.p001.terra.com.br [200.177.41.169]) by itaim.terra.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id 672032E7755; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:23:11 -0300 (BRT) Message-ID: <003001c2e732$257a0550$a929b1c8@Micro1> From: "Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia" To: "Forensic-Science" , "Forens List" Subject: Air Bag Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:22:13 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2AJZWx25539 Content-Length: 370 Dear Friends, Sorry for this cross posting but I´m looking some technical informations about "air bag". Any kind of information will be aprecitaed. TIA Jorge Alejandro Paulete Scaglia http://www.pericias-forenses.com.br --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Mar 11 08:15:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2BDFoi15320 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2BDFo615314 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:50 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 450 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:17:42 -0500 (EST) From: Graham Gibson To: Subject: supercritical fluids Good day, everyone. I am interested in real-life examples of where either supercritical fluid extraction or chromatography has been used in forensic cases. Any information you can give, anecdotal or otherwise, would be much appreciated. Thanks! Graham From daemon Tue Mar 11 09:56:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2BEur318284 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2BEur618278 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:56:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from LeonStein@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.133.1c749233 (4320); Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:56:45 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <133.1c749233.2b9f532d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:56:45 EST Subject: NFSTC DNA Training Academy Upcoming To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: jas@nfstc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 230 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2BEur418284 Content-Length: 427 Please check this link for details - http://www.nfstc.org/nfa.htm,   David M. Epstein, Director of Scientific Operations National Forensic Science Technology Center 7881 114th Avenue Largo, FL  33773 727-549-6067, ext. 110 727-549-6070 - Fax www.nfstc.org   --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Mar 13 09:44:48 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2DEimh21672 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:44:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2DEilY21666 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:44:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:44:47 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 676 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "lynn" To: Subject: Polygraph testing Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:18:50 +1100 Hey ho! Can can anyone suggest any good links on polygraph testing (or = articles) for a friend of mine who is doing her Bachelors assignment on = this subject. (Personally I can think of better subjects but to each = his own - don't want to go upsetting anyone!) Regards Lynn Contact Surf Coast Secretarial Services for all your secretarial = requirements lynn@hyp.net.au --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Mar 13 18:27:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2DNRup05313 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:27:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au [143.216.236.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2DNRs605307 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:27:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au OUTGOING (8.12.8/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2DNRoj7012514 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:57:50 +1030 (CST)' Received: from sagemsbb006.saugov.sa.gov.au (sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au [143.216.59.14]) by adl0133.systems.sa.gov.au INCOMING (8.12.8/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h2DNRnkG012498 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:57:49 +1030 (CST)' Received: by sagemsbb006.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) id ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:57:49 +1030 Message-ID: From: "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: luminol Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:56:56 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.89) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 343 Does anyone know of experiments done to investigate the simultaneous illumination of a crime scene (or item therefrom) and the use of luminol (to reveal blood stains) ie so the stained object can be visualized at the same time as the blood is luminescing? Thanks in advance. Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science Centre Adelaide, South Australia From daemon Thu Mar 13 19:09:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2E09nr06160 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from web40901.mail.yahoo.com (web40901.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.198]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2E09m606154 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:09:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030314000948.32160.qmail@web40901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.92.18.84] by web40901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:09:48 PST Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:09:48 -0800 (PST) From: Ernie Hamm Subject: RE: luminol To: "Donnelly, Andrew \(DAIS\)" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2236 The following may have information along the lines of your inquiry: Collection and Preservation of Blood Evidence from Crime Scenes Schiro, George Journal of Forensic Identification, 47:5 (1997) Comment: Use of Luminol, photography to document and collection techniques BLOOD Collection and Preservation of Blood Evidence from Crime Scenes: Letter Lough, Patricia Lough, Pamela M. Hofsass Journal of Forensic Identification, 48:1 (1998) Comment: Two separate letters commenting about Schiro's article BLOOD Fill Flash Color Photography to Photograph Luminol Bloodstain Patterns Gimeno, Fred E. Journal of Forensic Identification, 39:5, (1989) Comment: Self-explanatory BLOOD PHOTO Fill Flash Photo Luminescence to Photograph Luminol Blood Stain Patterns Gimeno, Fred E. and Gary Alan Rini Journal of Forensic Identification, 39:3, (1989) Comment: Self-explanatory PHOTO BLOOD Night Vision Video and Luminol Shirk, Sanford A. Journal of Forensic Identification, 45:5 (1995) Comment: Equipment and procedures to document blood tracks at scene enhanced with luminol BLOOD FW Recording Luminol Luminescence in its Context Using a Film Overlay Method Niebauer, Joseph C., Jack B. Booth, Jr., and B. Lee Brewer Journal of Forensic Identification, 40:5, (1990) Comment: Device to aid to showing position of luminol reaction pattern PHOTO These probably have information on the use of attenuated light (pop flash) technique to photograph while the luminol reaction is still active and also reveal the features of area being treated. "Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS)" wrote: Does anyone know of experiments done to investigate the simultaneous illumination of a crime scene (or item therefrom) and the use of luminol (to reveal blood stains) ie so the stained object can be visualized at the same time as the blood is luminescing? Thanks in advance. Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science Centre Adelaide, South Australia --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Mar 13 19:12:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2E0C9o06458 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:12:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f10.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2E0C8606452 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:12:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:12:08 -0800 Received: from 63.200.65.218 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:12:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.200.65.218] From: "Joy Halverson" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: mitochondrial heteroplasmy Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:12:08 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2003 00:12:08.0525 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A2557D0:01C2E9BE] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 458 My high school intern is doing a project on heteroplasmy in dog hair. Does anyone have any thoughts, based on what has been seen in humans, as to what parameters to consider? Age of animal, hair type, body location come to mind. Any thoughts? Joy Halverson, QuestGen Forensics _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From daemon Fri Mar 14 08:20:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2EDKka18009 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2EDKkG18003 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:20:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:20:45 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1271 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au Cc: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: luminol Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:37:20 -0500 I always used an open shutter, camera on a STILL tripod, focused at the object being luminoled, then before closing the shutter, shooting one flash in the opposite direction to give context to the scene. Experiment on nonprobative samples in a dark room for times, and flash intensities. Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: Donnelly, Andrew (DAIS) [mailto:Donnelly.Andrew@saugov.sa.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 3:27 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: luminol Does anyone know of experiments done to investigate the simultaneous illumination of a crime scene (or item therefrom) and the use of luminol (to reveal blood stains) ie so the stained object can be visualized at the same time as the blood is luminescing? Thanks in advance. Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science Centre Adelaide, South Australia From daemon Fri Mar 14 10:54:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2EFspY21787 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:54:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.ucok.edu (mercury.ucok.edu [192.206.65.11]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2EFsn621772 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:54:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: forwarded message To: lynn@mail.hyp.net.au Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.9 November 16, 2001 Message-ID: From: RBost@ucok.edu Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:54:54 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 03/14/2003 09:54:55 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3164 Well, I typed "polygraph" into my search engine, and 12 sites were listed. Are they "good" sites? I don't know, I didn't look at them. But my point is this: if the student is to write a paper on the subject, then this student should do the research, not ask someone else to do the searching and tell them which are the best references. Part of the experience of writing a paper is to do the research, to check references and evaluate them, to decide whether information provided is useful or not, is valid or not. I recommend that you go back to this student and suggest that they do the work on their on. The computer/internet make this task so much easier than it used to be. But the student should still be expected to do their own work. (You can tell from my association (see below) why I get on the "soap box" like this.) Robert O. Bost, Ph.D., DABFT Director, MS in Forensic Sciences Program Department of Chemistry University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 (405) 974-5519 Basten csu.edu> cc: Sent by: Subject: forwarded message owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statg en.ncsu.edu 03/13/2003 08:44 AM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "lynn" To: Subject: Polygraph testing Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:18:50 +1100 Hey ho! Can can anyone suggest any good links on polygraph testing (or = articles) for a friend of mine who is doing her Bachelors assignment on = this subject. (Personally I can think of better subjects but to each = his own - don't want to go upsetting anyone!) Regards Lynn Contact Surf Coast Secretarial Services for all your secretarial = requirements lynn@hyp.net.au --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Mar 14 11:25:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2EGP5F22701 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2EGP4622692 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2EGP125028394; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:25:02 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: RBost@ucok.edu cc: lynn@mail.hyp.net.au, Subject: Re: forwarded message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1775 > From: RBost@ucok.edu > > > Well, I typed "polygraph" into my search engine... And part of doing research is not going to experts and asking for sources of information???? I don't know about you, but when *I* want to know about something and sit down to do some research, the *first* thing I do is get on the horn, internet newsgroups and mailing lists, etc. and ask exactly the question that was asked: "What are some good references?" and "What should I look at?" And, in fact, since polygraphy is such a science-free topic, finding good hypothesis-driven double-blind studies is a royal pain. If you want a good place to start, take a look at the most recent National Academy of Sciences evaluation at www.nap.edu where you can order the book: "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" Committe to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research Council. or read most of it online for free. It equates polygraphic screening with "voodooism." Some pearls: "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiologic responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception... The theoretical basis for the polygraph is quite weak ... We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing... Research on teh polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner..." A review of the article can be found in The Lancet: Greenberg, D. "Washington: Polygraph fails scientific review in the USA" The Lancet 2002 360:1309. billo From daemon Fri Mar 14 13:39:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2EIdcQ26155 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from qlink.queensu.ca (qlink.QueensU.CA [130.15.126.18]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2EIda626146 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (7gg2@localhost) by qlink.queensu.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id h2EIdbG23111 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:39:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:39:37 -0500 (EST) From: Graham T T Gibson <7gg2@qlink.queensu.ca> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: supercritical fluids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 731 Hello everyone, I apologize for re-sending this email to the list, but the first returned no replies (I assume because it ended up being forwarded through the list owner instead of directly from me). I am doing my PhD comprehensive exams on the topic of supercritical fluids in forensic science, and I was wondering what the level of its use was in the "real world". Has any of you used either supercritical fluid extraction or supercritical fluid chromatography in their labs? I appreciate any information you can give on the topic. Thanks, Graham Gibson PS. as an aside, I thank any of those on the list who gave me useful advice a few years ago that eventually led me into a PhD and hopefully into the forensic field From daemon Fri Mar 14 14:00:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2EJ0nJ26803 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from home.unioncountynj.org ([209.236.148.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2EJ0l626797 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:00:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from unioncountynj.org ([209.236.148.15]) by home.unioncountynj.org (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-69775U1900L200S0V35) with ESMTP id org; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:05:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3E7224ED.35231B12@unioncountynj.org> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:52:29 -0500 From: fgarland@unioncountynj.org (Frank Garland) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham T T Gibson <7gg2@qlink.queensu.ca> CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: supercritical fluids References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 987 Graham, You may want to contact Ira Lurie with the DEA's Special testing Lab. He is the only one I know who may have used the technique for Drug analysis. Frank Garland UCPO Lab Graham T T Gibson wrote: > Hello everyone, I apologize for re-sending this email to the list, > but the first returned no replies (I assume because it ended up being > forwarded through the list owner instead of directly from me). > I am doing my PhD comprehensive exams on the topic of > supercritical fluids in forensic science, and I was wondering what the > level of its use was in the "real world". Has any of you used either > supercritical fluid extraction or supercritical fluid chromatography in > their labs? I appreciate any information you can give on the topic. > > Thanks, > > Graham Gibson > > PS. as an aside, I thank any of those on the list who gave me useful > advice a few years ago that eventually led me into a PhD and hopefully > into the forensic field From daemon Sat Mar 15 13:59:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2FIxMO19313 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2FIx6619294 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:59:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net (242.white-plains-01rh15rt.ny.dial-access.att.net[12.88.80.242]) by mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <200303151859011110006ep2e>; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:59:02 +0000 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:59:02 -0500 Subject: research Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" , RBost@ucok.edu, lynn@mail.hyp.net.au, To: Bill Oliver From: "E. J. Wagner" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <2FBF6746-5718-11D7-9A37-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2970 On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 11:25 AM, Bill Oliver wrote: > >> From: RBost@ucok.edu >> >> >> Well, I typed "polygraph" into my search engine... > > > > And part of doing research is not going to experts and asking > for sources of information???? > > I don't know about you, but when *I* want to know about something > and sit down to do some research, the *first* thing I do is get > on the horn, internet newsgroups and mailing lists, etc. and > ask exactly the question that was asked: "What are some > good references?" and "What should I look at?" > > And, in fact, since polygraphy is such a science-free topic, > finding good hypothesis-driven double-blind studies is a > royal pain. > > > If you want a good place to start, take a look at the > most recent National Academy of Sciences evaluation > at > > www.nap.edu > > where you can order the book: > > "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" Committe to Review the > Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research > Council. > > or read most of it online for free. > > It equates polygraphic screening with "voodooism." > > > Some pearls: > > > "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology > and physiology provides little basis for the expectation > that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. > The physiologic responses measured by the polygraph are > not uniquely related to deception... > > The theoretical basis for the polygraph is quite weak ... > We have not found any serious effort at construct validation > of polygraph testing... > > Research on teh polygraph has not progressed over time > in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has > not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific > underpinnings in any significant manner..." > > > > A review of the article can be found in The Lancet: > > > Greenberg, D. "Washington: Polygraph fails scientific > review in the USA" The Lancet 2002 360:1309. > > > > > > > > billo > > Certainly, requesting information from experts is part of research. But before one asks for the time and knowledge of others, it's a good idea to do some preliminary research ones self, so that ones questions are cogent. I frequently get queries like this " I have to write a paper so could you tell me what is forensic science-also why do we have serial killers-also please send list of your references ASAP my paper is due soon" On the other hand, I was very happy to help the student from the UK who needed information on 12th century crime in England. She listed the sources she had consulted with little result- and asked only that I tell her if the information was obscure or if her research technique was lacking. I explained that she needed to consult crowner or coroner rolls, rather than history of crime tomes, and her problem was solved. EJWagner - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Sat Mar 15 15:45:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2FKjM421295 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:45:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spn25.fiu.edu [131.94.57.18]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2FKjL621289 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:45:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from fiu.edu ([131.94.2.184]) by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.04.00.00 201-232-137 license 864195e5afa519a09f69860cf1965153) with ESMTP id <20030315204525.CLDO19604.spn25c0@fiu.edu>; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:45:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:46:33 -0500 Subject: 3rd Nat'l Detector Dog Conference, May 19-23, 2003, North Miami Beach, Florida. U.S.A Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: ascld@lab.fws.gov, furtonk@fiu.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Jose Almirall Message-Id: <34F8561C-5727-11D7-9F9C-000393C7880E@fiu.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2145 Dear Colleague: We are looking forward to seeing you at the 3rd National Detector Dog Conference (NDDC) on May19-23, 2003 at the Ramada Plaza Marco Polo Beach Resort, North Miami Beach, Florida. Please share the information about this meeting with anyone who might be interested. Please see http://www.fiu.edu/~ifri/invitation_1.htm The theme of the 3rd National Detector Dog Conference is "The Expanding Role of Detection Canines in Homeland Security". Register on line at http://w3.fiu.edu/ifri/K9conf/K92003.htm or call 305-348-6211. Please book hotel reservations directly with the conference hotel (Ramada Plaza Marco Polo Beach Resort 877-327-6363 or 305-932-2233) and mention the K-9 Conference. A great rate of $69/night is available at this beachfront hotel until 4/19/03. (www.ramadaplazamiabeach.com). This conference brings together many of the world's leading experts in the field of detector dogs including scientists, trainers and handlers. While the emphasis for this 3rd NDDC will be on the expanding role of detection canines in homeland security since 9/11/01 including explosive detector dog teams, all detector dog types are included in the conference. One major goal of this meeting is to refine scientifically sound best practice procedures for detector dog teams aimed at improving contraband interdiction from enhanced detection capabilities to improved courtroom defensibility. Invited speakers will be giving presentations and panel discussions will be held at the end of each days talks. The planned program and updates are available at http://w3.fiu.edu/ifri/K9conf/K92003-announce.htm or http://www.ifri.fiu.edu Thank you for sharing this information with your colleagues and please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information. Yours Sincerely, Ken Furton Kenneth G. Furton, Ph.D., C.Chem., M.R.S.C., Professor and Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Director, International Forensic Research Institute (www.ifri.fiu.edu) Florida International University, DM445C, University Park, Miami, FL 33199 Tel: (305)348-6546; Fax: (305)349- 4172, Web: www.furton.org From daemon Mon Mar 17 08:39:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2HDdPD22483 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.ucok.edu (mercury.ucok.edu [192.206.65.11]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2HDd8622477 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:39:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: research To: "E. J. Wagner" Cc: Bill Oliver , "E. J. Wagner" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, lynn@mail.hyp.net.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.9 November 16, 2001 Message-ID: From: RBost@ucok.edu Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:39:18 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 03/17/2003 07:39:11 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4951 Thank you, E.J., for your support. I will agree with Billo that I do turn to colleagues for answers to some questions. But I have had the years of reading the literature to seek information and to evaluate the information received to determine whether to utilize it or not. I have also had the opportunity to meet people and develop a group of friends and colleagues to whom I can turn. In this instance, the "friend" came directly to this list to ask for help; the list address could have been given to the student and this would allow/force the student to do some of their own work. I did not intend to exclude the internet and friends/colleagues as a source of information. I simply read this e-mail message as a request to provide to a student the list of "good" references "on a platter" and this was the procedure to which I objected. Robert O. Bost, Ph.D., DABFT Director, MS in Forensic Sciences Program Department of Chemistry University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 (405) 974-5519 E. J. Wagner t.att.net> cc: E. J. Wagner , RBost@ucok.edu, lynn@mail.hyp.net.au, 03/15/2003 12:59 PM Subject: research On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 11:25 AM, Bill Oliver wrote: > >> From: RBost@ucok.edu >> >> >> Well, I typed "polygraph" into my search engine... > > > > And part of doing research is not going to experts and asking > for sources of information???? > > I don't know about you, but when *I* want to know about something > and sit down to do some research, the *first* thing I do is get > on the horn, internet newsgroups and mailing lists, etc. and > ask exactly the question that was asked: "What are some > good references?" and "What should I look at?" > > And, in fact, since polygraphy is such a science-free topic, > finding good hypothesis-driven double-blind studies is a > royal pain. > > > If you want a good place to start, take a look at the > most recent National Academy of Sciences evaluation > at > > www.nap.edu > > where you can order the book: > > "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" Committe to Review the > Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research > Council. > > or read most of it online for free. > > It equates polygraphic screening with "voodooism." > > > Some pearls: > > > "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology > and physiology provides little basis for the expectation > that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. > The physiologic responses measured by the polygraph are > not uniquely related to deception... > > The theoretical basis for the polygraph is quite weak ... > We have not found any serious effort at construct validation > of polygraph testing... > > Research on teh polygraph has not progressed over time > in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has > not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific > underpinnings in any significant manner..." > > > > A review of the article can be found in The Lancet: > > > Greenberg, D. "Washington: Polygraph fails scientific > review in the USA" The Lancet 2002 360:1309. > > > > > > > > billo > > Certainly, requesting information from experts is part of research. But before one asks for the time and knowledge of others, it's a good idea to do some preliminary research ones self, so that ones questions are cogent. I frequently get queries like this " I have to write a paper so could you tell me what is forensic science-also why do we have serial killers-also please send list of your references ASAP my paper is due soon" On the other hand, I was very happy to help the student from the UK who needed information on 12th century crime in England. She listed the sources she had consulted with little result- and asked only that I tell her if the information was obscure or if her research technique was lacking. I explained that she needed to consult crowner or coroner rolls, rather than history of crime tomes, and her problem was solved. EJWagner - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Mon Mar 17 17:11:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2HMBpm05511 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2HMBn605505 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:11:49 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: GC in BAC Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:11:48 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC Thread-Index: AcLltSIFtfwqnCEGQdqY/IiicrcToABZQniw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2HMBo605506 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 16106 JT, You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: will pass through a BAC column will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for quantitation will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for confirmation are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC quantitation would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels Researchers have certainly not tested every possible volatile substance on BAC analytical columns, I grant you that, but they have tested a wide variety of common volatiles and none have been found that meet the above criteria. Science cannot eliminate every conceivable possibility in any endeavor, but at some point you have to say "enough is enough - the method has been sufficiently well established to be considered reliable, unless and until some evidence surfaces to indicate otherwise." When extensive research has been done and no realistic possibilities have been identified, one can justifiably conclude the issue resolved within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. This is how mounting research enables a group of hypotheses to form a unifying theory, and a theory to evolve into a scientific principle or scientific Law. If a realistic possibility is ever identified to indicate otherwise then we would have to revisit the issue, but as it is there is no evidence to indicate that BAC determination via properly conducted GC analysis is anything less than conclusive, and no reason to believe it is not completely reliable. All the available evidence indicates just the opposite. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: J. T. Price [mailto:tprice@ionet.net] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 15:34 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Hmmm .. volatile compounds and we know them all with our techniques? Most health care workers can recognize the smell of persons with advanced solid tumors, certainly anyone who has spent time around a morgue is familiar with the distinctive odor. What is the chemistry of these volatile compounds? Where is it reported? JTP. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC J. T. Price wrote: >Agree generally but one has to look at the number of tests done on these >biological fluids and realize even in food there can be metabolic products >of bacteria and metabolic products of other ingested compounds, some of >which we are not even aware of. Not at these levels. The only alcohol produced endogenously by the natural flora in the living human body is produced in the gut, and the amounts are negligible - they produce blood levels far below the detection limit of routine blood alcohol analysis, and will return a negative result. As far as food, certainly you can get alcohol into your system by eating spoiled fruit (for example), but that's irrelevant. The law makes no distinction as to the source of ingested alcohol, only as to it's amount. However you became intoxicated, you're still intoxicated - what you ate or drank to get there is irrelevant. If you mean other types of organic compounds that might co-elute, again, not at these levels - they would be fatal. The only things that can appear (i.e., have ever been demonstrated) in ante-mortem human blood, at levels detectible by these GC methods, are clearly resolvable by the same GC methods. >I've seen some of the best ergot chemists in the world with FDA review have >a spot hidden under another on TLC and everyone just assumed they knew what >they were looking at. I don't know what the common wisdom in chemistry is >today but I always treated all chromatography as separation and not >identification. As a general rule you are correct, but in this specific application the general rule does not hold. The resolution power of TLC is paltry compared to capillary GC, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, again, with the TLC you are trying to eliminate a huge number of other things, whereas in ante-mortem BAC via GC you are only trying to eliminate a few - the few that can exist at underivatized, non-enhanced, FID-detectible levels in living human subjects. Apples and oranges again. When the possibilities are limited, known and understood, and have proven to be resolvable, chromatography can and does positively identify analytes. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC Fred, When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools that don't prove anyth! ing beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the matrix). As analysts, we ! need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i compound possible considering the nature of the sample. BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with something that gives the same retention times but! could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other types of exams. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Mar 18 12:54:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2IHsKN27316 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:54:20 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-Id: <200303181754.h2IHsKN27316@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Content-Length: 758 Please respond to the list or to Orla. Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:48:46 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Orla Sower Disposition-Notification-To: Orla Sower Subject: Chelex MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M () Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed HI, I am looking into carrying out DNA extractions using Chelex. Does anybody know where I can get Chelex or how it is made up? Thanks Orla. -- Orla Sower Keith Borer Consultants, Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR. UK Phone: + 44 (0)191 3866107 Fax: + 44 (0)191 3830686 From daemon Tue Mar 18 13:51:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2IIpJB29114 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from boron.cix.co.uk (boron.cix.co.uk [212.35.225.155]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2IIpI629108 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from cix.co.uk (pc1-lich2-3-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [80.7.10.88]) by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with SMTP id h2IInVt25819; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:49:31 GMT X-Envelope-From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: Chelex To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: orla.sower@borer.demon.co.uk, Webster@forensic-science.co.uk In-Reply-To: <200303181754.h2IHsKN27316@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Reply-To: Webster@forensic-science.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.53.2014, Windows 98 4.10.1998 ( ) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 513 > I am looking into carrying out DNA extractions using Chelex. Does > anybody know where I can get Chelex or how it is made up? > > Thanks > Orla. > -- > Orla Sower > Keith Borer Consultants, Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR. UK You shouldn't need to ask here; you're working in an organisation that employs at least one person with hands-on DNA profiling experience! However .... Bio-Rad United Kingdom Customer Service Freephone 0800 181134 Phone 020 8328 2000 Fax 020 8328 2550 Mark Webster From daemon Tue Mar 18 15:45:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2IKj6d02190 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:45:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from web14705.mail.yahoo.com (web14705.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.122]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2IKj4602184 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:45:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030318204506.29888.qmail@web14705.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.88.162.174] by web14705.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:45:06 PST Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:45:06 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: CODIS hit confirmations To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 710 I am trying to get some information on how labs are handling confirmations of CODIS hits (forensic unknowns to offenders). Feel free to pass this along to DNA folks. To confirm hits on newly collected suspect standards, do you: a) test only the same loci that were originally tested on the forensic unknowns and put into CODIS; or b) also test additional loci on both the unknown and suspect standard. How do you describe the statistical weight in a CODIS confirmation report? Thanks. Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, TX __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Mar 18 19:45:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2J0jRc07186 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2J0jQ607180 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id r.5f.36ad9a9e (3980); Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:24 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <5f.36ad9a9e.2ba917a4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:45:24 EST Subject: Re: GC in BAC To: rparsons@ircc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1468 Bob and JT Excellent points below. Leave me wondering, Bob, you mention the second BAC column which indeed seems necessary. How many labs rely on only one column and if so then why need the second for confirmation? I remember folks on the list noting that some labs only use one GC column. Do you have a protocol that is available to the public? I would be curious to compare protocols in order to address why the differences. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > Subj:RE: GC in BAC > Date:3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:rparsons@ircc.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > JT, > > You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: > > will pass through a BAC column > will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for > quantitation > will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for > confirmation > are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects > are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID > are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC > quantitation > would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 19 11:48:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2JGmgZ28074 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:48:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.doj.ca.gov (mail.doj.ca.gov [167.10.5.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2JGme628062 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:48:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HC09I800.5GH for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:51:44 -0800 Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-MTA by SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:48:00 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:47:32 -0800 From: "Terry Spear" To: Subject: Re: Chelex Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Guinevere: 1.1.14 ; Department of Justic X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1748 For extracting bloodstains, a 5% Chelex solution in sterile water can be used. It is necessary to make sure that the resin beads are in solution when you pipet them (solution needs to be stirred). Also, a wide-bore pipet tip should be used to pipet the resin solution. Check the pH of the Chelex solution before use to insure that it is about a pH of 10. For a stain that contains sperm, be sure that Proteinase K and dithiothreitol are used during the extraction process. Terry Spear CA DOJ - CCI Phone (916) 227-3575 >>> Mark Webster 03/18/03 10:51AM >>> > I am looking into carrying out DNA extractions using Chelex. Does > anybody know where I can get Chelex or how it is made up? > > Thanks > Orla. > -- > Orla Sower > Keith Borer Consultants, Mountjoy Research Centre, Durham, DH1 3UR. UK You shouldn't need to ask here; you're working in an organisation that employs at least one person with hands-on DNA profiling experience! However .... Bio-Rad United Kingdom Customer Service Freephone 0800 181134 Phone 020 8328 2000 Fax 020 8328 2550 Mark Webster ******************************************************************* Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ******************************************************************* --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 19 13:31:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2JIV0I01195 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:31:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from f04n01.cac.psu.edu (f04s01.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2JIUx601189 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from bacchus (asi42.ent.psu.edu [146.186.6.42]) by f04n01.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA59188 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:30:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.0.2.20030319104251.009c7210@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: rpw109@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:47:05 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: RP Withington Subject: Forensic Entomology Workshop Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1751 Announcing the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Forensic Entomology offered by the Entomology Department at The Pennsylvania State University. The workshop is led by Dr. K.C. Kim, Board Certified Forensic Entomologist, and runs from Wednesday, 21 May 2003, to Friday, 23 May 2003. This course is designed for forensic investigators working for law-enforcement agencies, including state police, municipal police, forensic pathologists, and coroners. The course has been approved by the State Board of Coroners and covers the principles of forensic entomology, the ecology of necrophagous arthropod communities, and forensic entomological analysis. For course information, contact: Dr. K.C. Kim The Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802-3508 Phone: (814) 865-1895 E-mail: kck@psu.edu For course registration, contact: Ag. Short Courses and Conferences The Pennsylvania State University 306 Ag. Administration Building University Park, PA 16802-2601 Phone: (814) 865-8301 FAX: (814) 865-7050 TTY: (814) 865-1204 Please visit our Web sites at: http://www.ento.psu.edu/ForensicSC/index.htm http://conferences.cas.psu.edu/ForensicEnt/forensic.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RP Withington III, Workshop Coordinator rpw109@psu.edu 525 ASI Bldg. Entomology Department University Park, PA 16802 (814) 865-5392 (ph) (814) 865-3048 (FAX) --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 19 13:59:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2JIxqd02686 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.185]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2JIxo602662 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:59:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from adsl-66-137-59-104.dsl.tulsok.swbell.net (HELO price) (ultrastructure@sbcglobal.net@66.137.59.104 with login) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2003 18:59:50 -0000 Message-ID: <030e01c2ee49$52f5a9d0$6501a8c0@price> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: References: Subject: Re: GC in BAC Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:57:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 18557 Bob, My illustration is simply that under different conditions we know little about metabolites. In forensics, the assumption is made there are no other compounds that meet your qualifications. Sure we have to have standard methods and some understanding of how we are going to use these test results. We tend to forget after once accepting a method that methods can fail, laboratories can fail and that sometimes we look back at old methods in embarrassment. Suddenly we have produced an industry and bought huge quantities of expensive laboratory gear, trained technicians to operate the instruments and assume these individuals are all "chemists". The so-called laboratories in which they work, if certified at all, are certified by individuals with skills not much greater than those being certified. My experience (although not claiming to be a chemist) is these people are poorly trained, ignorant of most basic chemistry and follow dogma that is frequently not only without scientific basis but also just wrong. Sure, they are proficient appliance operators, know how to run the instruments, know what to write in a report, know stock answers to common questions but have little knowledge or skill concerning the basic science which form the foundation of their testimony and testing. We can say that cross examination and judges retain the power and ability to show faults in the expert system. The fact is, most judges have no science background at all. Frequently they come from political science programs or humanities in college and managed to evade taking High School chemisty. The average criminal defendant can't afford to hire expert witnesses, most academic chemists have no idea or interest in criminal justice and crime laboratories and wouldn't be interested in spending the time learning. Example .. report Sample 2-7PH7 Xylene Would a chemist understand that sample 1-7 was found to be Xylene with a pH of 7?? Would a chemist even believe a "chemist" would report a pH of an organic solvent?? Would a chemist believe a large federal agency was running around teaching this type of nonsense?? Oh, BTW, wonder how the substance was identified as xylene?? well, it was labeled on the bottle so must be true! (sworn to under oath of course) JTP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC JT, You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: will pass through a BAC column will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for quantitation will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for confirmation are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC quantitation would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels Researchers have certainly not tested every possible volatile substance on BAC analytical columns, I grant you that, but they have tested a wide variety of common volatiles and none have been found that meet the above criteria. Science cannot eliminate every conceivable possibility in any endeavor, but at some point you have to say "enough is enough - the method has been sufficiently well established to be considered reliable, unless and until some evidence surfaces to indicate otherwise." When extensive research has been done and no realistic possibilities have been identified, one can justifiably conclude the issue resolved within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. This is how mounting research enables a group of hypotheses to form a unifying theory, and a theory to evolve into a scientific principle or scientific Law. If a realistic possibility is ever identified to indicate otherwise then we would have to revisit the issue, but as it is there is no evidence! to indicate that BAC determination via properly conducted GC analysis is anything less than conclusive, and no reason to believe it is not completely reliable. All the available evidence indicates just the opposite. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: J. T. Price [mailto:tprice@ionet.net] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 15:34 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Hmmm .. volatile compounds and we know them all with our techniques? Most health care workers can recognize the smell of persons with advanced solid tumors, certainly anyone who has spent time around a morgue is familiar with the distinctive odor. What is the chemistry of these volatile compounds? Where is it reported? JTP. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC J. T. Price wrote: >Agree generally but one has to look at the number of tests done on these >biological fluids and realize even in food there can be metabolic products >of bacteria and metabolic products of other ingested compounds, some of >which we are not even aware of. Not at these levels. The only alcohol produced endogenously by the natural flora in the living human body is produced in the gut, and the amounts are negligible - they produce blood levels far below the detection limit of routine blood alcohol analysis, and will return a negative result. As far as food, certainly you can get alcohol into your system by eating spoiled fruit (for example), but that's irrelevant. The law makes no distinction as to the source of ingested alcohol, only as to it's amount. However you became intoxicated, you're still intoxicated - what you ate or drank to get there is irrelevant. If you mean other types of organic compounds that might co-elute, again, not at these levels - they would be fatal. The only things that can appear (i.e., have ever been demonstrated) in ante-mortem human blood, at levels detectible by these GC methods, are clearly resolvable by the same GC methods. >I've seen some of the best ergot chemists in the world with FDA review have >a spot hidden under another on TLC and everyone just assumed they knew what >they were looking at. I don't know what the common wisdom in chemistry is >today but I always treated all chromatography as separation and not >identification. As a general rule you are correct, but in this specific application the general rule does not hold. The resolution power of TLC is paltry compared to capillary GC, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, again, with the TLC you are trying to eliminate a huge number of other things, whereas in ante-mortem BAC via GC you are only trying to eliminate a few - the few that can exist at underivatized, non-enhanced, FID-detectible levels in living human subjects. Apples and oranges again. When the possibilities are limited, known and understood, and have proven to be resolvable, chromatography can and does positively identify analytes. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC Fred, When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools that don't prove anyth! ing beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the matrix). As analysts, we ! need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i compound possible considering the nature of the sample. BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with something that gives the same retention times but! could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other types of exams. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Dennis I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I know those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. No one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring about the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their 1 minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need for closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never in the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention time as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a patch? When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond their expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more than sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the opinons rendered. I want to know those. Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 252 825 1123 In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu writes: > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:dch@uri.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > >Retention time. > > > >Pete Barnett > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > as a Chemist. > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run on > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and the > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, isopropanol, > etc. > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > BioMedical Sciences > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > 41 Lower College Road > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > Tel: 401-874-2893 > Fax: 401-874-2181 > email: dch@uri.edu > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 19 22:13:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2K3DSE13860 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:13:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from imf38bis.bellsouth.net (mail121.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2K3DQ613854 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from davelaptop ([68.18.243.185]) by imf38bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with SMTP id <20030320031531.DGCQ23785.imf38bis.bellsouth.net@davelaptop> for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:15:31 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c2ee8e$a0b68c80$1c7bfea9@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <030e01c2ee49$52f5a9d0$6501a8c0@price> Subject: Arcadia University? Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:13:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 19864 Forens list, I recently received correspondence advertising a MS in forensic science that is not on the AAFS website.. Anyone hear of Arcadia University? Any merit? Thanks for any insight Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. T. Price" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:57 PM Subject: Re: GC in BAC > Bob, > > My illustration is simply that under different conditions we know little > about metabolites. In forensics, the assumption is made there are no other > compounds that meet your qualifications. Sure we have to have standard > methods and some understanding of how we are going to use these test > results. We tend to forget after once accepting a method that methods can > fail, laboratories can fail and that sometimes we look back at old methods > in embarrassment. > > Suddenly we have produced an industry and bought huge quantities of > expensive laboratory gear, trained technicians to operate the instruments > and assume these individuals are all "chemists". The so-called laboratories > in which they work, if certified at all, are certified by individuals with > skills not much greater than those being certified. > > My experience (although not claiming to be a chemist) is these people are > poorly trained, ignorant of most basic chemistry and follow dogma that is > frequently not only without scientific basis but also just wrong. Sure, > they are proficient appliance operators, know how to run the instruments, > know what to write in a report, know stock answers to common questions but > have little knowledge or skill concerning the basic science which form the > foundation of their testimony and testing. > > We can say that cross examination and judges retain the power and ability to > show faults in the expert system. The fact is, most judges have no science > background at all. Frequently they come from political science programs or > humanities in college and managed to evade taking High School chemisty. > The average criminal defendant can't afford to hire expert witnesses, most > academic chemists have no idea or interest in criminal justice and crime > laboratories and wouldn't be interested in spending the time learning. > > Example .. report > > Sample 2-7PH7 Xylene > > Would a chemist understand that sample 1-7 was found to be Xylene with a pH > of 7?? Would a chemist even believe a "chemist" would report a pH of an > organic solvent?? > Would a chemist believe a large federal agency was running around teaching > this type of nonsense?? > Oh, BTW, wonder how the substance was identified as xylene?? well, it > was labeled on the bottle so must be true! (sworn to under oath of course) > > JTP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:11 PM > Subject: RE: GC in BAC > > > JT, > > You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: > > will pass through a BAC column > will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for > quantitation > will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for > confirmation > are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects > are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID > are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC > quantitation > would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels > > Researchers have certainly not tested every possible volatile substance on > BAC analytical columns, I grant you that, but they have tested a wide > variety of common volatiles and none have been found that meet the above > criteria. Science cannot eliminate every conceivable possibility in any > endeavor, but at some point you have to say "enough is enough - the method > has been sufficiently well established to be considered reliable, unless and > until some evidence surfaces to indicate otherwise." When extensive > research has been done and no realistic possibilities have been identified, > one can justifiably conclude the issue resolved within a reasonable degree > of scientific certainty. This is how mounting research enables a group of > hypotheses to form a unifying theory, and a theory to evolve into a > scientific principle or scientific Law. If a realistic possibility is ever > identified to indicate otherwise then we would have to revisit the issue, > but as it is there is no evidence! > to indicate that BAC determination via properly conducted GC analysis is > anything less than conclusive, and no reason to believe it is not completely > reliable. All the available evidence indicates just the opposite. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: J. T. Price [mailto:tprice@ionet.net] > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 15:34 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: GC in BAC > > > Hmmm .. volatile compounds and we know them all with our techniques? > > Most health care workers can recognize the smell of persons with advanced > solid tumors, certainly anyone who has spent time around a morgue is > familiar with the distinctive odor. > > What is the chemistry of these volatile compounds? Where is it reported? > > JTP. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 5:20 PM > Subject: RE: GC in BAC > > > J. T. Price wrote: > > >Agree generally but one has to look at the number of tests done on these > >biological fluids and realize even in food there can be metabolic products > >of bacteria and metabolic products of other ingested compounds, some of > >which we are not even aware of. > > Not at these levels. The only alcohol produced endogenously by the natural > flora in the living human body is produced in the gut, and the amounts are > negligible - they produce blood levels far below the detection limit of > routine blood alcohol analysis, and will return a negative result. As far > as food, certainly you can get alcohol into your system by eating spoiled > fruit (for example), but that's irrelevant. The law makes no distinction as > to the source of ingested alcohol, only as to it's amount. However you > became intoxicated, you're still intoxicated - what you ate or drank to get > there is irrelevant. If you mean other types of organic compounds that > might co-elute, again, not at these levels - they would be fatal. The only > things that can appear (i.e., have ever been demonstrated) in ante-mortem > human blood, at levels detectible by these GC methods, are clearly > resolvable by the same GC methods. > > >I've seen some of the best ergot chemists in the world with FDA review have > >a spot hidden under another on TLC and everyone just assumed they knew what > >they were looking at. I don't know what the common wisdom in chemistry is > >today but I always treated all chromatography as separation and not > >identification. > > As a general rule you are correct, but in this specific application the > general rule does not hold. The resolution power of TLC is paltry compared > to capillary GC, so you're comparing apples and oranges. Besides, again, > with the TLC you are trying to eliminate a huge number of other things, > whereas in ante-mortem BAC via GC you are only trying to eliminate a few - > the few that can exist at underivatized, non-enhanced, FID-detectible levels > in living human subjects. Apples and oranges again. When the possibilities > are limited, known and understood, and have proven to be resolvable, > chromatography can and does positively identify analytes. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Parsons" > To: > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 6:08 PM > Subject: RE: GC in BAC > > > Fred, > > When the possibilities of identity are so limited (as you acknowledge), and > when the analysis is proven to be able to distinguish between all of those > possible substances, then GC/FID can and does "identify" ethanol and those > other substances - not out of all the possible substances in existence, but > out of all the substances that could possibly be found at these levels in > the specific sample matrix being analyzed. That's the crux of the matter - > the sample matrix must be considered, and when it is, the possibilities > become vanishing small, forming a small subset of the much larger set of all > existing substances. The analysis need only distinguish among the members > of that analytical subset to be definitive. Under these conditions with > regard to blood from a living subject, GC analysis is factually an > identification and is completely reliable in that regard. Think of it this > way Fred - we know that chemical spot/color tests are mere screening tools > that don't prove anyth! > ing beyond narrowing the possibilities, right? Everyone knows and agrees > they can't "identify" a drug all by themselves. BUT - what if you were > analyzing a white powder, and for some reason the ONLY possible things it > could be were either pure cocaine, pure sodium chloride, pure dextrose, or > pure heroin (i.e., you knew for a fact it has to be one of those four > things, so those were the only things you had to differentiate), then a > simple cobalt thiocyanate spot test would in this limited instance be a > definitive, conclusive identification of cocaine, because among those four > possibilities only cocaine can yield a positive reaction to that reagent. > In any identification, knowledge of the sample matrix and what compounds are > possible within that matrix can greatly narrow the possibilities that must > be eliminated via analysis in order to arrive at a conclusive identification > (all the other possibilities already being eliminated by the nature of the > matrix). As analysts, we ! > need not always try to distinguish one compound from every other one i > compound possible considering the nature of the sample. > > BAC determination via GC/FID is conclusive when properly performed, even > with a single appropriately chosen packed column. The already extremely > small possibility of error is made an order of magnitude smaller by using > capillary columns, and exponentially smaller when using dual capillary > columns. You can postulate all the theoretical objections to > "identification" via GC you like, but the factual logic of this fact in this > application is irrefutable. More, the efficacy and reliability of > identification of ethanol via GC has been proven time and time again in > innumerable studies over the last 40 years since GC instrumentation became > widely available. Many other fields reliably use chromatography alone to > identify substances when the possibilities are similarly limited. The only > possibility for erroneous identification in these limited analytical sets > would be in the event that the sample was artificially adulterated with > something that gives the same retention times but! > could not be found in the sample absent such adulteration. In that case, > it is true that chromatography would not be able to detect the adulteration. > But finding something that would yield the same relative retention times as > ethanol on two different optimized BAC columns would be difficult, and it is > unlikely in the extreme for anyone but an analytical chemist to be able to > pull it off. Further, the possibility is negated by proper chain of custody > procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence. > > So you see, Fred, there are very good reasons why a technique that normally > would not be considered conclusive when considering the entire set of > possible chemical compounds present in the universe can become factually > conclusive when only a subset is being analyzed and the conditions under > which the subset exists are realized and considered. You saw the truth of > this with the marijuana example you cited, and I'm sure that after > consideration of what I and others have said on this topic you will see the > truth of it with regard to BAC analysis via GC/FID. It's really state of > the art, and there would be nothing gained in certainty by doing any other > types of exams. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 19:05 > To: dch@uri.edu; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: GC in BAC > > > Dennis > > I can tell you why I ask these questions. See, I am now an attorney. I > practice law in court. There are theoretical reasons why BAC with a GC/FID > system does no more than provide a retention time "consistent" with but not > proof of the presence of ethanol. I can sing that song all day long. I > know > those theoretical notes and so do all of you. Then there is a legal system > that needs to continue to move. For instance in District Court in this > county in which I practice law, I understand that marijuana is identified by > the line officer. No lab analysis. Just the officer's opinion. No one > cares about chemical spot tests or little hair-like things on the leaves. > No > one has the time to care. If they cared they would have to quit caring > about > the literally hundreds of defendants who often stretch out of the courtroom > down the hall and three quarters the way around the block waiting for their > 1 > minute of justice from overwhelmed judges, prosecutors and defense counsel. > That is a real side to this science in the courtroom. The weight of need > for > closure overwhelms the system. We strive to brace it up as well as we can. > I know that DUI cases come through the courts by the hundreds of thousands > if > not millions. So we do the least harm. I also know that GC/FID has never > in > the history of the world "identified" anything. Is what we are doing good > enough? Are we doing the least harm. Are there poor souls caught up in an > overwhelmed system whose blood has something that has the same retention > time > as ethanol. If so, how many? Does the system really work or is it simply a > patch? > > When I was at the FBI some folks at times didn't like my work for the simple > reason that "it might hurt the prosecutor's case." Folks were altering > reports they had not written without the authors' knowledge of those > alterations. Evidence was being altered. Folks were testifying beyond > their > expertise. I know why all that happened. Some of them were just trying to > reach closure in cases. But some of them were trying to advance their > careers. And were successful at it. Until they got caught. It went too > far. But that is the far end of the spectrum. This issue of BAC determined > with GC/FID isn't really out there. Good folks are rendering opinions based > not simply upon the technology but upon other data. We all know that GC/FID > does not identify ethanol. So I was wondering what other data folks were > bringing to the table to justify calling ethanol. Some good thoughts I read > on this list had to do with the origin of the sample. We aren't talking > about the 20 million other materials in the universe. We are talking about > what comes out of human blood. And what might contaminate. That narrows it > > way way down, doesn't it? We do the least harm and the most good. I see > nothing wrong with tweaking the system at times, reviewing the foundation. > Like you, I want to do the most good, be most effective. Back a while ago I > was concerned about the foundation for opinions concerning the identify of > green leafy matter based solely upon a chemical spot test and a microscopic > exam. How could that be? Sounded preposterous. At the FBI extractions and > triple quadropole mass spectrometers came into play to find and absolutely > identify THC. Well, folks on the list directed me to the scientific > literature articles that led me to realize that we don't need to shoot knats > with elephant guns, that the Duq-Lev test and a good microscope are more > than > sufficient. Who do you think does the most good, the microscopist who gets > the work out quickly or the fellow with the triple quadropole mass > spectrometer which cost $500,000 and the use of which results in a six to > twelve month backlog. I vote for the microscopist. But I have to have a > reason. And that reason comes from sound research and good data. > > In the end there is going to be some uncertainty. I want to be comfortable > with and to understand the level of that uncertainty. And to educate the > trier of fact to the significance of that uncertainty. > > And so I ask a question which you believe I know the answer to. The > technology is simple. I understand it. And its limitations. There must be > reasons why the limitations of the technology do not necessarily limit the > opinons rendered. I want to know those. > > Frederic Whitehurst, J.D., Ph.D. > Attorney at Law, Forensic Consultant > PO Box 820, Bethel, NC 27812 > 252 825 1123 > > > In a message dated 2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, dch@uri.edu > writes: > > > > Subj:Re: GC in BAC > > Date:2/27/2003 6:15:49 PM Eastern Standard Time > > From:dch@uri.edu > > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Sent from the Internet > > > > > > > > At 11:23 AM 2/27/2003 -0800, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > > >At 02:13 PM 2/27/2003 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > > >>What is the basis for assuming that ethanol is the analyte we are > > >>measuring/detecting in BAC when we use GC with FID detection? > > >>Fred Whitehurst > > > > > >Retention time. > > > > > >Pete Barnett > > > > You know this all sounds so simple, but please remember that Fred > > Whitehurst is a Ph.D. Chemist who worked many years in the FBI laboratory > > as a Chemist. > > > > I'm certain he is infinitely knowledgeable about the theory of Gas > > Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection, as well as LC, MS ECD, and > > the whole gamut of other chromatographic techniques and detectors. > > > > He has analyzed paint, plastic and explosives using these very techniques, > > so you have to wonder why Fred, with his vast knowledge of this subject > > matter, is asking such a simple question. > > > > He has to know the answers that will be given and I concur with all that > > has been said except that a confirmationary second test is generally run > on > > a second type of GC column with FID to provide additional proof that what > > we say is ethanol on the first analysis has the same properties of an > > ethanol standard on the second column...all based on retention time and > the > > ability to separate out other similar compounds like methanol, > isopropanol, > > etc. > > > > What is the reason behind the question...that's what I want to know?? > > > > Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. > > Director - RI State Crime Laboratory > > Adjunct Assistant Professor - > > BioMedical Sciences > > 220 Fogarty Hall - URI > > 41 Lower College Road > > Kingston, RI 02881-0809 > > Tel: 401-874-2893 > > Fax: 401-874-2181 > > email: dch@uri.edu > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > > From daemon Thu Mar 20 09:35:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2KEZZ503179 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.doce.ufl.edu (n128-227-156-144.xlate.ufl.edu [128.227.156.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2KEZY603173 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:35:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail.dce.ufl.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:31:45 -0500 Message-ID: <35B4DE93A240D411B4FA00A0C9D18BC5D683A6@mail.dce.ufl.edu> From: Laurie Brown To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:31:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1764 Dear Forensic Science Professionals: Earn a Certificate or MS qualification in Forensic Drug Chemistry or Serology and DNA...online! Many working professionals such as you would like to continue working and further your qualifications at the same time. The University of Florida has designed distance learning programs to meet the needs of today's forensic science professionals. The University of Florida in collaboration with the NFSTC has developed two new distance learning programs for Forensic Science Professionals; these programs are available beginning Summer 2003 (for details visit: www.forensicscience.ufl.edu): * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic DNA and Serology * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic Drug Chemistry Other programs include: Certificate Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features modules in forensic pharmacology, doping control, postmortem toxicology, expert testimony and QA/QC procedures. Master's Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features general and advanced principles of toxicology, forensic toxicology and drug metabolism, providing a strong foundation in analytical techniques, pharmacokinetics, drug elimination and toxicology. Certificate Program in Drug Chemistry: This program is structured to provide the student with a strong foundation in analytical techniques, pharmacology, forensic drug chemistry and organic synthesis. Certificate Program in Forensic DNA and Serology: The certificate program is structured to provide the student with a strong foundation in serology, DNA analysis as they relate to forensic science. For more information you may: * Visit our website: www.Forensicscience.ufl.edu * Email Dr. Kathleen Savage at: kas@nfstc.org From daemon Thu Mar 20 09:49:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2KEngl03960 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:49:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from imf56bis.bellsouth.net (mail143.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.103]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2KEnf603954 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from davelaptop ([68.18.243.185]) by imf56bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with SMTP id <20030320144450.GUUP26244.imf56bis.bellsouth.net@davelaptop> for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:44:50 -0500 Message-ID: <009e01c2eeef$e2d29080$1c7bfea9@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: References: <35B4DE93A240D411B4FA00A0C9D18BC5D683A6@mail.dce.ufl.edu> Subject: Re: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:49:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2357 These programs have been around for a while, and are well structured. I highly recommend them... Dave David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laurie Brown" To: Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS > Dear Forensic Science Professionals: > > > Earn a Certificate or MS qualification in Forensic Drug Chemistry or > Serology and DNA...online! > > Many working professionals such as you would like to continue working and > further your qualifications at the same time. The University of Florida has > designed distance learning programs to meet the needs of today's forensic > science professionals. > > The University of Florida in collaboration with the NFSTC has developed two > new distance learning programs for Forensic Science Professionals; these > programs are available beginning Summer 2003 (for details visit: > www.forensicscience.ufl.edu): > > * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic DNA and Serology > * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic Drug Chemistry > > > Other programs include: > > Certificate Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features modules in > forensic pharmacology, doping control, postmortem toxicology, expert > testimony and QA/QC procedures. > > Master's Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features general and > advanced principles of toxicology, forensic toxicology and drug metabolism, > providing a strong foundation in analytical techniques, pharmacokinetics, > drug elimination and toxicology. > > Certificate Program in Drug Chemistry: This program is structured to provide > the student with a strong foundation in analytical techniques, pharmacology, > forensic drug chemistry and organic synthesis. > > Certificate Program in Forensic DNA and Serology: The certificate program is > structured to provide the student with a strong foundation in serology, DNA > analysis as they relate to forensic science. > > For more information you may: > * Visit our website: www.Forensicscience.ufl.edu > * Email Dr. Kathleen Savage at: kas@nfstc.org > > > > > From daemon Thu Mar 20 11:43:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2KGhbH07665 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:43:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2KGha607659 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:43:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2KGhbVw006244 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:43:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (lindsaya@localhost) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2KGha2S008928 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:43:37 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: harper.uchicago.edu: lindsaya owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 10:43:36 -0600 (CST) From: lindsay sara arnold X-Sender: lindsaya@harper.uchicago.edu cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS In-Reply-To: <009e01c2eeef$e2d29080$1c7bfea9@davelaptop> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2694 I'm wondering how one learns lab techniques online... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Khey wrote: > These programs have been around for a while, and are well structured. I > highly recommend them... > > Dave > > David Khey > Graduate Assistant > Center for Studies in Criminology and Law > Department of Sociology > University of Florida > 201 Walker Hall > PO Box 115950 > Gainesville, FL 32611 > Tel: 352-392-1025 > Fax: 352-392-5065 > DKhey@ufl.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laurie Brown" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:31 AM > Subject: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS > > > > Dear Forensic Science Professionals: > > > > > > Earn a Certificate or MS qualification in Forensic Drug Chemistry or > > Serology and DNA...online! > > > > Many working professionals such as you would like to continue working and > > further your qualifications at the same time. The University of Florida > has > > designed distance learning programs to meet the needs of today's forensic > > science professionals. > > > > The University of Florida in collaboration with the NFSTC has developed > two > > new distance learning programs for Forensic Science Professionals; these > > programs are available beginning Summer 2003 (for details visit: > > www.forensicscience.ufl.edu): > > > > * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic DNA and Serology > > * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic Drug Chemistry > > > > > > Other programs include: > > > > Certificate Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features modules > in > > forensic pharmacology, doping control, postmortem toxicology, expert > > testimony and QA/QC procedures. > > > > Master's Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features general and > > advanced principles of toxicology, forensic toxicology and drug > metabolism, > > providing a strong foundation in analytical techniques, pharmacokinetics, > > drug elimination and toxicology. > > > > Certificate Program in Drug Chemistry: This program is structured to > provide > > the student with a strong foundation in analytical techniques, > pharmacology, > > forensic drug chemistry and organic synthesis. > > > > Certificate Program in Forensic DNA and Serology: The certificate program > is > > structured to provide the student with a strong foundation in serology, > DNA > > analysis as they relate to forensic science. > > > > For more information you may: > > * Visit our website: www.Forensicscience.ufl.edu > > * Email Dr. Kathleen Savage at: kas@nfstc.org > > > > > > > > > > > From daemon Thu Mar 20 12:14:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2KHEHP09136 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:14:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from flock1.newmail.ru (flock1.newmail.ru [212.48.140.157]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2KHEG609130 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 12:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27622 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2003 17:14:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dialup) (alexrb@81.20.162.118) by smtpd.newmail.ru with SMTP; 20 Mar 2003 17:14:14 -0000 Message-ID: <014701c2ef03$ed0d3000$76a21451@chel.su> From: "Alexey and Anna" To: Cc: Subject: A I D S Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 21:44:08 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="koi8-r" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2KHEHQ09136 Content-Length: 467 Dear colleagues! I have some questions for You. How long AIDS-virus can keep the activity in a corpse? In a rotten corpse? Do You know about the cases of AIDS-infection of the forensic-medical experts are known at autopsy and work with cadaver's material? Sincerely, Alex Reshetun-Belikov Forensic pathologist., Chelyabinsk region, RUSSIA --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Mar 20 20:23:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2L1NSl20574 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2L1NP620568 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 20:23:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([210.86.15.143]) by mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20030321012324.UBXC20936.mta201-rme.xtra.co.nz@mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:23:24 +1200 Received: from JAMSLAPTOP ([203.96.106.45]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20030321012323.BONM29186.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@JAMSLAPTOP> for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:23:23 +1200 From: "John McCafferty" To: Subject: RE: A I D S Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:22:29 +1200 Message-ID: <001201c2ef48$7678b0a0$603b58db@vdl.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <014701c2ef03$ed0d3000$76a21451@chel.su> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="koi8-r" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 338 Alex Not a complete answer but some data. Long lasting viability of HIV after patient's death. Lancet Vol 338 July 6 1991 p63 Is letter with 3 cases - HIV recovered in one case 11 days after death. Also has short list of other refs which I haven't read. Original How long AIDS-virus can keep the activity in a corpse? ............cut From daemon Fri Mar 21 18:13:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2LND1C16318 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:13:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2LND0616312 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:13:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:13:01 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:13:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS Thread-Index: AcLvAWPvNVFSlkfnTnC2qDKReQ9JtQABEX6A From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2LND0616313 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3783 You don't. These are graduate level programs which assume/require that you already have a Bachelor of Science degree, which will have given you basic lab instruction. The courses in each program that teach actual forensic lab analytical techniques are not taken on-line, but rather in residence ("hands-on") at the National Forensic Science Training Center, under the direct instruction and supervision of experienced forensic scientists. Comprehensive final examinations are also taken at the NFSTC. There is a B.S. in Forensic Science program under development that will presumably also require resident attendance for laboratory coursework (since that's the only way you can effectively teach lab classes), either on the U of F campus or at NFSTC. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: lindsay sara arnold [mailto:lindsaya@midway.uchicago.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:44 Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS I'm wondering how one learns lab techniques online... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Dave Khey wrote: > These programs have been around for a while, and are well structured. I > highly recommend them... > > Dave > > David Khey > Graduate Assistant > Center for Studies in Criminology and Law > Department of Sociology > University of Florida > 201 Walker Hall > PO Box 115950 > Gainesville, FL 32611 > Tel: 352-392-1025 > Fax: 352-392-5065 > DKhey@ufl.edu > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laurie Brown" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:31 AM > Subject: DISTANCE LEARNING FORENSIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS > > > > Dear Forensic Science Professionals: > > > > > > Earn a Certificate or MS qualification in Forensic Drug Chemistry or > > Serology and DNA...online! > > > > Many working professionals such as you would like to continue working and > > further your qualifications at the same time. The University of Florida > has > > designed distance learning programs to meet the needs of today's forensic > > science professionals. > > > > The University of Florida in collaboration with the NFSTC has developed > two > > new distance learning programs for Forensic Science Professionals; these > > programs are available beginning Summer 2003 (for details visit: > > www.forensicscience.ufl.edu): > > > > * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic DNA and Serology > > * MS in Pharmacy with concentration in Forensic Drug Chemistry > > > > > > Other programs include: > > > > Certificate Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features modules > in > > forensic pharmacology, doping control, postmortem toxicology, expert > > testimony and QA/QC procedures. > > > > Master's Program in Forensic Toxicology: This program features general and > > advanced principles of toxicology, forensic toxicology and drug > metabolism, > > providing a strong foundation in analytical techniques, pharmacokinetics, > > drug elimination and toxicology. > > > > Certificate Program in Drug Chemistry: This program is structured to > provide > > the student with a strong foundation in analytical techniques, > pharmacology, > > forensic drug chemistry and organic synthesis. > > > > Certificate Program in Forensic DNA and Serology: The certificate program > is > > structured to provide the student with a strong foundation in serology, > DNA > > analysis as they relate to forensic science. > > > > For more information you may: > > * Visit our website: www.Forensicscience.ufl.edu > > * Email Dr. Kathleen Savage at: kas@nfstc.org > > > > > > > > > > > From daemon Fri Mar 21 18:49:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2LNn9u17037 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2LNn7617031 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:08 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:49:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Reporting of Khat Thread-Index: AcLlsDT4X2svjQl8QSqIx2v27IsgRwBbELTg From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forens" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2LNn8617032 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 15037 Charles, >which substantially answers my question, how can the law be phrased so as >to mandate a particular form of proof. I believe the wording used in the appellate decisions I spoke of could be adopted almost verbatim into statutory law to remedy the situation. It was relatively concise, yet quite specific. >I'm of two minds about your comment: >> From a scientific standpoint, I support these judicial rulings. > > From a practical standpoint I defer to your experience and judgement. If >there is a high volume of drug offenses, then the judicial processing needs >to be reduced to being almost formulaic. Actually, it's not particularly practical at all from the lab standpoint - it forces Florida labs to do a lot more analysis than is required in some other states - but the appellate court judges felt that lab analysis was the only reliable way to prove that, for example, 28 1-gram bags of white powder actually contained 28 grams of cocaine or a cocaine mixture, as opposed to 27 bags containing 27 grams of cocaine mixture and 1 bag containing one gram of pure lactose (and no cocaine). I have to agree - how else can you prove it scientifically except to analyze all 28 bags? Proving it legally could arguably be a different matter, but here the appellate courts have held that legal proof must be based on scientific proof, and so far the state Supreme Court has refused to review these decisions, allowing them to stand as binding in the jurisdictions under the authority of the appellate courts that made the original rulings (including ours), and as non-binding precedent in the other jurisdictions of the state. My understanding is that these rulings have effectively become the Law of the Land in Florida. >Philosophically though -- and therefore scientifically -- I am dubious. I >posted earlier about the difficulty that the prosecution faces in making a >statistical proof, based for example on testing 2 bundles of a 100-bundle >shipment, and trying to persuade the trier of fact that other, untested >bundles are similar. However, I don't see why the prosecution should not be >allowed to attempt such an argument even if it is novel for the jurisdiction. That is a logical or philosophical argument, but not a scientific one. Our courts require the prosecution to prove the argument through science, but as you insinuate, they can't. Science requires data, not merely an inference, to establish a proof. In this case, identification of two bundles of a 100-bundle shipment is insufficient data to establish that all 100 bundles are khat (even by the most fanciful of statistical ploys). Simply by the product rule, one could validly argue from the frequentist approach that the odds of the two randomly chosen bundles being the ONLY bundles of khat are only 1 out of 4950 (2/100 x 1/99), and so it is unlikely that these were the only two bundles of khat; but that is very different from saying that identification of the two bundles indicates that ALL the bundles are khat. There is no scientific or statistical justification for the latter statement, as it is completely unsupported by the data. Our courts have held that the latter statement is therefore insufficient on its face to prove the charge of trafficking, and requires a summary dismissal of the charge. >Speaking just to the principle of the matter and putting aside >practicality, suppose the prosecution has eyewitnesses, confessions, >computer records, and signed criminal contracts and bills of lading, that >say that the accused had tons of contraband. That should be allowed to >constitute a proof, if the jury feels it is. That may very well be allowable in some instances, and the logic of allowing is not unsound. Where drug identification is concerned, Florida courts have generally required some kind of laboratory analysis for confirmation. What if, unknown to those who confessed, most of the shipment is counterfeit, the contracts and records were falsified in order to rip off the intended buyers, and so the actual weight of the seized contraband falls short of the statutory breakpoints? Then legally, the suspects are only guilty of the lesser offense constituted by the genuine contraband. That's why the argument you propose usually fails to pass judicial muster, and I think properly so. Unless the law for trafficking in controlled substances is amended to be like the law for simple sale of a controlled substance, i.e., that counterfeit controlled substances are treated as legally equal to the genuine article they are represented to be (the so-called "look-alike" law), a trafficking charge will not hold up. As it is, to prove the weight breakpoints have been reached for the various degrees of trafficking charges, you have to prove that there actually is genuine contraband totaling in excess of those break points. Specifically regarding bundles of khat, your argument might stand a better chance, depending on how khat is viewed by the courts (as far as I know, khat trafficking hasn't been reviewed by our appellate courts yet). If khat is judged to have a very distinctive macroscopic appearance (like marijuana), then that argument, combined with a visual examination of all 100 bundles and a lab analysis of a few, might conceivably fly here. But it might not, because our courts have repeatedly said that in most cases such an argument is inadequate without support by lab analysis. The precedent is strong, clear, and long-standing. The crux of the matter seems to be whether there is something clearly and "reliably" distinctive about the visual appearance of the evidence to give weight to an assumption that the non-analyzed items have the same content as the analyzed ones (and it really would be little more than an assumption). Hence, a bag of 100 tablets (or blister packs of 100 individually packaged tablets) all of the same size, color, shape, and markings is considered a single exhibit and only one tablet need be analyzed; while 100 bags of white powder are considered 100 separate items and each must be analyzed individually (the appellate court specifically noted this distinction in a cocaine trafficking case, rightly pointing out that there were many other white powders other than cocaine which looked very similar to cocaine powder). The one area where I found the court's logic faulty was in considering 100 capsules to be 100 separate items requiring individual analysis. Their reasoning was that capsules are not sealed - they, like bags, can be opened, emptied, and filled with a variety of different things. Yet many commercial pharmaceutical capsules today are in fact sealed, and all have manufacturer's markings that make capsules of a particular product alike in appearance - just like tablets. I don't see how encountering counterfeit capsules is any more likely than encountering counterfeit tablets is, so I think that capsules should be treated like tablets, not like plastic bags of powder. Curiously, in a subsequent decision the same appellate court ruled that crack cocaine rocks could be treated like tablets rather than like capsules or bags of powder because of their distinctive visual appearance. I find this illogical because counterfeit crack cocaine is far more common than counterfeit pharmaceutical capsules are, yet capsules must be individually analyzed. With regard to plant material, I would have to say it's considerably more equivocal. Our courts have ruled that each package of marijuana constituting the statutory weight for enhanced charges or penalties (28g, 25 lbs, 2000 lbs, 10000 lbs) must be individually analyzed in order to prove those charges; but they have _not_ said that each plant constituting the statutory number of plants for enhanced charges or penalties (300, 2000, 10000 plants) must likewise be individually analyzed. Apparently, the courts deem growing marijuana plants to be more reliably distinctive macroscopically than chopped or crushed plant matter packaged in bales, bricks, or bags. The minimum number of packages to prove the weight limits have to be analyzed individually, but the minimum number of growing plants may not have to be so long as they all look like the same plant and are randomly sampled for analysis (at least, there has been no ruling I know of saying that every plant in a growing field of marijuana must be analyzed - representative sampling seems to be good enough). Since the courts have specifically ruled that separate packages usually have to be analyzed separately, I believe they would consider a "bundle" of plants to be like a package, i.e., you have to analyze only a portion of the package/bundle, not each individual plant in the package/bundle, but you must analyze each package/bundle. So then, what about khat? I've only seen khat in casework once or twice in my entire career. I am not certain in my own mind that it is as distinctive in macroscopic appearance as marijuana is (i.e., that there are not many other plants of similar appearance), so I could not give an opinion that I felt certain all 100 bundles contained khat based on my analysis of only two. I could say that with marijuana (provided I had personally viewed the other 98 bundles of pot plants), but even then I could only state it as a belief or an inference - I could not say I had proven it scientifically (or to a reasonable degree of scientific certainly), because I would not have so proven it. If I were asked such a question under oath about 100 bundles of plant matter (of which I only analyzed two), I think my strongest response would be "The other 98 looked just like marijuana (or khat) to me, and I am convinced in my own mind that they all were marijuana (or khat) but I can't say for certain that they all actually were marijuana (or khat) because I didn't analyze the rest - I only analyzed two." Would you make a stronger statement? If so, how would you justify it? What would you base it on? Attorneys in an adversarial system are sometimes allowed to postulate many things without necessarily backing them up with proof (at least not with scientific proof), and the jury must decide which of these hypotheses to believe. Whether or not the attorneys are allowed to present unproven hypotheses to the jury is rightly for the courts to decide, I agree, and I think that will depend on whether there is any other non-scientific evidence in support of them. However, I don't feel expert witnesses have (or should have) the luxury of doing that. I don't think forensic scientists should be in the business of stating their "beliefs" about evidence, only their justifiable conclusions based on analysis. We should be presenting the jury only with scientifically established facts and our interpretation of those facts (based on analytical results, not supposition), keeping our unproven beliefs to ourselves, so that the jury may impartially weigh those facts against the competing theories offered by attorneys and then choose between them. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 15:24 To: Robert Parsons Cc: Forens Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat Robert, At 06:18 PM 3/7/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >What constitutes proof of the weight levels specified is for the most part >not codified in our statutes. This has instead been defined by case law >(i.e., precedent set by judicial rulings). It is those rulings >(especially those handed down by the Florida Supreme Court) which have >mandated the sampling procedures we must follow: e.g., to support a charge >of trafficking in cocaine, we must analyze enough individual bags of >cocaine to total more than 28 grams net weight of the drug; so if each bag >has only two grams of powder in it, then we must analyze at least 15 bags >(2 x 15 = 30g) to justify a charge of "trafficking in cocaine." I'm of two minds about your comment: > From a scientific standpoint, I support these judicial rulings. From a practical standpoint I defer to your experience and judgement. If there is a high volume of drug offenses, then the judicial processing needs to be reduced to being almost formulaic. Philosophically though -- and therefore scientifically -- I am dubious. I posted earlier about the difficulty that the prosecution faces in making a statistical proof, based for example on testing 2 bundles of a 100-bundle shipment, and trying to persuade the trier of fact that other, untested bundles are similar. However, I don't see why the prosecution should not be allowed to attempt such an argument even if it is novel for the jurisdiction. Speaking just to the principle of the matter and putting aside practicality, suppose the prosecution has eyewitnesses, confessions, computer records, and signed criminal contracts and bills of lading, that say that the accused had tons of contraband. That should be allowed to constitute a proof, if the jury feels it is. >I'm unclear as to how your analogy using Sharia's definition of rape would >apply. Perhaps you could elaborate? It pertains particularly to my last hypothetical above. To prove rape under Sharia law, a woman must produce four male witnesses. This has been mentioned in the news lately, a few cases in Nigeria and elsewhere where women were nearly stoned as adulteresses because they couldn't give satisfactory proof that really they were raped. To be fair, I suppose the rendition of the rule as I've cited it may be slanted; no doubt the news reporting was by people unsympathetic rather than sympathetic to Muslim fundamentalism. Be that as it may, the rule as stated is what I referred to. It suggests the principle that the law should not insist on a particular form of proof. Charles >From: Charles Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] >Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 21:22 >To: Robert Parsons >Cc: Forens >Subject: RE: Reporting of Khat > > >At 06:08 PM 2/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: > >In Florida, to satisfy the law with regard to charges or penalties based > >on specific weights or numbers of exhibits, we must prove that we have > >ANALYZED and identified that weight or number of items as controlled > >substances. > >Bob, > >I am curious as to how the law is framed. Is it a felony to possess X >quantity of a certain drug only if the prosecution proves it in a >particular way, but not a felony if the prosecution manages in some other >way to prove it to the jury's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt? I can >believe you if you tell me that is the case (we are told that Sharia's >definition of rape works that way), but the principle seems wrong to me. >Such a law would be at least part way to the philosophy that is the >standard credo of the dishonest: an act is not wrong by itself; it's only >wrong if you get caught. > >Charles From daemon Fri Mar 21 19:53:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2M0rrT18368 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:53:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2M0ro618362 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:53:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:53:52 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: GC in BAC X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:53:50 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC Thread-Index: AcLtsNawZnrApE2IR3Wwo0i3ctqdXgCWoawQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2M0rrU18368 Content-Length: 6238 Fred, There are no differences in practice, only in theory. I don't agree that a second column is necessary -- on the contrary, I think it is overkill -- but there is a definite trend in BAC analysis toward adding a second column for confirmation. Why? Simply to avoid a lot of spurious arguments in court, and because it's an easy thing to add if you're doing headspace GC with capillary columns. There's little reason not to do it, but it isn't necessary. If you search the literature, you'll find there is only one compound that has been demonstrated to co-elute with ethanol on the classic BAC columns that could conceivably be found in the blood at levels that could significantly influence an ethanol quantification: namely, acetonitrile. Acetonitrile was shown to co-elute, incompletely resolve, or elute very close to ethanol (depending on specific column and operational parameters used) on several columns commonly used for blood gas analysis, including those most often used for BAC analysis; or at least sufficiently so as to raise a reasonable possibility of mistaken identification. However, acetonitrile (also known as methyl cyanide) is extremely toxic, and is not going to be found in the blood of a living subject at detectible levels in systems optimized for ethanol identification. Therefore, while it is a valid concern in post-mortem toxicology (i.e., you could mistake a case of acetonitrile poisoning for ethanol intoxication), it is not a concern in ante-mortem toxicology for DWI/DUI charges. However, defense attorneys predictably seized upon these research reports in order to attack single column BAC analysis in DWI cases. It's a smoke screen, but juries don't know that. A good alcohol toxicologist can easily explain this on the stand, but once an attorney plants the seed of doubt (no matter how ludicrous), some juries will buy it because they don't know any better - especially if the defense puts on a so-called "expert" of their own who fans this smoke in their faces. The jury then has two opposing expe to believe. To many labs, it seems prudent to defuse the whole situation and avoid the possibility of the jury being bamboozled by simply adding a second column to the analytical scheme. That's why we did it here, even though the argument never came up locally. For most of my 21 years of experience in performing BAC analysis I used a single packed column, and to this day I have no reservation about it because I've seen the research and I KNOW that there are no reasonable chances of error in identification or quantitation. When used in a properly designed method and with properly functioning instrumentation, a single, ordinary, old-fashioned packed BAC column (e.g., a 6-ft glass or steel Carbowax 1500 on 80/100 Carbopack C) will conclusively identify ethanol in an ante-mortem sample without any chance of error. But not long ago, increasing caseload pressures caused us to replace our "old reliable" manual injection method in favor of an automated headspace system. It is no more specific or reliable for BAC than our old method and instrumentation was, but it is far more efficient, saving us tremendous amounts of time and labor. Since we were going to automated headspace anyway, and had the money to buy the new equipment, it was a simple thing to add a second column and detector and start doing split-sample, dual-column analysis. After initial purchase and set up, it takes no more time or resources to do dual column analysis than it would have to continue with single column analysis, so we said "why not?" Any time you can add another layer of QA/QC without adversely impacting operations, you should do so. So we did. Our state lab system had gone to dual column analysis some time earlier for the same reasons (defuse the bogus co-elution argument, at little additional expense or effort), so if we hadn't followed suit it would have only been a matter of time before some shyster attorney tried to use the state's decision to go to dual columns to falsely insinuate that our own methods were less than up to snuff. We knew dual columns are unnecessary just as the state labs knew it, but we agreed with their reasoning - why fight bogus arguments when you can easily eliminate them? It was the sens again, a little extra QA/QC at little or no cost is a good thing even if it isn't really necessary. To JT: You raised some good issues, and I'll try to find the time next week to respond to your thoughtful post. This has been a good discussion, but for now, I'm calling it a week. Happy weekend, all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 19:45 To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Bob and JT Excellent points below. Leave me wondering, Bob, you mention the second BAC column which indeed seems necessary. How many labs rely on only one column and if so then why need the second for confirmation? I remember folks on the list noting that some labs only use one GC column. Do you have a protocol that is available to the public? I would be curious to compare protocols in order to address why the differences. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: Subj:RE: GC in BAC Date:3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time From: rparsons@ircc.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent from the Internet JT, You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: will pass through a BAC column will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for quantitation will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for confirmation are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC quantitation would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Mar 21 23:51:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2M4pcu21408 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2M4pc621402 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:51:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.161.1d8c337f (4568) for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:51:34 -0500 (EST) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Message-ID: <161.1d8c337f.2bad45d5@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 23:51:33 EST Subject: Re: Arcadia University? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 501 Yes, I have. Arcadia University was formerly Beaver College, located in the northern part of Philadelphia. The MSFS program is to begin in the fall of 2003, so it has not actually launched yet. The program is partnered with National Medical Services, specifically, the Criminalistics Department, who will provide internships and lecturers to guide students in this constantly-changing field. I would be one of those lecturers. Arthur W. Young Forensic Biologist National Medical Services From daemon Sat Mar 22 11:36:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2MGaiD01917 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:36:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.185]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2MGah601911 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ppp-66-139-43-126.dsl.tulsok.swbell.net (HELO price) (ultrastructure@sbcglobal.net@66.139.43.126 with login) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 16:36:42 -0000 Message-ID: <017c01c2f090$c69eadc0$6501a8c0@price> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: "Robert Parsons" , References: Subject: Re: GC in BAC Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:33:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8556 Bob & Fred: The problem I always have is with scientists who "know" things based on the literature and are too positive about their results. Perhaps an example will show this is not always true: For many years the scientific and medical community KNEW all about peptic ulcer disease, literally thousands of publications were produced, millions and millions of dollars in research grants were funded on exploring the dimensions of this KNOWN cause. Millions of dollars were spend on the KNOWN treatment. A specialty of medicine made a good percentage of its income performing KNOWN cures. There would be no doubt but that Daubert and progeny would be satisfied in producing expert testimony. I have few good examples from chemistry because admittedly chemistry has not been my area of expertise. However, I have seen enough to know our court system is in greater danger not from the pseduoscience that Daubert seems to discourage but from the "science" which it allows. I admit I see far fewer EtOH results than you do but I can tell you I see far too many where the test results are negative with admitted and witnessed consumption. I also see many reported positive results with a negative history (obviously less reliable). This disturbs me greatly. Seeing these problems and then observing the lack of understanding of some of the people running these tests suggests to me they currently should not be used as they are. However, it is not only the forensic labs which have the problem with EtOH testing, I see the same thing from hospital laboratories, most of which are better staffed and more carefully tested and certified than the forensic labs. To summarize the problem let me tell you of a highly credentialed expert and the essence of his "scientific testimony": "If a EtOH blood test is positive and the subject claims to have consumed no EtOH then the subject is lying. If a EtOH blood test is negative and the subject is known to have consumed detectable quantities within the right time frame then the laboratory is wrong. " Few in EtOH testing seem to sense anything wrong with that analysis. That is a problem! JTP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:53 PM Subject: RE: GC in BAC Fred, There are no differences in practice, only in theory. I don't agree that a second column is necessary -- on the contrary, I think it is overkill -- but there is a definite trend in BAC analysis toward adding a second column for confirmation. Why? Simply to avoid a lot of spurious arguments in court, and because it's an easy thing to add if you're doing headspace GC with capillary columns. There's little reason not to do it, but it isn't necessary. If you search the literature, you'll find there is only one compound that has been demonstrated to co-elute with ethanol on the classic BAC columns that could conceivably be found in the blood at levels that could significantly influence an ethanol quantification: namely, acetonitrile. Acetonitrile was shown to co-elute, incompletely resolve, or elute very close to ethanol (depending on specific column and operational parameters used) on several columns commonly used for blood gas analysis, including those most often used fo! r BAC analysis; or at least sufficiently so as to raise a reasonable possibility of mistaken identification. However, acetonitrile (also known as methyl cyanide) is extremely toxic, and is not going to be found in the blood of a living subject at detectible levels in systems optimized for ethanol identification. Therefore, while it is a valid concern in post-mortem toxicology (i.e., you could mistake a case of acetonitrile poisoning for ethanol intoxication), it is not a concern in ante-mortem toxicology for DWI/DUI charges. However, defense attorneys predictably seized upon these research reports in order to attack single column BAC analysis in DWI cases. It's a smoke screen, but juries don't know that. A good alcohol toxicologist can easily explain this on the stand, but once an attorney plants the seed of doubt (no matter how ludicrous), some juries will buy it because they don't know any better - especially if the defense puts on a so-called "expert" of their own wh! o fans this smoke in their faces. The jury then has two opposing expe to believe. To many labs, it seems prudent to defuse the whole situation and avoid the possibility of the jury being bamboozled by simply adding a second column to the analytical scheme. That's why we did it here, even though the argument never came up locally. For most of my 21 years of experience in performing BAC analysis I used a single packed column, and to this day I have no reservation about it because I've seen the research and I KNOW that there are no reasonable chances of error in identification or quantitation. When used in a properly designed method and with properly functioning instrumentation, a single, ordinary, old-fashioned packed BAC column (e.g., a 6-ft glass or steel Carbowax 1500 on 80/100 Carbopack C) will conclusively identify ethanol in an ante-mortem sample without any chance of error. But not long ago, increasing caseload pressures caused us to replace our "old reliable" manual injection method in favor of an automated headspace system. It is no more specific or reliable for BAC than our old method and instrumentation was, but it is far more efficient, saving us tremendous amounts of time and labor. Since we were going to auto! mated headspace anyway, and had the money to buy the new equipment, it was a simple thing to add a second column and detector and start doing split-sample, dual-column analysis. After initial purchase and set up, it takes no more time or resources to do dual column analysis than it would have to continue with single column analysis, so we said "why not?" Any time you can add another layer of QA/QC without adversely impacting operations, you should do so. So we did. Our state lab system had gone to dual column analysis some time earlier for the same reasons (defuse the bogus co-elution argument, at little additional expense or effort), so if we hadn't followed suit it would have only been a matter of time before some shyster attorney tried to use the state's decision to go to dual columns to falsely insinuate that our own methods were less than up to snuff. We knew dual columns are unnecessary just as the state labs knew it, but we agreed with their reasoning - why figh! t bogus arguments when you can easily eliminate them? It was the sens again, a little extra QA/QC at little or no cost is a good thing even if it isn't really necessary. To JT: You raised some good issues, and I'll try to find the time next week to respond to your thoughtful post. This has been a good discussion, but for now, I'm calling it a week. Happy weekend, all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 19:45 To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Bob and JT Excellent points below. Leave me wondering, Bob, you mention the second BAC column which indeed seems necessary. How many labs rely on only one column and if so then why need the second for confirmation? I remember folks on the list noting that some labs only use one GC column. Do you have a protocol that is available to the public? I would be curious to compare protocols in order to address why the differences. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: Subj:RE: GC in BAC Date:3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time From: rparsons@ircc.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent from the Internet JT, You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: will pass through a BAC column will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for quantitation will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for confirmation are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC quantitation would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sun Mar 23 05:59:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2NAxxd13644 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:59:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2NAxw613638 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 05:59:58 -0500 (EST) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVbf7fsh99skw9VwflFyXHiBThF3WT2t0r/GltgzWJEoPbxehPCRw/RC8s/W7F3MGKo= Received: from pool-151-197-178-146.phil.east.verizon.net ([151.197.178.146] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 18x3Cq-00017i-00; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:00:00 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030323054423.020dd0b8@pop.rcn.com.b9> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com.b9 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:00:09 -0500 To: ADD_MED LIST Addiction Medicine , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: False Ecstacy Positives in Hair Test? Cc: drtimbranaman@ceoexpress.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2261 This site, whose position vis-a-vis testing is obvious from their name, offers a list of substances and conditions that lead to false positives for most drugs of abuse, but without specifying with what test: http://www.passyourtest.com/falsepositive.html But that doesn't answer your question - who is qualified to testify. Ron Siegel, who is quoted on that page, has an international reputation. Also, the requester might ask the members of forens@statgen.ncsu.edu for help. The question there could be which expert is closest to the court house. In any event, I am forwarding the question to that list, since it is an interesting one. I apologize for the sloppiness of the text. John French At 12:02 PM 3/22/2003, you wrote: >Can anyone on the list help me help this person with this Q? >TIA, >Dan Egli, Ph.D. >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: Tim F. Branaman, Ph.D.=20 >To: TPPR=20 >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 8:27 PM >Subject: [TPPR] Ecstacy metabolites > > >Does anyone know who might be able to authoritatively speak to the issue >of how prescribed medications would, or would not, interact to produce=20 >what might appear to be metabolites of the drug, exstacy, in hair = >analysis? >I know of nothing from my experience in the substance abuse field, nor = >my >training in psychopharm, that would suggest that this is possible or = >likely. >However, that type of opinion is not adequate for offering an = >authoritative=20 >opinion in a legal matter. At the request of a colleague of mine who is=20 >conducting a forensic evaluation, I am soliciting the name of any = >professional with=20 >the training, knowledge, and experience to offer that type of opinion. I = >would >appreciate any suggestions anyone may have or recommendations on where = >to=20 >look for such an expert. Thanks. --TFB > > > >Tim F. Branaman, Ph.D. >600 W. Campbell Road, Ste 2 >Richardson, TX 75080 >(O) 972.669.1266 (F) 972.664.0381 >email: drtimbranaman@ceoexpress.com >http://www.ProfessionalPsychologicalServices.com >Clinical and Forensic Psychology Practice Group=20 > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20 > ADVERTISEMENT > =20 > =20 > =20 > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20 From daemon Sun Mar 23 18:05:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2NN5HF23367 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:05:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2NN5G623355 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:05:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from DavidB7818@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1c1.707f687 (4426) for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:05:06 -0500 (EST) From: DavidB7818@aol.com Message-ID: <1c1.707f687.2baf97a2@aol.com> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:05:06 EST Subject: Thermal cycler printouts To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 541 We've been using a couple of PE 9600 thermal cyclers and have always printed the run events out (via serial port) to dot matrix printers. We just got some 9700's and I see the manual says that they also have serial port printer connections. My question - Has anybody come up with a way to direct the printer output to a hard drive so that an electronic file could be saved rather than a hard copy? Dave Baer --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Mar 24 09:13:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2OEDn305345 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2OEDm605339 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:13:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id r.25.363d4ce0 (4380); Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:13:44 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Message-ID: <25.363d4ce0.2bb06c97@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:13:43 EST Subject: Re: GC in BAC To: rparsons@ircc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7762 Bob I also have enjoyed this discussion. I see below that you are careful to note that the lab will come up with correct results if the analysis is conducted correctly. That may be the crux here. Of course, determining if the analysis was conducted correctly requires review of the data and documentation. Without that review counsel would not know, would have to assume that the results were correct. That is a "DUH!" for most on this list but not for attorneys, in my experience. That goes to a three part test of the forensic work product, 1.) Is the protocol acceptable? 2.) Has it been properly applied to the analyte? 3.) Is the interpretation of the data from that protocol correct? Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 3/21/2003 7:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > Subj:RE: GC in BAC > Date:3/21/2003 7:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time > From:rparsons@ircc.edu > To:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > Fred, > > There are no differences in practice, only in theory. I don't agree that a > second column is necessary -- on the contrary, I think it is overkill -- > but there is a definite trend in BAC analysis toward adding a second column > for confirmation. Why? Simply to avoid a lot of spurious arguments in > court, and because it's an easy thing to add if you're doing headspace GC > with capillary columns. There's little reason not to do it, but it isn't > necessary. If you search the literature, you'll find there is only one > compound that has been demonstrated to co-elute with ethanol on the classic > BAC columns that could conceivably be found in the blood at levels that > could significantly influence an ethanol quantification: namely, > acetonitrile. Acetonitrile was shown to co-elute, incompletely resolve, or > elute very close to ethanol (depending on specific column and operational > parameters used) on several columns commonly used for blood gas analysis, > including those most often used fo! > r BAC analysis; or at least sufficiently so as to raise a reasonable > possibility of mistaken identification. However, acetonitrile (also known > as methyl cyanide) is extremely toxic, and is not going to be found in the > blood of a living subject at detectible levels in systems optimized for > ethanol identification. Therefore, while it is a valid concern in > post-mortem toxicology (i.e., you could mistake a case of acetonitrile > poisoning for ethanol intoxication), it is not a concern in ante-mortem > toxicology for DWI/DUI charges. However, defense attorneys predictably > seized upon these research reports in order to attack single column BAC > analysis in DWI cases. It's a smoke screen, but juries don't know that. A > good alcohol toxicologist can easily explain this on the stand, but once an > attorney plants the seed of doubt (no matter how ludicrous), some juries > will buy it because they don't know any better - especially if the defense > puts on a so-called "expert" of their own wh! > o fans this smoke in their faces. The jury then has two opposing expe > to believe. To many labs, it seems prudent to defuse the whole situation > and avoid the possibility of the jury being bamboozled by simply adding a > second column to the analytical scheme. > > That's why we did it here, even though the argument never came up locally. > For most of my 21 years of experience in performing BAC analysis I used a > single packed column, and to this day I have no reservation about it > because I've seen the research and I KNOW that there are no reasonable > chances of error in identification or quantitation. When used in a > properly designed method and with properly functioning instrumentation, a > single, ordinary, old-fashioned packed BAC column (e.g., a 6-ft glass or > steel Carbowax 1500 on 80/100 Carbopack C) will conclusively identify > ethanol in an ante-mortem sample without any chance of error. But not long > ago, increasing caseload pressures caused us to replace our "old reliable" > manual injection method in favor of an automated headspace system. It is > no more specific or reliable for BAC than our old method and > instrumentation was, but it is far more efficient, saving us tremendous > amounts of time and labor. Since we were going to auto! > mated headspace anyway, and had the money to buy the new equipment, it was > a simple thing to add a second column and detector and start doing > split-sample, dual-column analysis. After initial purchase and set up, it > takes no more time or resources to do dual column analysis than it would > have to continue with single column analysis, so we said "why not?" Any > time you can add another layer of QA/QC without adversely impacting > operations, you should do so. So we did. Our state lab system had gone to > dual column analysis some time earlier for the same reasons (defuse the > bogus co-elution argument, at little additional expense or effort), so if > we hadn't followed suit it would have only been a matter of time before > some shyster attorney tried to use the state's decision to go to dual > columns to falsely insinuate that our own methods were less than up to > snuff. We knew dual columns are unnecessary just as the state labs knew > it, but we agreed with their reasoning - why figh! > t bogus arguments when you can easily eliminate them? It was the sens > again, a little extra QA/QC at little or no cost is a good thing even if it > isn't really necessary. > > To JT: You raised some good issues, and I'll try to find the time next > week to respond to your thoughtful post. This has been a good discussion, > but for now, I'm calling it a week. Happy weekend, all. > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 19:45 > To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: GC in BAC > > > Bob and JT > Excellent points below. Leave me wondering, Bob, you mention the second > BAC column which indeed seems necessary. How many labs rely on only one > column and if so then why need the second for confirmation? I remember > folks on the list noting that some labs only use one GC column. Do you > have a protocol that is available to the public? I would be curious to > compare protocols in order to address why the differences. > Fred Whitehurst > > In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rparsons@ircc.edu writes: > > > > > Subj:RE: GC in BAC > Date:3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time > From: rparsons@ircc.edu > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Sent from the Internet > > > > JT, > > You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: > > will pass through a BAC column > will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for > quantitation > will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for > confirmation > are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects > are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID > are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC > quantitation > would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels > > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon Mar 24 13:07:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2OI7Je12839 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:07:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2OI7I612833 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:07:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1ea.4f07bca (3657); Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:07:06 -0500 (EST) From: Prantoci@aol.com Message-ID: <1ea.4f07bca.2bb0a34a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:07:06 EST Subject: (no subject) To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 180 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 408 Fred, That goes to a three part test of the forensic work product, 1.) Is the protocol acceptable? 2.) Has it been properly applied to the analyte? 3.) Is the interpretation of the data from that protocol correct? Welcome Daubert and Kumo too Philip R. Antoci, MS, M.Phil., FABC --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Mar 25 09:28:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PESOn02854 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:28:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PESNk02848 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:28:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:28:23 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 505 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:08:48 +1100 (EST) From: z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: CSI - "maybe not accurate, but 'plausible'"..... (Un)fortunately, CSI is very popular in Australia too... See the Sydney Morning Herald article (link below) for more fascinating insights. Eg "Most crime labs are the red-headed step-children of law enforcement." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Rhonda Wheate From daemon Tue Mar 25 10:57:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PFvLd05412 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PFvK605406 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-209.244.111.126.dial1.seattle1.level3.net ([209.244.111.126] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18xqnW-0001XW-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:57:10 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325074854.03bae0c0@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 07:54:43 -0800 To: From: John Houde Subject: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 670 There has been a bit of discussion recently in the Calif. Assoc of Criminalists about the dearth of research papers presented at seminars. I wonder what the cause of this might be. To those of you who work in ASCLD/LAB accredited lab: Do you feel like you have less time, motivation or even authority to conduct research or develop new methods since becoming accredited? I am not going anywhere with this, I'm only trying to understand. Your comments may find themselves in a published column at some point. It you wish anonymity, please so declare. Thanks! John Houde The CACNews Official Newsletter of the California Association of Criminalists www.cacnews.org From daemon Tue Mar 25 15:25:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PKPVn11278 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com ([194.73.242.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PKPT611272 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from r1o4r8 ([81.131.44.243]) by wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com with ESMTP id <20030325202508.VYYL24354.wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com@r1o4r8> for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:25:08 +0000 From: "Tiernan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:26:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? Reply-to: tiernan@talk21.com Message-ID: <3E80BB8A.18771.228F34@localhost> In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325074854.03bae0c0@pop.business.earthlink.net> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2339 Just thought I'd contribute to this one as the thought has occurred to me also in recent times. I think in order for research to be done it needs people who are enthusiastic, innovative and aren't afraid of failure for the want of trying. They also need experience as researchers and an employer who is supportive. I can honestly say that most people entering the field aren't short on enthusiasm or innovation. Where I believe it all goes wrong is that most don't have research experience these days (I use the growth in taught postgraduate degrees and the watering down of graduate degree research programmes as an indicator) when they join the profession, and unless the organization actively promotes R&D or the person is lucky to have a mentor who is part of the old school of forensic science, that person is not likely to gain any R&D experience when they leave university. As this trend continues there are less and less people who can mentor the new trainee and less and less people higher up that value R&D in the first place. Having worked in both accredited and non-accredited labs, in my mind accreditation has played a role in this, because ultimately what it wants to do is make us all the same, even if that means that we are mediocre - at least we're all mediocre! I deem myself fortunate that I belong to an organisation that remains supportive to R&D and allows me the time to continue to do research in tandem with casework. We are, however, not ASCLD accredited. Tiernan (taught postgrad degree - lucky enough to have had a mentor from the old school!) On 25 Mar 2003, at 7:54, John Houde wrote: > There has been a bit of discussion recently in the Calif. Assoc of > Criminalists about the dearth of research papers presented at > seminars. I wonder what the cause of this might be. To those of you > who work in ASCLD/LAB accredited lab: Do you feel like you have less > time, motivation or even authority to conduct research or develop new > methods since becoming accredited? I am not going anywhere with this, > I'm only trying to understand. Your comments may find themselves in a > published column at some point. It you wish anonymity, please so > declare. Thanks! John Houde The CACNews Official Newsletter of the > California Association of Criminalists www.cacnews.org > From daemon Tue Mar 25 15:26:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PKQlD11471 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PKQkU11465 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:26:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:26:46 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["French, Tim" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 925 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Tue Mar 25 16:13:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PLDK213087 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:13:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from web41008.mail.yahoo.com (web41008.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2PLDJ613081 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:13:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030325211318.67631.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web41008.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:13:18 PST Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:13:18 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3E80BB8A.18771.228F34@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1908 --- Tiernan wrote: > > Having worked in both accredited and > non-accredited labs, in my mind > accreditation has played a role in this, > because ultimately what it wants to > do is make us all the same, even if that means > that we are mediocre - at > least we're all mediocre! To blame mediocrity on accreditation is, I think, way wide of the mark. If the lack of research skills is due to the poor quality of forensic science programs, how does accreditation have an impact. (Such programs have no accreditation at the moment.) Accreditation is decidedly not about promoting mediocrity, but it is about promoting MINIMUM standards. (All standards are minimums). I have seen poor qaulity work come out of both kinds of labs, but at least accredited labs, on paper anyway, have a mechanism to address bad work. Accreditation of agencies and institutions is common in many professions, and its general acceptance is probably not a result of a perception that it promotes mediocrity, or inhibits research. Hospitals and schools come to mind as the kind of institutions that generally cannot survive without accreditation. Private sector testing labs have generally accepted accredditation in the last 20 years, because their cusomers demand it. Accreditation simply means that the laboratory management has submitted its policies and procedures to a third party for review and comparison to a set of standards. I suggest looking somehwere else for the forces responsible for the lack of innovation. ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Mar 25 17:11:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PMBok14987 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PMBn614981 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:11:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h2PMBlbc014645; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:11:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:11:48 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: John Houde cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325074854.03bae0c0@pop.business.earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1565 On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, John Houde wrote: > From: John Houde > > There has been a bit of discussion recently in the Calif. Assoc of > Criminalists about the dearth of research papers presented at seminars. I > wonder what the cause of this might be. To those of you who work in > ASCLD/LAB accredited lab: Do you feel like you have less time, motivation > or even authority to conduct research or develop new methods since becoming > accredited? I am not going anywhere with this, I'm only trying to understand. > Your comments may find themselves in a published column at some point. It > you wish anonymity, please so declare. We have had a similar discussion in the forensic pathology community. The answer is time and money. It takes both to do research. In general, jurisdictions don't like to pay for case work, much less anything else. When a lab has to compete with parking meter maintenance in order to do its casework at a competent level, there won't be much left over for research infrastructure. To many County Commissioner-equivalents, if you have the time and resources to do research, that means you are over-staffed and over-funded. The lab certification movement is in response to the sad fact that in many jurisdictions, the County Commissioner-equivalents believed that if you had the time and resources to do the *case work* well, you were probably over-staffed and over-funded. Professional research is exactly that -- professional. As long as it's something done on the side, it will never amount to much. billo From daemon Tue Mar 25 17:17:22 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PMHM415371 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:17:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (relay2.mail.twtelecom.net [216.54.204.190]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PMHL615357 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 99707C2DC for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:17:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay2.mail.twtelecom.net [216.54.204.190]) with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 22:04:09 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Tue Mar 25 14:17:43 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:17:27 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:17:00 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from["French, Tim" ] (fwd Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2PMHL615360 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1419 Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Tue Mar 25 17:29:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PMTHs16281 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:29:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com ([194.73.242.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PMTF616275 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:29:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from r1o4r8 ([81.131.187.58]) by wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com with ESMTP id <20030325222752.YKFJ25953.wmpmta03-app.mail-store.com@r1o4r8>; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:27:52 +0000 From: "Tiernan" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, johnlentini@yahoo.com Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:27:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? Reply-to: tiernan@talk21.com Message-ID: <3E80D7BC.370.14B4A1@localhost> In-reply-to: <20030325211252.74222.qmail@web41002.mail.yahoo.com> References: <3E80BB8A.18771.228F34@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2415 Hi John, Of course, there are many, many good things that come from accreditation - and I agree with the points you have made. My own feeling is that accreditation can become such a precious thing to those in management that they would rather spend the resources on maintaining existing accredited methods than improving on them. Tiernan On 25 Mar 2003, at 13:12, John Lentini wrote: > > --- Tiernan wrote: > > > > Having worked in both accredited and > > non-accredited labs, in my mind > > accreditation has played a role in this, > > because ultimately what it wants to > > do is make us all the same, even if that means > > that we are mediocre - at > > least we're all mediocre! > > To blame mediocrity on accreditation is, I think, > way wide of the mark. If the lack of research > skills is due to the poor quality of forensic > science programs, how does accreditation have an > impact. (Such programs have no accreditation at > the moment.) > > Accreditation is decidedly not about promoting > mediocrity, but it is about promoting MINIMUM > standards. (All standards are minimums). > > I have seen poor qaulity work come out of both > kinds of labs, but at least accredited labs, on > paper anyway, have a mechanism to address bad > work. > > Accreditation of agencies and institutions is > common in many professions, and its general > acceptance is probably not a result of a > perception that it promotes mediocrity, or > inhibits research. Hospitals and schools come to > mind as the kind of institutions that generally > cannot survive without accreditation. Private > sector testing labs have generally accepted > accredditation in the last 20 years, because > their cusomers demand it. > > Accreditation simply means that the laboratory > management has submitted its policies and > procedures to a third party for review and > comparison to a set of standards. > > I suggest looking somehwere else for the forces > responsible for the lack of innovation. > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Mar 25 17:35:05 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PMZ5416783 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay1.mail.twtelecom.net (relay1.mail.twtelecom.net [207.67.10.252]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PMZ4616777 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay1.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C14D64F7116 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:35:06 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay1.mail.twtelecom.net [207.67.10.252]) with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 22:21:53 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Tue Mar 25 14:35:27 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:35:11 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:34:47 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2PMZ5616778 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2937 John, Your question does raise some issues that need to be addressed. As a laboratory that is working towards accreditation, I can say that there aren't any spare moments geared towards doing research. The current mantra is to get the casework out and get all the ducks in a row for an accreditation inspection. Binders are being filled with procedures that have been rewritten from established sources or purloined from the internet. New forms are being produced. Two crimininalists have to sit around in court for half the day so that testimony can be monitored, because the courts want the testifying criminalist available at their whim. Safety brochures are being read, staff meetings are being conducted. Bottles are being labeled. Log books are being printed, and resumes are being reviewed monthly. Then, there is case work that needs to be produced. The incoming tide never stops. Oh, there are also the monstrous discovery orders that need to be completed thanks to accreditation. Let's see - one order is requesting all the method validation manuals and supporting data, the computer reboot logs, the reagen logs, complete CDs of any digital photographs, proficiency test records, methodologies, policies, review data sheets, etcetera, etcetera. So, the DNA lab supervisor will be spending the next few dqays complying with one court order. Staff hasn't increased even though the rule of thumb indicated that resources would need to be increased 30% to accommodate and comply with accreditation requirements. I would have thought that those labs that were already accredited wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. all those required procedures would be in place, and manuals wouldn't have to be written or rewritten, but the casework hasn't diminished in the slightest; in fact it has increased and staffing won't keep place because of budget cuts, so the question is: Will labs be able to afford accreditation? If the current situation in Oregon is a barometer of things to come, I think the answer is quite obvious. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> John Houde 03/25 7:54 AM >>> There has been a bit of discussion recently in the Calif. Assoc of Criminalists about the dearth of research papers presented at seminars. I wonder what the cause of this might be. To those of you who work in ASCLD/LAB accredited lab: Do you feel like you have less time, motivation or even authority to conduct research or develop new methods since becoming accredited? I am not going anywhere with this, I'm only trying to understand. Your comments may find themselves in a published column at some point. It you wish anonymity, please so declare. Thanks! John Houde The CACNews Official Newsletter of the California Association of Criminalists www.cacnews.org From daemon Tue Mar 25 17:58:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2PMwNg17549 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (relay2.mail.twtelecom.net [216.54.204.190]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2PMwM617543 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:58:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EDFFC4BB for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:58:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay2.mail.twtelecom.net [216.54.204.190]) with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 22:45:10 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Tue Mar 25 14:57:50 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:57:34 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:57:16 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Tuesday Humor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2PMwN617544 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 839 The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes and report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the order was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement agency that had possession of the evidence what was being done with the evidence and where it was going. we were also informed that noncompliance with the court order would be met with a contempt of court citation. Does anyone have s special super secret ops criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their lab? What do they look like? Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Tue Mar 25 19:09:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2Q093T18687 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:09:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from web14703.mail.yahoo.com (web14703.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.120]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2Q091618681 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:09:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030326000901.67178.qmail@web14703.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.48.171] by web14703.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:09:01 PST Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:09:01 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: Tuesday Humor To: Greg Laskowski , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1767 We've been similarly ordered, except our instructions were simply not to inform the prosecutor's or investigators of the request, or the release. It's only happened once that I recall. There was no initial problem in complying. But an issue did come up when the prosecution asked for copies of case file materials, including records that would have made it obvious what had happened. If I recall correctly, our response was simply to say that certain materials could not be released due to instructions from the court, but not to identify those items, or the nature of the instructions in anymore detail. Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, TX --- Greg Laskowski wrote: > The other day, we received a signed court order from > defense counsel requesting us to ship some evidence > in addition to a copy of the notes and report. > There was a catch however, the person complying with > the order was not to inform any other criminalists, > or clerical staff, the prosecuting attorney, or the > original submitting law enforcement agency that had > possession of the evidence what was being done with > the evidence and where it was going. we were also > informed that noncompliance with the court order > would be met with a contempt of court citation. > Does anyone have s special super secret ops > criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their lab? What do > they look like? > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Mar 25 19:23:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2Q0NrG19197 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2Q0Nr619191 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-2ini9ls.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.38.188] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18xyht-0000wp-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 19:23:53 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030325162013.021b2070@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:22:00 -0800 To: From: John Houde Subject: CSI accuracy In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1064 Uh, OK I admit I haven't done a hair case in a while, but when I saw them doing TENSILE STRENGTH on an evidential hair, I blanched. John Houde >From: "French, Tim" >Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 > > >In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, >"We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is >obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of >it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or >equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". > >I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. >Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured >before switching the channel yet again. > > >Tim French >Criminalist II >Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department >Crime Laboratory >704-336-7750 > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > message/rfc822 >--- From daemon Tue Mar 25 23:15:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2Q4FcS22925 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2Q4Fb622919 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:15:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id 5.f5.2b2c4330 (4184); Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:15:33 -0500 (EST) From: Prantoci@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:15:33 EST Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? To: john@calicopress.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 180 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 862 In a message dated 3/25/2003 11:00:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, john@calicopress.com writes: > Do you feel like you have less time, motivation > or even authority to conduct research or develop new methods since becoming > > accredited? I am not going anywhere with this, I'm only trying to > understand. > Your comments Very many labs have never had the time to do any research. This has been historical for larger labs and heavy case without the personnel for the research. John ....... funding is everything absent case load or lost of free overtime. Philip R. Antoci, MS, M.Phil., FABC Criminalist Forensic Investigations Division Police Laboratory New York City Police Department Office 718-558-8759, Fax 718-558-8734 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 26 00:29:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2Q5TBl24357 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:29:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from la.znet.com (la.znet.com [207.167.96.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2Q5T9624351 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:29:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from Rob-Keisters-Computer.local. (lats10-219.znet.net [207.167.97.219]) by la.znet.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/le1-la) with ESMTP id h2Q5T10B004362 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:29:02 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:29:20 -0800 Subject: Re: Tuesday Humor Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) From: Rob Keister To: Forensic In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1627 Greg, We had a similar court order a few years ago in earlier DNA days. The confidentiality extended to the DA's office and Police agency. We went to the judge and asked what we were supposed to say if we were asked by them about releasing the sample to the defense. The judge said we were not to lie if asked. Later after the trial was over (there was no offer of DNA results by the defense), I told the DA that he might consider calling me periodically to ask if there had been evidence released on his cases. He did that about two or three times and then stopped. rob keister orange county sheriff department On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 02:57 PM, Greg Laskowski wrote: > The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel > requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes > and report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the > order was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the > prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement > agency that had possession of the evidence what was being done with > the evidence and where it was going. we were also informed that > noncompliance with the court order would be met with a contempt of > court citation. Does anyone have s special super secret ops > criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their lab? What do they look like? > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > You got to lose to know how to win. - Aerosmith From daemon Wed Mar 26 13:17:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2QIHAh08229 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:17:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from AD01 ([204.133.44.147]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2QIH9608223 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 13:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from CENTDOMAIN-Message_Server by AD01 with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:18:07 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:17:28 -0700 From: "LARRY Pederson" To: Subject: Kodak DCS Pro-14n digital camera Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2QIH9608224 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 773 This lab is about to purchase a digital camera for the fingerprint unit to document fingerprints in the lab only. The images will then go into MORE HITS software for enhancement, if necessary. Does anyone have a Kodak DCS Pro 14n camera being used by your fingerprint unit, or being used anywhere? This is a 14 megapixel camera that produces a 40 MB image at the highest resolution setting. It's availability has been delayed but is supposedly now shipping to customers. I'm reluctant to place an order for a ~$5000 camera without feedback. I would like to hear from anyone either testing this camera or using it for casework. My address is: lpederson@co.weld.co.us Thanks in advance for any responses. Larry Pederson Greeley/Weld Co. Forensic Lab Greeley, CO, USA From daemon Wed Mar 26 14:28:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2QJScP10402 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2QJSa610396 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:28:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from PETER (pm8-46.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.46]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h2QJSX0j007849 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:28:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200303261928.h2QJSX0j007849@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 10:52:00 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Kodak DCS Pro-14n digital camera In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2045 A couple of things I would think about: 1. What happens when the camera breaks? Can you by 2 (or more if there will be multiple users)? 2. A 40 MB file is pretty big and will require a lot of computer to handle it with any convenience. If your computer system is up to the chore, that won't be a problem, but I think it is overkill for the most part. 3. What is the on-camera storage? Can you store enough images on the camera to make it useful without being tethered to a large hard drive? 4. If the 40 MB files are what you anticipate routinely using, have you considered how to store all that data? 5. Do you really need a 14 Mpxl camera? I have a 3 Mpxl camera which takes pretty good images, and does not have a very good close-up facility. The image sizes I usually work with are JPEG images around 800 kB. There may be some good arguments for a 14 Mpxl, $5000 camera to take pictures of fingerprints, and I would like to hear them. But I am not convinced that something that costs a tenth that price is not entirely suitable. Pete Barnett At 11:17 AM 3/26/2003 -0700, LARRY Pederson wrote: >This lab is about to purchase a digital camera for the fingerprint unit to document fingerprints in the lab only. The images will then go into MORE HITS software for enhancement, if necessary. > >Does anyone have a Kodak DCS Pro 14n camera being used by your fingerprint unit, or being used anywhere? This is a 14 megapixel camera that produces a 40 MB image at the highest resolution setting. It's availability has been delayed but is supposedly now shipping to customers. I'm reluctant to place an order for a ~$5000 camera without feedback. > >I would like to hear from anyone either testing this camera or using it for casework. My address is: >lpederson@co.weld.co.us > >Thanks in advance for any responses. >Larry Pederson >Greeley/Weld Co. Forensic Lab >Greeley, CO, USA > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Wed Mar 26 20:00:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R10Q317612 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (bay4-dav59.bay4.hotmail.com [65.54.171.89]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R10P617606 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:00:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 17:00:25 -0800 Received: from 65.101.42.187 by bay4-dav59.bay4.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:00:25 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [65.101.42.187] X-Originating-Email: [pennycrazy@msn.com] From: "Alyssa Deinhart" To: "Forensic Science List" Subject: Forensic Programs Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:02:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2003 01:00:25.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[40717240:01C2F3FC] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2R10Q417612 Content-Length: 566 I am in the process of selecting schools I wish to attend and I was curious about a couple. There is a Master of Forensic Sciences at National University in CA & a Master of Science in Forensic Science at UC Davis If anyone has any information about either one of these programs concerning their credibility and whether or not either one would be a good prospect for me to check out, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Alyssa --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 26 22:08:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R386319548 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:08:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R385619542 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:08:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.4a.1a574d00 (3874) for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:07:55 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Message-ID: <4a.1a574d00.2bb3c50b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:07:55 EST Subject: Goodbye to an American patriot To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10632 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 344 I was at times pro, other times con, his positions, but whether I agreed or disagreed with him there is no doubt that a great American died today. My respect to the memory of Pat Moynihan and condolences to his family. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Mar 26 22:42:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R3gVV20214 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:42:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao07.cox.net (fed1mtao07.cox.net [68.6.19.124]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R3gU620208 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:42:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from fyreatr ([68.5.10.163]) by fed1mtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20030327034229.XRFS1451.fed1mtao07.cox.net@fyreatr> for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 22:42:29 -0500 Message-ID: <00c201c2f412$e35173f0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> From: "Donna Brandelli" To: References: <3E80BB8A.18771.228F34@localhost> <3E80D7BC.370.14B4A1@localhost> Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:42:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4239 John, I have to agree. Our already short staffed lab has taken people away from the pending work load just to make sure the manuals are written a specific way. Our section has personally increased their backlog to 1200 cases waiting to be processed. That is in just one area of our section. The manuals are constantly changing and so is the additional paperwork. It has gotten to the point where we are literally spending more time on documentation and report writing than we are on casework. We have had to prioritize our cases simply on the basis of who needs it the fastest. We are spending much needed money on overtime, trying to play catch up. We are like people frantically running from one hole in the damn to the other...and our temporary plugs keep leaking. Then there is the documenation for failing to meet the stadards. Then documentation behind that if you fail to fix the standards in a particular time. Not all of these standards are "essential" by ASCLD standards. We are an ASCLD accredited lab. But it seems like management is forcing staff to spend more time on paperwork, simply so they can put that all important "ASCLD accredited lab" on letterheads and what not. I understand their are minimum standards. But when does this ASCLD documentation go overboard? We are a facility highly regarded for our work, but it seems we are turning more and more into a bureacracy more interested in paperwork than in casework and helping the community we serve. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tiernan" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? > Hi John, > Of course, there are many, many good things that come from accreditation - > and I agree with the points you have made. > > My own feeling is that accreditation can become such a precious thing to > those in management that they would rather spend the resources on > maintaining existing accredited methods than improving on them. > > Tiernan > On 25 Mar 2003, at 13:12, John Lentini wrote: > > > > > --- Tiernan wrote: > > > > > > Having worked in both accredited and > > > non-accredited labs, in my mind > > > accreditation has played a role in this, > > > because ultimately what it wants to > > > do is make us all the same, even if that means > > > that we are mediocre - at > > > least we're all mediocre! > > > > To blame mediocrity on accreditation is, I think, > > way wide of the mark. If the lack of research > > skills is due to the poor quality of forensic > > science programs, how does accreditation have an > > impact. (Such programs have no accreditation at > > the moment.) > > > > Accreditation is decidedly not about promoting > > mediocrity, but it is about promoting MINIMUM > > standards. (All standards are minimums). > > > > I have seen poor qaulity work come out of both > > kinds of labs, but at least accredited labs, on > > paper anyway, have a mechanism to address bad > > work. > > > > Accreditation of agencies and institutions is > > common in many professions, and its general > > acceptance is probably not a result of a > > perception that it promotes mediocrity, or > > inhibits research. Hospitals and schools come to > > mind as the kind of institutions that generally > > cannot survive without accreditation. Private > > sector testing labs have generally accepted > > accredditation in the last 20 years, because > > their cusomers demand it. > > > > Accreditation simply means that the laboratory > > management has submitted its policies and > > procedures to a third party for review and > > comparison to a set of standards. > > > > I suggest looking somehwere else for the forces > > responsible for the lack of innovation. > > > > ===== > > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > > Certified Fire Investigator > > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > From daemon Wed Mar 26 23:02:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R42g420800 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from grunt6.ihug.co.nz (grunt6.ihug.co.nz [203.109.254.46]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R42d620794 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from p41-max6.wlg.ihug.co.nz (johnalex) [203.173.231.105] by grunt6.ihug.co.nz with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18yOb6-00070x-00; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:02:36 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20030327160030.007d94f0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: jturner@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:00:30 +1200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: john turner Subject: Re: Kodak DCS Pro-14n digital camera In-Reply-To: <200303261928.h2QJSX0j007849@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3644 I think Peter makes a few valid points - particularly with storage of images etc. I answered direct to Larry but thought I'd post my comments here as well....... Just a small comment that may not help that much. We use a Fuji S1 - however we don't bother with the 6MP images (TIFF file) as it ends up being too big. This is a 3000 x 2000 uncompressed image. We find for most images a 3000 x 2000 JPEG at FINE QUALITY setting (about a 2MB image) is plenty, and even that is over kill for your average latent. Don't get me wrong we may want the full 6MP TIFF image at some stage for fine 3rd level detail but when Fuji bought out the S2 with 12MP resolution shortly after we bought the S1 I wasn't that concerned. I'm sure you'll find the Kodak is excellent (I prefer Fuji, Nikon or Canon myself - but can't really justify why) but I think you'll find 40MB images a little combersome to deal with. Good luck anyway. We're really enjoying using the Fuji we have and the Nikon 995 we also have is excellent for scene work. One last thing - shipping was delayed on our Fuji S1 (out of stock or something) so we got one from Australia. Shortly there after the S2 was released. Is this delay for a similar reason? Probably not... but it is amazing how quickly technology is progressing. When we started shopping for a camera I was impressed with 3.1MP resolution and now we're talking 12+. Canon have just brought out a nice CMOS based one. John Turner - Senior Fingerprint officer Wellington - NZ At 10:52 AM 3/26/03 -0800, you wrote: >A couple of things I would think about: > >1. What happens when the camera breaks? Can you by 2 (or more if there >will be multiple users)? >2. A 40 MB file is pretty big and will require a lot of computer to handle >it with any convenience. If your computer system is up to the chore, that >won't be a problem, but I think it is overkill for the most part. >3. What is the on-camera storage? Can you store enough images on the >camera to make it useful without being tethered to a large hard drive? >4. If the 40 MB files are what you anticipate routinely using, have you >considered how to store all that data? >5. Do you really need a 14 Mpxl camera? I have a 3 Mpxl camera which takes >pretty good images, and does not have a very good close-up facility. The >image sizes I usually work with are JPEG images around 800 kB. > >There may be some good arguments for a 14 Mpxl, $5000 camera to take >pictures of fingerprints, and I would like to hear them. But I am not >convinced that something that costs a tenth that price is not entirely >suitable. > >Pete Barnett > >At 11:17 AM 3/26/2003 -0700, LARRY Pederson wrote: >>This lab is about to purchase a digital camera for the fingerprint unit to >document fingerprints in the lab only. The images will then go into MORE >HITS software for enhancement, if necessary. >> >>Does anyone have a Kodak DCS Pro 14n camera being used by your fingerprint >unit, or being used anywhere? This is a 14 megapixel camera that produces a >40 MB image at the highest resolution setting. It's availability has been >delayed but is supposedly now shipping to customers. I'm reluctant to place >an order for a ~$5000 camera without feedback. >> >>I would like to hear from anyone either testing this camera or using it >for casework. My address is: >>lpederson@co.weld.co.us >> >>Thanks in advance for any responses. >>Larry Pederson >>Greeley/Weld Co. Forensic Lab >>Greeley, CO, USA >> >Peter D. Barnett >Forensic Science Associates >Richmond CA >510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com >http://www.fsalab.com > > > From daemon Thu Mar 27 02:00:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R70Qf23538 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:00:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost.uark.edu (mail.uark.edu [130.184.5.66]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R70P623532 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 02:00:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.uark.edu (webmail.uark.edu [130.184.5.230]) by mailhost.uark.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.04 (built Oct 21 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HCE0018OB5UP4@mailhost.uark.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:53:54 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:53:54 -0600 From: sbailes Subject: M.S. Vs Ph.D. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3E8464B5@webmail.uark.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 X-WebMail-UserId: sbailes X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00003226 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1191 Greetings list. I have a quick question regarding my current education. I am currently 1 year into a Masters program in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Arkansas. My ultimate career goal is to do DNA work in forensics. I love the lab work and my advisor is amazing. I have therefore been debating whether or not to switch into the Ph.D. program. This would allow me to extend my stay here as well as obtain a higher degree. Sounds great but in my pondering I've come across some questions. I'm afraid that a Ph.D. would over qualify me for the type of work that I want to do. I'd like to make a run up the ladder from a DNA technician to supervisor and maybe someday a director. I am open to other suggestions as to different approaches that I may not have thought of. I currently don't have any experience in a forensic lab but I do have some DNA experience outside the forensics field. I'd love to hear from some of you regarding your thought on a M.S. versus a Ph.D. in this field. I should note that at this time I'm not interested in teaching at a University, but as you can see I change my mind a lot. Thanks for your input. Shawn Bailes From daemon Thu Mar 27 03:20:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R8KQZ24719 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost.bcv2.ameritech.net (mailhost2-bcvloh.bcvloh.ameritech.net [66.73.20.44]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R8KP624713 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from D17LPS11.ameritech.net ([66.72.200.101]) by mailhost.bcv2.ameritech.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.17 201-229-119) with ESMTP id <20030327082024.ENGT17758.mailhost.bcv2.ameritech.net@D17LPS11.ameritech.net> for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:20:24 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030327031745.020188e8@mailhost.cle.ameritech.net> X-Sender: hnraaf@mailhost.cle.ameritech.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:20:04 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Heather N. Raaf, M.D." Subject: Fwd: M.S. Vs Ph.D. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1766 If you want to run a DNA lab eventually (become the director), then a Ph.D. is essential---at least in our office. Heather N. Raaf, M.D. Chief Deputy Coroner Cuyahoga County Coroner's Office Cleveland, OH >X-Originating-IP: [152.14.14.17] >X-SBCIS-MTA: [mx1-klmzmi.klmzmi.ameritech.net] >Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:53:54 -0600 >From: sbailes >Subject: M.S. Vs Ph.D. >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 >X-WebMail-UserId: sbailes >X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00003226 >Sender: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > >Greetings list. > >I have a quick question regarding my current education. I am currently 1 >year >into a Masters program in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of >Arkansas. My ultimate career goal is to do DNA work in forensics. I love >the >lab work and my advisor is amazing. I have therefore been debating >whether or >not to switch into the Ph.D. program. This would allow me to extend my stay >here as well as obtain a higher degree. Sounds great but in my pondering >I've come across some questions. I'm afraid that a Ph.D. would over qualify >me for the type of work that I want to do. I'd like to make a run up the >ladder from a DNA technician to supervisor and maybe someday a >director. I am >open to other suggestions as to different approaches that I may not have >thought of. I currently don't have any experience in a forensic lab but I do >have some DNA experience outside the forensics field. I'd love to hear from >some of you regarding your thought on a M.S. versus a Ph.D. in this field. I >should note that at this time I'm not interested in teaching at a University, >but as you can see I change my mind a lot. Thanks for your input. > >Shawn Bailes From daemon Thu Mar 27 03:28:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2R8SSV25105 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailrelay.just.fgov.be (mailrelay.just.fgov.be [193.191.208.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2R8SQ625098 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:28:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from uucp by mailrelay.just.fgov.be with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18ySkL-0004cF-00 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:28:25 +0100 Received: from sweeper.just.fgov.be(193.191.208.5), claiming to be "sweeper2.just.fgov.be" via SMTP by mailrelay.just.fgov.be, id smtpdbBmH1h; Thu Mar 27 09:28:21 2003 Received: from badbl00x.just.fgov.be (unverified) by sweeper2.just.fgov.be (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:29:56 +0100 Received: from badbl01x.just.fgov.be (BADBL01X.admin.just.fgov.be [192.32.2.126]) by badbl00x.just.fgov.be with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id H48T9TG5; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:28:22 +0100 Received: from just.fgov.be (QUASIMODO [200.0.0.98]) by badbl01x.just.fgov.be with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id H4X7V4GP; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:28:21 +0100 Message-ID: <3E83348D.2070406@just.fgov.be> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:27:41 -0800 From: Veerle Berx User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: M.S. Vs Ph.D. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 474 Shawn, I'm just a little familiar with the situation in the U.S. but in my country (Belgium) you need a PhD. to run up the ladder in the forensic lab. I do think that the same rules apply in other European countries. In fact, that's why I'm pursuing a PhD. in forensic sciences, although I'm orginally an engineer in molecular biology and biotechnology. Kind regards, Veerle Berx, Eng. Researcher, National Institute of Criminalistics and Criminology Brussels Belgium From daemon Thu Mar 27 07:53:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RCrvc28491 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:53:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from web14705.mail.yahoo.com (web14705.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.122]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2RCrt628485 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:53:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030327125356.21633.qmail@web14705.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.56.177] by web14705.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:53:56 PST Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 04:53:56 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: M.S. Vs Ph.D. To: sbailes , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3E8464B5@webmail.uark.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1928 If your goal is to run a DNA lab: 1) Get the Ph.D. 2) Do your dissertation on a topic that has some relevance to broad technical or theoretical issues in forensics or population genetics (non-human systems are fine). 3) Long before you graduate (at least 2 years) begin developing professional contacts with forensic labs so they will know of you, and keep you in mind when there are job openings. Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas --- sbailes wrote: > Greetings list. > > I have a quick question regarding my current > education. I am currently 1 year > into a Masters program in Cell and Molecular Biology > at the University of > Arkansas. My ultimate career goal is to do DNA work > in forensics. I love the > lab work and my advisor is amazing. I have > therefore been debating whether or > not to switch into the Ph.D. program. This would > allow me to extend my stay > here as well as obtain a higher degree. Sounds > great but in my pondering > I've come across some questions. I'm afraid that a > Ph.D. would over qualify > me for the type of work that I want to do. I'd like > to make a run up the > ladder from a DNA technician to supervisor and maybe > someday a director. I am > open to other suggestions as to different approaches > that I may not have > thought of. I currently don't have any experience > in a forensic lab but I do > have some DNA experience outside the forensics > field. I'd love to hear from > some of you regarding your thought on a M.S. versus > a Ph.D. in this field. I > should note that at this time I'm not interested in > teaching at a University, > but as you can see I change my mind a lot. Thanks > for your input. > > Shawn Bailes > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com From daemon Thu Mar 27 08:47:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RDl2l29936 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2RDl1Z29930 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:01 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["MacLaren, Kevin" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1395 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "MacLaren, Kevin" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Lakhkar, Bharat" Subject: Peak Resolution, Rox/Sample failure Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:45:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Recently in our laboratory we have experienced the following results on a somewhat consistent basis: Samples on recent ABI 310 CE runs have been experiencing drastic broadening of the peaks and eventual Rox/Sample failure. These symptoms seem to appear after approximately 50 - 60 injections. We have used new lots of pop4, rox, formamide, buffer and capillaries (basically all consumables have been checked). It seems that when a new capillary is installed we have perfect results for about 50 samples and then the above symptoms start to appear. The temperature has been monitored in the room and is consistent. We have had 2 ABI 310's running at the same time and experienced failure on one and not the other (same room / electrical service). I am starting to think that the capillaries are not lasting as long as advertised. The capillary lot number being used currently is MRK06B. Anyone with suggestions or feedback please let me know. Kevin MacLaren Westchester County Forensic Laboratory From daemon Thu Mar 27 08:47:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RDlGH00038 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2RDlFC00032 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:15 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["French, Tim" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1992 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:50:59 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["French, Tim" ] >From forens-owner Wed Mar 26 06:50:58 2003 Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [205.141.32.43]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2QBow628675 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by H3-EXCH3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:50:58 -0500 Message-ID: From: "French, Tim" To: "'Greg Laskowski'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE CSI Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 06:50:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Greg, I don't take it seriously...at all. The trouble is that other people do; such as jurors and even some of the police personnel that we work with. In my post, I wasn't talking about a bloodstain that was treated with anything to fluoresce. I was referring to a scene that I saw in which the characters on the show went into a room where someone had been beaten to death. The room had been painted, so they took out an ALS (appeared to be an Omnichrome) and searched the room. When they got to one wall there was an aura. Not a single color fluorescence, but a multi-color display that would put the Northern Lights to shame. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Thu Mar 27 08:47:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RDlWI00226 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2RDlWn00219 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:47:32 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike and Donna Eyring ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3764 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:10:40 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike and Donna Eyring ] >From forens-owner Tue Mar 25 22:10:39 2003 Received: from mailout.fastq.com (mailout.fastq.com [204.62.193.66]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2Q3Ad622153 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:10:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.190.249.53] (d21-osel-phx.fastq.com [216.190.249.53]) by mailout.fastq.com (8.11.6/8.11.3.FastQ-MailOut) with ESMTP id h2Q3AcV52203; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:10:38 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from microfor@sd.fastq.com) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:10:41 -0700 Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? From: Mike and Donna Eyring To: , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030325211318.67631.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" on 3/25/03 2:13 PM, John Lentini at johnlentini@yahoo.com wrote: > --- Tiernan wrote: >> Having worked in both accredited and non-accredited labs, in my mind >> accreditation has played a role in this, because ultimately what it wants to >> do is make us all the same, even if that means that we are mediocre - at least we're all mediocre! "To blame mediocrity on accreditation is, I think, way wide of the mark. If the lack of research skills is due to the poor quality of forensic science programs, how does accreditation have an impact. (Such programs have no accreditation at the moment.) > Accreditation is decidedly not about promoting mediocrity, but it is about promoting MINIMUM standards. (All standards are minimums)." > Dear John et. al.: John just said it all. " Accreditation is decidedly not about promoting > mediocrity, but it is about promoting MINIMUM standards. " I'd suggest that MINIMUM isn't even close to MEDIUM! Few labs have the time or money to do any more than meet the absolute minimum requirements necessary to receive their accreditation. This is progress? (By the way, I just went through my sixth ASCLD-LAB accreditation. So don't paint me as a spoil sport.) Labs need a certificate but please don't ever assume that the result is more than a MIMIMUM effort. It's minimum by definition. Research has taken a hit in almost all countries as they have replaced broad based forensic science development with DNA implementation and cost cutting administrations. The Home Office Research Establishment in Great Britain was one of the first to be dissolved and its formerly associated labs are now required to charge for their services and compete among one another for funds charged to agencies that use their services. Research??? You've got to be kidding. They just want a report. If you want to retain your job you won't mention the word. If you don't have the time and energy or connections to get a grant, you can't even buy a needed microscope. All the research that I've done over the last 20 years and all of the few articles, ASTM standards, SWGMAT guidelines and training materials, book chapters and training classes I've managed to put together have been on my own time. (Ask my wife Donna.) They haven't been worth so much as a mention by lab management in any monthly report, even though the lab is using the materials to pass ASCLD-LAB requirements!!! Go figure. I have a feeling I'm not alone. Mike Eyring From daemon Thu Mar 27 08:55:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RDtPF01230 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from usacil2.army.mil (usacil-acirs.army.mil [160.136.216.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2RDtJ601214 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by usacil2.forscom.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:55:47 -0500 Message-ID: <8782B20DF1F90C4FA5FF5A6787F0CA0305D6D5@usacil2.forscom.army.mil> From: "Tamburini, Ned" To: "'Peter D. Barnett'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Kodak DCS Pro-14n digital camera Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:55:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3487 Generally, I agree with the comments posted thus far. Consider, however, the minimum standards for AFIS submission. According to my research, you need at least 500 ppi (1000 ppi preferred) resolution for AFIS submission. With a 3+ megapixel camera you have approximately 2000 pixels across the horizontal field. This allows you to photograph an area 4 inches across and still meet the minimum resolution standard. If you are photographing a larger area, or not properly filling the field of view of the camera with the subject print, you may not capture enough information with a 3 megapixel camera. Also consider footwear and tire impressions. When photographing subjects this large with a 3 megapixel camera your resolution may drop to well below 200 ppi. This may not be enough to capture the minute defects required for an individualization of the impression. Obviously these are areas where film may be preferable to digital capture. At least that's our organization's policy. Edmund D. "Ned" Tamburini SA 3936, Forensic Science Coordinator US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory (USACIL) 4553 N. 2nd Street, Bldg 213B Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 Phone: 404-469-7490 Fax: 404-469-3489 Email: tamburinin@usacil-acirs.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Kodak DCS Pro-14n digital camera A couple of things I would think about: 1. What happens when the camera breaks? Can you by 2 (or more if there will be multiple users)? 2. A 40 MB file is pretty big and will require a lot of computer to handle it with any convenience. If your computer system is up to the chore, that won't be a problem, but I think it is overkill for the most part. 3. What is the on-camera storage? Can you store enough images on the camera to make it useful without being tethered to a large hard drive? 4. If the 40 MB files are what you anticipate routinely using, have you considered how to store all that data? 5. Do you really need a 14 Mpxl camera? I have a 3 Mpxl camera which takes pretty good images, and does not have a very good close-up facility. The image sizes I usually work with are JPEG images around 800 kB. There may be some good arguments for a 14 Mpxl, $5000 camera to take pictures of fingerprints, and I would like to hear them. But I am not convinced that something that costs a tenth that price is not entirely suitable. Pete Barnett At 11:17 AM 3/26/2003 -0700, LARRY Pederson wrote: >This lab is about to purchase a digital camera for the fingerprint unit to document fingerprints in the lab only. The images will then go into MORE HITS software for enhancement, if necessary. > >Does anyone have a Kodak DCS Pro 14n camera being used by your fingerprint unit, or being used anywhere? This is a 14 megapixel camera that produces a 40 MB image at the highest resolution setting. It's availability has been delayed but is supposedly now shipping to customers. I'm reluctant to place an order for a ~$5000 camera without feedback. > >I would like to hear from anyone either testing this camera or using it for casework. My address is: >lpederson@co.weld.co.us > >Thanks in advance for any responses. >Larry Pederson >Greeley/Weld Co. Forensic Lab >Greeley, CO, USA > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Thu Mar 27 10:23:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RFNgi04356 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2RFNf604350 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:22:57 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A1DE@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: M.S. Vs Ph.D. Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:18:23 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 690 Regardless of the degree level chosen (and I wouldn't disagree with those who suggest a Ph.D), join the AAFS (http://www.aafs.org). We have student memberships at reduced rates (I don't know if that includes a JFS subscription) and the meetings are a major place to both learn and network. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: sbailes [mailto:sbailes@uark.edu] Greetings list. I have a quick question regarding my current education. I am currently 1 year into a Masters program in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Arkansas. My ultimate career goal is to do DNA work in forensics. Shawn Bailes From daemon Thu Mar 27 10:43:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2RFh2H05362 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:43:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from web20513.mail.yahoo.com (web20513.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.44]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2RFh1605356 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:43:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20030327154300.49732.qmail@web20513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20513.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:43:00 PST Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:43:00 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? To: Donna Brandelli , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <00c201c2f412$e35173f0$2602a8c0@fyreatr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2955 Keep in mind that I've always agreed with the basic motivating principle of accreditation, and truly respect the changes ASCLD/LAB has taken to lend both consistency to the process (by the use of Staff Inpsectors) as well appreciate the "streamlining" of the response process. However, it should be apparant to all that sometimes the administrative beast seems to take on a life of it's own. Also, keep in mind the following are my own opinions in no way should anyone think they reflect that of my laboratory or my department . . . Our lab just completed their fifth accreditation ASCLD/LAB inspection with an excellent inspection team who did what needed to be done - point out issues that will make us improve. Their approach was very professional and their expertise in their analytical and administrative specialities made for an extremely positive process. However, I also wanted to say I'm in general agreement with a lot of what Donna Brandelli stated. Short staffing - admin assignments balanced versus critical case flow - etc. Even when a laboratory has "kept up" with the issues over the five-year window, there are numerous fixes that need to occur. However, for those who aren't aware, I'd like to forewarn folks regarding the movement by some to a combination ISO-ASCLD/LAB accreditation process. If you think the paper chase is onerous now, my understanding of some of the ISO admin dictates indicate a substantial increase in paper-flow issues. Don't get me wrong - I agree with increased inspection frequency and a number of other issues I've read, but I think there's a need to now focus on some balance. It's very important for all who work in accredited labs and are delegate members to fully examine the potential increase in admin headaches (without a commensurate increase of admin/clerical staff) and balance that with the primary focus of the accreditation process - the assurance that the work product going out the door is scientifically correct, honest, objective, and complete. My basic question is - does following AND DOCUMENTING the birth, life and death of all paper generated increase the quality of the fundamental work product? Hmmm . . . I wonder . . . Will we ever get to the point where the admin issues supercede the quality of work? Will the powers-that-be even recognize that point? I sure hope not. However, if I can be shown that the inclusion of a hybrid ISO-ASCLD/LAB procedure would benefit the public interest in terms of what crime laboratories do, then I would support it wholeheartedly. That hasn't happened yet. Lastly, do we need some type of inpspection/oversight process? Undeniably yes. If the current process can be improved, then do it. But keep in mind the principle of balance. Tom Abercrombie __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com From daemon Fri Mar 28 11:30:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SGUZ503656 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SGUXO03648 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:30:33 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: MS vs PhD? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 923 NOTE: please check your addressing: Posts should be sent to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:04:57 -0500 From: SkipnCar@aol.com To: Basten Subject: MS vs PhD? Higher education is always a plus and you can't be too qualified to work in a forensic labortory. However, in my many years as a laboratory director, I have found that many PhD's, not all but many, are more interested in research which is not routinely performed in most forensic laboratories. They are just too many cases for time for research. The change in mindset from research to laboratory benchwork has been difficult for some PhD's. That being said, go for the PhD, but try to get a summer or part time job in a forensic laboratory to see what actually happens there. Good luck! Carla Noziglia Laboratory Director, retired Tulsa Police Department From daemon Fri Mar 28 11:32:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SGW1S03780 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SGW0W03766 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:00 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: Column failure (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 905 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:10:13 -0800 From: Russell Baldwin To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Column failure I don't know if this is your issue, but we had a similar problem that was eventually traced to the deterioration of the plastic clips that are placed over the tubes in the 96 well format. The clips were being washed with bleach which caused the plastic to start flaking off. For some reason when this occurred, extreme sample degradation (flattening and rfu loss of all peaks but correct migration), would eventually occur in the samples. We replaced the damaged clips and the problem went away. Obviously, no bleach touches the clips now! Hope this helps. Russell Baldwin, Forensic Scientist III Orange County Sheriff Dept.- Forensic Science Services 320 N. Flower Santa Ana, CA 92703 Russell Baldwin From daemon Fri Mar 28 13:39:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SIdcd09728 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from troopers.state.ny.us ([161.11.133.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2SIda609712 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from NYSPGATE-Message_Server by troopers.state.ny.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:39:38 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:39:04 -0500 From: "Bradley Brown" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from["MacLaren, Kevin" >> Basten 03/27 8:47 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "MacLaren, Kevin" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Lakhkar, Bharat" Subject: Peak Resolution, Rox/Sample failure Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:45:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Recently in our laboratory we have experienced the following results on a somewhat consistent basis: Samples on recent ABI 310 CE runs have been experiencing drastic broadening of the peaks and eventual Rox/Sample failure. These symptoms seem to appear after approximately 50 - 60 injections. We have used new lots of pop4, rox, formamide, buffer and capillaries (basically all consumables have been checked). It seems that when a new capillary is installed we have perfect results for about 50 samples and then the above symptoms start to appear. The temperature has been monitored in the room and is consistent. We have had 2 ABI 310's running at the same time and experienced failure on one and not the other (same room / electrical service). I am starting to think that the capillaries are not lasting as long as advertised. The capillary lot number being used currently is MRK06B. Anyone with suggestions or feedback please let me know. Kevin MacLaren Westchester County Forensic Laboratory From daemon Fri Mar 28 17:40:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SMe3u26903 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:40:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SMe1626897 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:40:02 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: GC in BAC Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:40:02 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GC in BAC Thread-Index: AcLyD5gFuJoTc35YSR6yB8EUieDKVgAC4jWg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SMe3v26903 Content-Length: 8403 Fred, I agree, and no lab should ever be reticent to share their data for such a review. Subject to reasonable regulation to make such reviews supportable, labs should not only accept but actively encourage such reviews. Even though attorneys will try to twist data to make it imply things it does not, good work (and good expert testimony) will cut through the smokescreen and survive intact. BTW, I've noticed for several days now that some of my posts that have been replied to have breaks in some of the lines (separated with an exclamation point inexplicably inserted), and sometimes with text missing. These breaks did not exist when I sent the original messages. Is everybody seeing this phenomenon? Does anyone have any idea what's causing it or how to solve it? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 09:14 To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Bob I also have enjoyed this discussion. I see below that you are careful to note that the lab will come up with correct results if the analysis is conducted correctly. That may be the crux here. Of course, determining if the analysis was conducted correctly requires review of the data and documentation. Without that review counsel would not know, would have to assume that the results were correct. That is a "DUH!" for most on this list but not for attorneys, in my experience. That goes to a three part test of the forensic work product, 1.) Is the protocol acceptable? 2.) Has it been properly applied to the analyte? 3.) Is the interpretation of the data from that protocol correct? Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 3/21/2003 7:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: Subj:RE: GC in BAC Date:3/21/2003 7:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time From: rparsons@ircc.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent from the Internet Fred, There are no differences in practice, only in theory. I don't agree that a second column is necessary -- on the contrary, I think it is overkill -- but there is a definite trend in BAC analysis toward adding a second column for confirmation. Why? Simply to avoid a lot of spurious arguments in court, and because it's an easy thing to add if you're doing headspace GC with capillary columns. There's little reason not to do it, but it isn't necessary. If you search the literature, you'll find there is only one compound that has been demonstrated to co-elute with ethanol on the classic BAC columns that could conceivably be found in the blood at levels that could significantly influence an ethanol quantification: namely, acetonitrile. Acetonitrile was shown to co-elute, incompletely resolve, or elute very close to ethanol (depending on specific column and operational parameters used) on several columns commonly used for blood gas analysis, including those most often used fo! r BAC analysis; or at least sufficiently so as to raise a reasonable possibility of mistaken identification. However, acetonitrile (also known as methyl cyanide) is extremely toxic, and is not going to be found in the blood of a living subject at detectible levels in systems optimized for ethanol identification. Therefore, while it is a valid concern in post-mortem toxicology (i.e., you could mistake a case of acetonitrile poisoning for ethanol intoxication), it is not a concern in ante-mortem toxicology for DWI/DUI charges. However, defense attorneys predictably seized upon these research reports in order to attack single column BAC analysis in DWI cases. It's a smoke screen, but juries don't know that. A good alcohol toxicologist can easily explain this on the stand, but once an attorney plants the seed of doubt (no matter how ludicrous), some juries will buy it because they don't know any better - especially if the defense puts on a so-called "expert" of their own wh! o fans this smoke in their faces. The jury then has two opposing expe to believe. To many labs, it seems prudent to defuse the whole situation and avoid the possibility of the jury being bamboozled by simply adding a second column to the analytical scheme. That's why we did it here, even though the argument never came up locally. For most of my 21 years of experience in performing BAC analysis I used a single packed column, and to this day I have no reservation about it because I've seen the research and I KNOW that there are no reasonable chances of error in identification or quantitation. When used in a properly designed method and with properly functioning instrumentation, a single, ordinary, old-fashioned packed BAC column (e.g., a 6-ft glass or steel Carbowax 1500 on 80/100 Carbopack C) will conclusively identify ethanol in an ante-mortem sample without any chance of error. But not long ago, increasing caseload pressures caused us to replace our "old reliable" manual injection method in favor of an automated headspace system. It is no more specific or reliable for BAC than our old method and instrumentation was, but it is far more efficient, saving us tremendous amounts of time and labor. Since we were going to auto! mated headspace anyway, and had the money to buy the new equipment, it was a simple thing to add a second column and detector and start doing split-sample, dual-column analysis. After initial purchase and set up, it takes no more time or resources to do dual column analysis than it would have to continue with single column analysis, so we said "why not?" Any time you can add another layer of QA/QC without adversely impacting operations, you should do so. So we did. Our state lab system had gone to dual column analysis some time earlier for the same reasons (defuse the bogus co-elution argument, at little additional expense or effort), so if we hadn't followed suit it would have only been a matter of time before some shyster attorney tried to use the state's decision to go to dual columns to falsely insinuate that our own methods were less than up to snuff. We knew dual columns are unnecessary just as the state labs knew it, but we agreed with their reasoning - why figh! t bogus arguments when you can easily eliminate them? It was the sens again, a little extra QA/QC at little or no cost is a good thing even if it isn't really necessary. To JT: You raised some good issues, and I'll try to find the time next week to respond to your thoughtful post. This has been a good discussion, but for now, I'm calling it a week. Happy weekend, all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 19:45 To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GC in BAC Bob and JT Excellent points below. Leave me wondering, Bob, you mention the second BAC column which indeed seems necessary. How many labs rely on only one column and if so then why need the second for confirmation? I remember folks on the list noting that some labs only use one GC column. Do you have a protocol that is available to the public? I would be curious to compare protocols in order to address why the differences. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.edu writes: Subj:RE: GC in BAC Date:3/17/2003 5:14:01 PM Eastern Standard Time From: rparsons@ircc.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent from the Internet JT, You raise a valid concern, but ONLY IF the compounds producing these odors: will pass through a BAC column will co-elute with ethanol on the BAC column and method used for quantitation will co-elute with ethanol on the second BAC column and method used for confirmation are circulated in the blood stream of living subjects are in the living blood at levels detectible by FID are in the living blood at levels that would significantly affect BAC quantitation would not be acutely toxic (or fatal) at those levels --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Mar 28 17:42:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SMgpg27159 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:42:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SMgo627153 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:42:51 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au] (fwd) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:42:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au] (fwd) Thread-Index: AcLy2zLGEK8KYqypR3+SGPgTcyMckQACFROA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SMgo627154 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2146 At least Liz Devine (the forensic science consultant for the CSI show profiled in this story) seems to be TRYING to make the scripts true to life, but if she really meant it when she said "The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done" then she must not be watching the final product that is airing. If I were her, I couldn't state I was "proud" of that product with a straight face. Come to think of it, she never said that either. If she had, I'd have to assume her standards have been lowered by too close association with the show's writers and producers. If her job is "to ensure that the show's use of forensic technology is accurate or at least plausible," then she's failing often. She is of course not the final decision maker and she admits that she doesn't win all her arguments with the shows writers and producers, stating that "Walking the truthful line when it comes to forensic techniques and technology is difficult." Judging from what I've seen on the show, it appears to be almost impossible. I certainly give her credit for trying, but if I was overruled as often as she appears to be, I'd probably resign in disgust. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 09:28 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:08:48 +1100 (EST) From: z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: CSI - "maybe not accurate, but 'plausible'"..... (Un)fortunately, CSI is very popular in Australia too... See the Sydney Morning Herald article (link below) for more fascinating insights. Eg "Most crime labs are the red-headed step-children of law enforcement." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354543448.html Rhonda Wheate From daemon Fri Mar 28 17:48:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SMmAU27565 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SMm9627559 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:48:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:48:10 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:48:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? Thread-Index: AcLzDNJqFp2Av1MjQjalFE63E1ZOfwAFfiAg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SMmA627560 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2142 Tiernan said, inter alia: >Having worked in both accredited and non-accredited labs, in my mind >accreditation has played a role in this, because ultimately what it wants to >do is make us all the same, even if that means that we are mediocre - at >least we're all mediocre! Lab accreditation (or individual certification) doesn't seek to "make us all the same," and it certainly doesn't endorse or promote mediocrity. On the contrary, it sets minimum acceptable standards to safeguard against incompetence and poor quality product, but actively promotes going beyond those minimum levels to achieve something higher. The problem which sometimes occurs is that management settles for meeting those minimums and fails to pursue a higher level of excellence because no one is forcing the issue. Having achieved accreditation (which is a substantial accomplishment for most labs), they don't see any reason to go still farther. Meeting the minimum becomes "good enough." Well, it _shouldn't_ be good enough for any professional laboratory or individual - meeting these minimums of acceptable quality is a starting point, not an ending point. We should always be striving to go beyond what is minimally required to achieve ever higher levels of performance. Admittedly that's difficult to do when resources for anything but routine work are lacking, and labs often have difficulty meeting some of the accreditation criteria because they just don't have the required resources. Consider yourself lucky that you have any time at all to do research, because I don't know many people who do or ever did (whether they work in accredited labs or not). It's all most of us can do to keep up with caseload, and many can't even do that (backlogs being a way of life in many labs). That said, it's a truism that research trains the analytical mind and so I agree with you that research is a vital part of any science education, whether grad or undergrad, thesis or non-thesis. It's a rare luxury in service labs, however. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From daemon Fri Mar 28 17:51:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SMpqP27964 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SMpp627958 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:52 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:51:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Thread-Index: AcLzHFRfNK2B5ZOORHmr4OfixHl3CgAC1zTg From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SMpp627959 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3323 Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Fri Mar 28 18:03:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SN3kO28502 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SN3j628496 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:03:46 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Tuesday Humor Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:03:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Tuesday Humor Thread-Index: AcLzIhI8wIFRG/YkSQuL4ZX6fVR40QAB8Kbw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SN3j628497 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3366 ROFLOL! Good one, Greg. Do your courts really support such subpoenas? We get some outrageous subpoenas too, as I'm sure everyone does. As we all know, subpoenas may technically carry the authority of the courts, but no judge ever sees them (much less approves them) unless they are challenged. They are requested by attorneys and issued by the Clerk of the Court without any judicial review, so that makes them ripe for attempted abuse. That doesn't mean they have to be put up with. New attorneys especially seem to suffer from the delusion that subpoenas are an order from God. They must have slept through the part where they were taught that any court order can be challenged and need not be complied with until a judge rules on the challenge. They really hate it when witnesses know their rights and refuse to be bullied. In my state, subpoenas can be issued by attorneys without any action by the court at all (not even by the Clerk of the Court - the attorneys can draft and issue them themselves, on their own authority as officers of the court), so attorneys often ask for the moon and are sometimes amazed when they are refused. My response to the "contempt of court" threat is "Well, you can TRY, but if you haul me into court I'll simply tell my side and you'll lose because your request is unreasonable - so if you want to waste your time, knock yourself out buddy! On the other hand, if you want to be reasonable then I'll be happy to try to accommodate you. The choice is yours." The one I see the most often is when they ask for copies of copyrighted publications (like instrument manufacturers' operating manuals), and I tell them that Federal copyright law prohibits me from complying with their request - but I'll be happy to tell them where they can buy a copy for themselves from the publisher! The look on their faces is hilarious. Another interesting reaction is when I tell them the statutorily authorized charge for copying the hundreds of pages of data, SOPs, proficiency data, etc., that they've asked for. For some reason, in both cases they immediately lose interest. I wonder why? Could it have been a spurious request? Nah, they'd never make requests just to harass us, would they? ;-) Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:57 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tuesday Humor The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes and report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the order was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement agency that had possession of the evidence what was being done with the evidence and where it was going. we were also informed that noncompliance with the court order would be met with a contempt of court citation. Does anyone have s special super secret ops criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their lab? What do they look like? Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Fri Mar 28 18:06:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SN6cI28852 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:06:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.hyp.com.au (mail.hyp.com.au [203.33.34.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SN6Y628846 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from max (dialup-1-141.MelbournePwrtl1.dft.com.au [203.123.88.141]) by mail.hyp.com.au (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:11:23 +1100 Message-ID: <006e01c2f57e$f5ac7640$8d587bcb@max> From: "lynn " To: "Robert Parsons" Cc: References: Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 10:08:34 +1100 Organization: Surf Coast Secretarial MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3815 Drives you crazy doesn't it? I won't even answer or else I say, "Don't ask" when people ask me what I think of that show. Lynn ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Parsons To: Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 9:51 AM Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd | Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! | misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. | | Bob Parsons, F-ABC | Forensic Chemist | Indian River Crime Laboratory | at Indian River Community College | Ft. Pierce, FL | | | -----Original Message----- | From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] | Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 | To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu | Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member | submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd | | | Tim, | | Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. | | Gregory E. Laskowski | Supervising Criminalist | Kern County District Attorney | Forensic Science Division | e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us | office phone: (661) 868-5659 | | | >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> | ---------- Forwarded message ---------- | From: "French, Tim" | Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? | Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 | | | In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, | "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is | obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of | it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or | equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". | | I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. | Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured | before switching the channel yet again. | | | Tim French | Criminalist II | Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department | Crime Laboratory | 704-336-7750 | | | | | --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- | multipart/mixed | text/plain (text body -- kept) | message/rfc822 | --- | | From daemon Fri Mar 28 18:14:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SNEgv29432 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:14:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SNEf629426 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:14:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:14:42 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: M.S. Vs Ph.D. Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:14:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: M.S. Vs Ph.D. Thread-Index: AcL0LqNZVjq7b3l2ShKlR+g4wcHvvwARI2yQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SNEf629427 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2923 I advise you to get the highest level education you can while still a full time student. Once you enter the working world and have a home and family to worry about you will find it very difficult to go back to school later, especially in the sciences (where classes are rarely offered at night). It's impossible to become overqualified for a position in a crime lab. The better your education, the more they will want you for any given position. If a PhD is willing to work as a tech at a tech's salary, they'd be delighted to have you in that capacity, and you'd already be qualified for later promotion without having to go back to school. Just be sure you show them you're committed to staying with them until promoted. The worse thing lab managers have to worry about with new hires is that as soon as they've been trained (and the agency has invested scads of time and money in that training), they will leave for a higher paying job elsewhere. That is the only concern they might have about hiring a PhD to fill a position which only requires an A.S. For analyst positions, a B.S. is all that is usually required, but a PhD would certainly be welcomed, and I know plenty of PhDs who work side by side in the same positions with B.S. holders. A PhD gives you a competitive advantage in applying for scarce open positions, provided it is in an applicable filed of study. Just don't expect a higher starting salary, you probably won't get it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: sbailes [mailto:sbailes@uark.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 01:54 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: M.S. Vs Ph.D. Greetings list. I have a quick question regarding my current education. I am currently 1 year into a Masters program in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Arkansas. My ultimate career goal is to do DNA work in forensics. I love the lab work and my advisor is amazing. I have therefore been debating whether or not to switch into the Ph.D. program. This would allow me to extend my stay here as well as obtain a higher degree. Sounds great but in my pondering I've come across some questions. I'm afraid that a Ph.D. would over qualify me for the type of work that I want to do. I'd like to make a run up the ladder from a DNA technician to supervisor and maybe someday a director. I am open to other suggestions as to different approaches that I may not have thought of. I currently don't have any experience in a forensic lab but I do have some DNA experience outside the forensics field. I'd love to hear from some of you regarding your thought on a M.S. versus a Ph.D. in this field. I should note that at this time I'm not interested in teaching at a University, but as you can see I change my mind a lot. Thanks for your input. Shawn Bailes From daemon Fri Mar 28 18:15:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2SNFBF29585 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2SNFA629571 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F82848ED for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:15:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) with SMTP; 28 Mar 2003 23:01:42 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Fri Mar 28 15:15:33 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:15:19 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:15:06 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: RE: Tuesday Humor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2SNFA629580 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3947 Bob, The order was signed by a judge. It, however violated a section of the California Penal Code because it requires all discovery to be made through the District Attorney's Office, and it violated an amendment to the California State Constitution regarding reciprocal discovery by the prosecution. In any event, the discovery order was withdrawn. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Robert Parsons" 03/28 3:03 PM >>> ROFLOL! Good one, Greg. Do your courts really support such subpoenas? We get some outrageous subpoenas too, as I'm sure everyone does. As we all know, subpoenas may technically carry the authority of the courts, but no judge ever sees them (much less approves them) unless they are challenged. They are requested by attorneys and issued by the Clerk of the Court without any judicial review, so that makes them ripe for attempted abuse. That doesn't mean they have to be put up with. New attorneys especially seem to suffer from the delusion that subpoenas are an order from God. They must have slept through the part where they were taught that any court order can be challenged and need not be complied with until a judge rules on the challenge. They really hate it when witnesses know their rights and refuse to be bullied. In my state, subpoenas can be issued by attorneys without any action by the court at all (not even by the Clerk of the Court - the attorneys can draft and issue them themselves, ! on their own authority as officers of the court), so attorneys often ask for the moon and are sometimes amazed when they are refused. My response to the "contempt of court" threat is "Well, you can TRY, but if you haul me into court I'll simply tell my side and you'll lose because your request is unreasonable - so if you want to waste your time, knock yourself out buddy! On the other hand, if you want to be reasonable then I'll be happy to try to accommodate you. The choice is yours." The one I see the most often is when they ask for copies of copyrighted publications (like instrument manufacturers' operating manuals), and I tell them that Federal copyright law prohibits me from complying with their request - but I'll be happy to tell them where they can buy a copy for themselves from the publisher! The look on their faces is hilarious. Another interesting reaction is when I tell them the statutorily authorized charge for copying the hundreds of pages of data, SOPs, proficiency data, etc., that they've asked for. For some reason, in both cases they immediately lose interest. I wonder why? Could it have been a spurious request? Nah, they'd never make requests just to harass us, would they? ;-) Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:57 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tuesday Humor The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes and report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the order was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement agency that had possession of the evidence what was being done with the evidence and where it was going. we were also informed that noncompliance with the court order would be met with a contempt of court citation. Does anyone have s special super secret ops criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their lab? What do they look like? Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Fri Mar 28 20:06:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2T16nn01951 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2T16l601945 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:06:49 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Tuesday Humor Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:06:48 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: Tuesday Humor Thread-Index: AcL1f+UeobaiBmQvQIKcVunVCEDHYwADHXCQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Greg Laskowski" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2T16n601946 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4745 Greg, Interesting. We occasionally get the incompetent judge on one of our local benches too (a consequence of having elected judicial positions - the public not always being the best "judge" of professional abilities or qualifications), but after being embarrassed a few times they soon shape up or ship out. I was surprised by the other list member who replied that he actually had to comply with an order like yours. It would never stand up to review here. Have a great weekend. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 18:15 To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Tuesday Humor Bob, The order was signed by a judge. It, however violated a section of the California Penal Code because it requires all discovery to be made through the District Attorney's Office, and it violated an amendment to the California State Constitution regarding reciprocal discovery by the prosecution. In any event, the discovery order was withdrawn. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Robert Parsons" 03/28 3:03 PM >>> ROFLOL! Good one, Greg. Do your courts really support such subpoenas? We get some outrageous subpoenas too, as I'm sure everyone does. As we all know, subpoenas may technically carry the authority of the courts, but no judge ever sees them (much less approves them) unless they are challenged. They are requested by attorneys and issued by the Clerk of the Court without any judicial review, so that makes them ripe for attempted abuse. That doesn't mean they have to be put up with. New attorneys especially seem to suffer from the delusion that subpoenas are an order from God. They must have slept through the part where they were taught that any court order can be challenged and need not be complied with until a judge rules on the challenge. They really hate it when witnesses know their rights and refuse to be bullied. In my state, subpoenas can be issued by attorneys without any action by the court at all (not even by the Clerk of the Court - the attorneys can draft and issue them themselves, ! on their own authority as officers of the court), so attorneys often ask for the moon and are sometimes amazed when they are refused. My response to the "contempt of court" threat is "Well, you can TRY, but if you haul me into court I'll simply tell my side and you'll lose because your request is unreasonable - so if you want to waste your time, knock yourself out buddy! On the other hand, if you want to be reasonable then I'll be happy to try to accommodate you. The choice is yours." The one I see the most often is when they ask for copies of copyrighted publications (like instrument manufacturers' operating manuals), and I tell them that Federal copyright law prohibits me from complying with their request - but I'll be happy to tell them where they can buy a copy for themselves from the publisher! The look on their faces is hilarious. Another interesting reaction is when I tell them the statutorily authorized charge for copying the hundreds of pages of data, SOPs, proficiency data, etc., that they've asked for. For some reason, in both cases they immediately lose interest. I wonder why? Could it have been a spurious request? Nah, they'd never make requests just to harass us, would they? ;-) Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:57 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tuesday Humor The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes and report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the order was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement agency that had possession of the evidence what was being done with the evidence and where it was going. we were also informed that noncompliance with the court order would be met with a contempt of court citation. Does anyone have s special super secret ops criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their lab? What do they look like? Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Fri Mar 28 22:01:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2T31s303772 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2T31r603766 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.154.191.93.dial1.seattle1.level3.net ([64.154.191.93] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18z6bI-0008Cb-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:01:45 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030328185639.02f76d50@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 18:59:46 -0800 To: From: John Houde Subject: Accreditation question--thanks to all In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 298 Let me say a big "Thank You" to all those who responded publicly and privately to the question, "Does Accreditation Inhibit Research?" I will be sifting through your thoughtful replies trying to discover a thread that I might be able to use in a letter to the editor of the CACNews. John Houde From daemon Sat Mar 29 01:08:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2T68l306473 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2T68j606467 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 01:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-135-237.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.135.237]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h2T687dg001694 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:08:45 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030328212421.00ab7850@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:54:53 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Tuesday Humor In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7032 We should stop and think for a moment about "discovery" as it applies to forensic science. Science is a public business and the way a scientist works is to provide the material which enables other scientists to evaluate whatever conclusions or opinions the scientist has to offer on a particular subject. The presumption under which science operates is one of openness and full disclosure. Certain exceptions are made when there are over riding reasons to do so: National security, proprietary business information, and, quite recently, concerns for privacy. Anglo-American jurisprudence, on the other hand, operates from a diametrically opposed perspective: Each contestant in the adversarial system has some rhetorical ammunition to use when the battle is joined in the courtroom. The assumption is that this ammunition is privileged, confidential, work product that goes not need to be divulged until, and unless, the shots are fired. Just as scientists have developed some rules that provide exceptions to the default of full disclosure, lawyers have developed some rules that provide exceptions to the default of privileged work product. As a forensic scientist, we should consider what science requires in the way of disclosure, and not rely on what lawyers tell us to do. We don't allow lawyers to tell us how many amplification cycles to run for our PCR reactions, what the GC run conditions should be, or what constitutes an identification when comparing two fingerprints or two fired bullets. Those are science questions that scientists have the responsibility to answer. Neither should we let the lawyers tell us what information we should supply to another scientist who wants to review our report. Forensic scientists should develop a discovery rule that can be applied to the disclosure of information from the forensic science laboratory. I believe it is quite simple: All data necessary for a scientific peer review of a forensic science report shall be available to those who would like to review that report. Pete Barnett At 08:06 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >Greg, > >Interesting. We occasionally get the incompetent judge on one of our >local benches too (a consequence of having elected judicial positions - >the public not always being the best "judge" of professional abilities or >qualifications), but after being embarrassed a few times they soon shape >up or ship out. I was surprised by the other list member who replied that >he actually had to comply with an order like yours. It would never stand >up to review here. > >Have a great weekend. > > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 18:15 >To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: RE: Tuesday Humor > > >Bob, > >The order was signed by a judge. It, however violated a section of the >California Penal Code because it requires all discovery to be made through >the District Attorney's Office, and it violated an amendment to the >California State Constitution regarding reciprocal discovery by the >prosecution. In any event, the discovery order was withdrawn. > >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> "Robert Parsons" 03/28 3:03 PM >>> >ROFLOL! Good one, Greg. > >Do your courts really support such subpoenas? We get some outrageous >subpoenas too, as I'm sure everyone does. As we all know, subpoenas may >technically carry the authority of the courts, but no judge ever sees them >(much less approves them) unless they are challenged. They are requested >by attorneys and issued by the Clerk of the Court without any judicial >review, so that makes them ripe for attempted abuse. That doesn't mean >they have to be put up with. New attorneys especially seem to suffer from >the delusion that subpoenas are an order from God. They must have slept >through the part where they were taught that any court order can be >challenged and need not be complied with until a judge rules on the >challenge. They really hate it when witnesses know their rights and >refuse to be bullied. In my state, subpoenas can be issued by attorneys >without any action by the court at all (not even by the Clerk of the Court >- the attorneys can draft and issue them themselves, ! >on their own authority as officers of the court), so attorneys often ask >for the moon and are sometimes amazed when they are refused. My response >to the "contempt of court" threat is "Well, you can TRY, but if you haul >me into court I'll simply tell my side and you'll lose because your >request is unreasonable - so if you want to waste your time, knock >yourself out buddy! On the other hand, if you want to be reasonable then >I'll be happy to try to accommodate you. The choice is yours." > >The one I see the most often is when they ask for copies of copyrighted >publications (like instrument manufacturers' operating manuals), and I >tell them that Federal copyright law prohibits me from complying with >their request - but I'll be happy to tell them where they can buy a copy >for themselves from the publisher! The look on their faces is >hilarious. Another interesting reaction is when I tell them the >statutorily authorized charge for copying the hundreds of pages of data, >SOPs, proficiency data, etc., that they've asked for. For some reason, in >both cases they immediately lose interest. I wonder why? Could it have >been a spurious request? Nah, they'd never make requests just to harass >us, would they? ;-) > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] >Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:57 >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Tuesday Humor > > >The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel >requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes and >report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the order >was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the >prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement agency >that had possession of the evidence what was being done with the evidence >and where it was going. we were also informed that noncompliance with the >court order would be met with a contempt of court citation. Does anyone >have s special super secret ops criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their >lab? What do they look like? > >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Sat Mar 29 19:31:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2U0VAO19253 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2U0V9e19247 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:31:08 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2523 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] >From forens-owner Sat Mar 29 03:06:07 2003 Received: from mailhub.datafast.net.au (mailhub.datafast.net.au [203.123.67.14]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2T866608230 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 50941 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2003 08:05:38 -0000 Received: from dialup-1-073.melbournepwrtl2.dft.com.au (HELO max) (203.123.89.73) by mailhub.datafast.net.au with SMTP; 29 Mar 2003 08:05:38 -0000 Message-ID: <007701c2f5ca$49072880$49597bcb@max> From: "lynn" To: Subject: Can I have some help please? Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:07:46 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Could any of you well informed (I hate the word experts because everyone = yo meet claims to be an expert on something) people out there suggest = some good reading material or sites on specific drugs. I don't mean drug = related crime, that's just the name of my course. I decided to = concentrate on one particular drug, for example opium - but it doesn't = HAVE to be opium) and follow it's progress through history, its effects = on the body, emotions and psychologically and the avenues for rehab and = whether they are successful and if so how successful. I just need a = push start to find proper reading material. And I don't want to be told = like the last young girl who asked the same thing and was told her to = basically do her own research by one miserable individual, kindly not = repeat that advice to me! I am not a the village idiot!! If there were = about 72 hours in the day, I may have time to do that but I am usually = still working at 3am and kinda like a bit of sleep every now and then! = Sorry everyone else - but the person I'm referring to knows who HE is. Thanks a bunch, guys and gals. Lynn from Australia --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Mar 29 20:52:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2U1q7A20322 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:52:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao06.cox.net (fed1mtao06.cox.net [68.6.19.125]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2U1q6620316 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:52:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from TheBreyers ([68.4.168.242]) by fed1mtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030330015203.TUVC2053.fed1mtao06.cox.net@TheBreyers>; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 20:52:03 -0500 From: "chris breyer" To: "'Robert Parsons'" , Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:51:39 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c2f65e$e832d780$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4247 On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Sun Mar 30 02:31:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2U7Vrh24464 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:31:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (bay4-dav85.bay4.hotmail.com [65.54.171.115]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2U7Vq624458 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 02:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:31:52 -0800 Received: from 65.101.42.187 by bay4-dav85.bay4.hotmail.com with DAV; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 07:31:51 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [65.101.42.187] X-Originating-Email: [pennycrazy@msn.com] From: "Alyssa Deinhart" To: "Forensic Science List" Subject: Not CSI Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:31:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN Mail 8.00.0022.3100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V8.00.0022.3100 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2003 07:31:52.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[6EA6CF90:01C2F68E] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2U7Vri24464 Content-Length: 506 Hi, Inspired by all the discussion of the program CSI, I was curious to find out what all you think about the shows involving real cases such as: Forensic Files, New Detectives, FBI Files, I Detective, The System and others of the nature. How accurate do you see those shows as? Are they remotely related to the type of work that actually occurs in the forensic field? Alyssa --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sun Mar 30 10:15:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2UFFih29346 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2UFFh629340 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net (218.new-york-28rh16rt-ny.dial-access.att.net[12.88.215.218]) by mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <20030330151541112008rlmme>; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:15:42 +0000 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:15:49 -0500 Subject: Fwd: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" To: Forens From: "E. J. Wagner" Message-Id: <7D1EC5BA-62C2-11D7-8E04-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3114 Begin forwarded message: > From: E. J. Wagner > Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:43:55 AM America/New_York > To: Basten > Cc: E. J. Wagner > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from ["lynn" ] (fwd) > > Dear Lynn from Australia, > The person to whom you rudely refer as " one miserable individual" > is well known to many of us- as a fine scientist and educator. > > That you were displeased by his response to a previous query is not an > adequate excuse for you to malign him in a public forum. While it is > legitimate to argue with his opinion, a personal attack is grossly > inappropriate. i believe you owe this list an apology. > > To get to your current question-since you have not decided on a > particular drug, I suggest you read some general stuff on the history > of drugs and poison to narrow your search.Good choices are 1.'Poison > Trail" by Boos, 1939. Hale Cushman and Flint'.2."Power of Poison" by > Glaister, Christopher Jonson, 1954.Most recently. 3.'Poison; a History > and Family Memoir", by Gail Bell, St Martins, 2002. (BTW, Bell is a > compatriot of yours). Early texts on medical jurisprudence would also > be helpful-the one that most easily comes to mind is Alfred Swaine > Taylor's manual of MJ-there are many editions. Old books are often to > be found on ABE on the net. > > Yours > EJWagner > > > > > On Saturday, March 29, 2003, at 07:31 PM, Basten wrote: > >> >> Could any of you well informed (I hate the word experts because >> everyone = >> yo meet claims to be an expert on something) people out there suggest >> = >> some good reading material or sites on specific drugs. I don't mean >> drug = >> related crime, that's just the name of my course. I decided to = >> concentrate on one particular drug, for example opium - but it >> doesn't = >> HAVE to be opium) and follow it's progress through history, its >> effects = >> on the body, emotions and psychologically and the avenues for rehab >> and = >> whether they are successful and if so how successful. I just need a = >> push start to find proper reading material. And I don't want to be >> told = >> like the last young girl who asked the same thing and was told her >> to = >> basically do her own research by one miserable individual, kindly not >> = >> repeat that advice to me! I am not a the village idiot!! If there >> were = >> about 72 hours in the day, I may have time to do that but I am >> usually = >> still working at 3am and kinda like a bit of sleep every now and >> then! = >> Sorry everyone else - but the person I'm referring to knows who HE is. >> >> Thanks a bunch, guys and gals. >> >> Lynn >> from Australia >> > - - - - > See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, > mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 > > - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Sun Mar 30 18:09:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2UN9wu06125 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.hyp.com.au (mail.hyp.com.au [203.33.34.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2UN9v606119 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from max (dialup-1-109.MelbournePwrtl2.dft.com.au [203.123.89.109]) by mail.hyp.com.au (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.2) with SMTP id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:14:49 +1000 Message-ID: <004901c2f711$c4c8e4c0$6d597bcb@max> From: "lynn " To: "E. J. Wagner" Cc: References: <7D1EC5BA-62C2-11D7-8E04-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Good grief! Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:11:59 +1000 Organization: Surf Coast Secretarial MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1384 Good grief, if you think that I insulted anybody, then I apologise if you must have an apology. I hardly think I maligned anybody and as for you saying this was a personal attack, as I don't even know the person personally, that's a ridiculous statement. I mentioned no names and hardly consider that a personal attack. Besides I wasn't the only one to disagree with that person's views - I see these personal attacks going on all the time on not only this listing but various listings and always stay out of them. And, if I intended to attack anyone with a vengeance you will definitely see the difference and I wouldn't do it on a public forum You will note that on the bottom of my email, I had written " Sorry everyone else - but the person I'm referring to knows who HE is". Now let's all lighten up - there's enough misery going in the world at the moment without starting a slanging match over one email, but if it makes you happy, I'll apologise to whomever thinks I need to - even you! Meanwhile I sincerely appreciate your help with regard to my enquiry and selection of reading material. I think I bought something through ABE once before but had totally forgotten about them. I'm still decided which drug to focus on and after visiting one of the drug and rehab centres last week, it's just made my decision even harder! Thank you for your help. Regards Lynn From daemon Sun Mar 30 20:10:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2V1A1K07713 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:10:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2V1A0607707 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.154.187.67.dial1.seattle1.level3.net ([64.154.187.67] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18znoH-0007Ef-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:10:01 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030330170606.02b04070@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:08:01 -0800 To: From: John Houde Subject: Re: Not CSI--other shows In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 701 Well, I for one use clips from "I, Detective" in my fire debris analysis lecture. It's nothing spectacular, but their comments on how evidence is destroyed during suppression is accurate and entertaining. It breaks up the monotony of my droning. John Houde At 12:31 AM 3/30/03 -0700, Alyssa Deinhart wrote: >Hi, > Inspired by all the discussion of the program CSI, I was curious to > find out what all you think about the shows involving real cases such as: >Forensic Files, New Detectives, FBI Files, I Detective, The System and >others of the nature. How accurate do you see those shows as? Are they >remotely related to the type of work that actually occurs in the forensic >field? From daemon Mon Mar 31 05:57:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VAv0I13919 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:57:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VAv0613913 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:57:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from SkipnCar@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.4c.1a80be06 (15862) for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:56:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from aol.com (mow-m22.webmail.aol.com [64.12.180.138]) by air-id06.mx.aol.com (v92.17) with ESMTP id MAILINID61-3df63e881efa80; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:56:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 05:56:58 -0500 From: SkipnCar@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forensic Photos MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <38FE97A7.0E620605.0082C61F@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1280 I am preparing a lecture for the Tanzania Police Force. This is for the forensic scientists in the TPF who have never seen a full service forensic laboratory. Many of the upper rank officers have been to the US and UK and have been in laboratories. I want to show the scientists what their new laboratory will look like. I want to show them evidence areas, equipment, fume and biological hoods, processing areas, all kinds and types of instrumentation, AFIS, NIBIN, and CODIS. If you send me photographs, slides, CDs or pictures over the internet, I will give you and your laboratory full coverage. If your picture includes a person, tell me the title of the scientist. Name is optional. This is a great opportunity to share your laboratory with scientists in a country with few resources. These scientists are very well trained and do exceptional work. The difference is that their technology is about the US 1970s level. Help me with this presentation, please. Photos from every section including crime scene, fingerprints, evidence vault, trace, drugs, toxicology, biology/DNA, questioned documents and firearms/toolmarks. And anything else I have missed. Thanks so much for doing this. Carla Noziglia Senior Forensic Manager Now in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania From daemon Mon Mar 31 08:58:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VDwgQ17509 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [205.141.32.43]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VDwe617503 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by H3-EXCH3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:58:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: "French, Tim" To: "'Alyssa Deinhart'" , Forensic Science List Subject: RE: Not CSI Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:58:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 990 >From what I have seen, the first three are accurate in as far as the case and the work done. I am not familiar with the last two shows. They don't however, accurately portray the "usual" case that we work every day. These shows are portraying the cutting edge technology, the unusual suspect, the opportunistic manner in which the suspect was caught. They also portray cases where the lab used an unusual amount of time and resources to catch a criminal. There are very few labs that have the ability to do this, and those that do are only able to do this on a very limited basis. What they show on TV is not done on a daily basis by any means. In their defense, if they were to show the mundane day-to-day casework, they would be off the air in two episodes. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Mon Mar 31 14:58:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VJwCV19869 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:58:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VJwBQ19863 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:58:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:58:11 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6835 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Mon Mar 31 14:59:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VJxBN20044 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:59:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VJxBv20038 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:59:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:59:11 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike and Donna Eyring ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4616 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:51:20 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike and Donna Eyring ] >From forens-owner Thu Mar 27 21:51:18 2003 Received: from mailout.fastq.com (mailout.fastq.com [204.62.193.66]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2S2pI620015 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from [216.190.249.76] (d44-osel-phx.fastq.com [216.190.249.76]) by mailout.fastq.com (8.11.6/8.11.3.FastQ-MailOut) with ESMTP id h2S2pFV33018; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:51:15 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from microfor@sd.fastq.com) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:50:40 -0700 Subject: Re: Does Accreditation Inhibit Research? From: Mike and Donna Eyring To: Tom Abercrombie , Donna Brandelli , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030327154300.49732.qmail@web20513.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" on 3/27/03 8:43 AM, Tom Abercrombie at jta@rocketmail.com wrote: > Keep in mind that I've always agreed with the basic > motivating principle of accreditation, and truly > respect the changes ASCLD/LAB has taken to lend both > consistency to the process (by the use of Staff > Inpsectors) as well appreciate the "streamlining" of > the response process. However, it should be apparant > to all that sometimes the administrative beast seems > to take on a life of it's own. Also, keep in mind the > following are my own opinions in no way should anyone > think they reflect that of my laboratory or my > department . . . > > Our lab just completed their fifth accreditation > ASCLD/LAB inspection with an excellent inspection team > who did what needed to be done - point out issues that > will make us improve. Their approach was very > professional and their expertise in their analytical > and administrative specialities made for an extremely > positive process. However, I also wanted to say I'm > in general agreement with a lot of what Donna > Brandelli stated. Short staffing - admin assignments > balanced versus critical case flow - etc. Even when a > laboratory has "kept up" with the issues over the > five-year window, there are numerous fixes that need > to occur. > > However, for those who aren't aware, I'd like to > forewarn folks regarding the movement by some to a > combination ISO-ASCLD/LAB accreditation process. If > you think the paper chase is onerous now, my > understanding of some of the ISO admin dictates > indicate a substantial increase in paper-flow issues. > Don't get me wrong - I agree with increased inspection > frequency and a number of other issues I've read, but > I think there's a need to now focus on some balance. > > It's very important for all who work in accredited > labs and are delegate members to fully examine the > potential increase in admin headaches (without a > commensurate increase of admin/clerical staff) and > balance that with the primary focus of the > accreditation process - the assurance that the work > product going out the door is scientifically correct, > honest, objective, and complete. > > My basic question is - does following AND DOCUMENTING > the birth, life and death of all paper generated > increase the quality of the fundamental work product? > > Hmmm . . . I wonder . . . > > Will we ever get to the point where the admin issues > supercede the quality of work? Will the > powers-that-be even recognize that point? > > I sure hope not. > > However, if I can be shown that the inclusion of a > hybrid ISO-ASCLD/LAB procedure would benefit the > public interest in terms of what crime laboratories > do, then I would support it wholeheartedly. That > hasn't happened yet. > > Lastly, do we need some type of inpspection/oversight > process? Undeniably yes. If the current process can > be improved, then do it. But keep in mind the > principle of balance. > > > Tom Abercrombie > >Dear Tom< You've just made the case again for accreditation inhibiting research. Unless I missed it (and I apologize if I did) your comments failed to mention research even once. Research is dynamic and generally unpredictable, policies seldom are. Policies tend to be reactive and driven by failure and hindsight, not foresight. Mike From daemon Mon Mar 31 15:15:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VKFB821205 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailvs1.pbso.org (fire1.pbso.org [209.149.216.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VKFA621196 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:15:10 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Disposition-Notification-To: Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:15:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Thread-Index: AcL3wAr3uyCUAMntSuCqQ89w1RKdSwAACpoQ From: To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2VKFA621198 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7987 In reply to Robert Thompson's request re: any positive affects the "CSI" television program has had on our laboratory's condition: We have seen a tremendous interest in Crime Scene job openings here. The pool of applicants for CSI's is larger and better educated, especially in educational areas that include Crime Scene. There now are several colleges that offer certificates in CSI (Broward Community College, Kaplan College on-line). We also have had positive feedback regarding staffing increases, budgeting increases and availability of training. I can't say the CSI program is directly responsible for this trend or if it is the result of CSI's being considered first responders and involved with Homeland Security thus now having a higher profile and a place at the table. Barbara K. Caraballo, QA Mgr PBSO, Technical Services Bureau 3228 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:58 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Mon Mar 31 17:15:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VMFRN25968 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VMFP625962 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:15:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:15:26 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:15:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Thread-Index: AcL3v/isrSKShjuOQhCb1VepJWRNJQAAq/rw From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h2VMFQ625963 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7301 Zip, nada, zero. Perhaps some extra publicity, but nothing tangible attributable to the show. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 14:58 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Mon Mar 31 18:21:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h2VNL9W27767 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from fed1mtao08.cox.net (fed1mtao08.cox.net [68.6.19.123]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VNL8627761 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:21:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from fyreatr ([68.5.10.163]) by fed1mtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20030331232104.NLUW29278.fed1mtao08.cox.net@fyreatr>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:21:04 -0500 Message-ID: <01a901c2f7dc$34dd0140$2602a8c0@fyreatr> From: "Donna Brandelli" To: "Robert Parsons" , References: Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:21:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8087 I agree. We haven't gotten any money because of it. At least none that has filtered our way. No bodies. No equipment. No training. However, we do get a lot of people that want to volunteer now. Oh, and lots of camera crew inquiries for the popular shows. And people that want to "see the real CSI". Not as glamorous as TV by any stretch of the imagination. Wish we had half the space and equipment that the TV CSI has. Donna Brandelli > Zip, nada, zero. Perhaps some extra publicity, but nothing tangible attributable to the show. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 14:58 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from > [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from > [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] > > >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 > Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) > by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 > for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) > Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) > by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; > Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) > Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov > via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT > Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; > Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) > Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 > Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> > From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov > To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ > "French, Tim" ] (fwd > Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" > > I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool > we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, > demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the > supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually > increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased > interest in forensic sciences in academia.) > > I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! > > Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? > > Robert M. Thompson > Firearms and Toolmark Examiner > ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco > 355 North Wiget Lane > Walnut Creek, CA 94598 > 925-280-3633 Office > 925-280-3600 Main Lab > 925-280-3601 FAX > Robert.Thompson@atf.gov > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM > To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member > submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd > > > On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil > miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, > then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. > > On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is > compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," > then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. > > Chris Breyer > > My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe > are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or > mission statement. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert > Parsons > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member > submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd > > Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who > view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. > On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the > negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, > I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still > almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our > field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession > wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI > (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based > on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show > portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how > unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the > others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the > poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! > misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to > explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). > I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the > disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show > is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers > would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No > such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? > No, not at all. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Indian River Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member > submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd > > > Tim, > > Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a > blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an > ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is > not meant to be taken seriously. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "French, Tim" > Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 > > > In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant > says, > "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is > obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects > of > it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of > technology or > equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". > > I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood > stain. > Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I > endured > before switching the channel yet again. > > > Tim French > Criminalist II > Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department > Crime Laboratory > 704-336-7750 > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > message/rfc822 > --- > From daemon Mon Mar 31 20:13:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h311DjJ29990 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:13:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h311Dir29984 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:13:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:13:44 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 9632 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0800 From: Greg Laskowski To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Robert, Although I have a bias towrds CSI, I must say thre are some positive effects due to the show. Because of its national and international recognition, members of Congress are more aware of the existence of forensic science, thus more grant funding has been made available to crime labs. the show's star and producer, william Petereson has testified before Congress about the nedd of funding for crime laboratories. One probably can thank him in some small way for the LFLIP grants. Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more "visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I see more positive than negative. More people in the high school are becoming interested in science as a result of the show. I see this whenver I gicve apresentation to a class or an organization. Students and the general public at large question things that they see in an episode. This questioning tells me that they are interested and just don't swallo for consumtion everything that the series depicts in a particular episode. Some service organizations that have speakers from our laboratory are interested in some of the needs of the laboratory. If the clubs such as the Rotary, Kiwanas, and Lions might consider contributing toward a GCMS or SEM/EDX, in't that a good thing? Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this profession in a positive light. It is a televison drama not a docudrama or documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. For the purist among you, all I can recommend is that you take the show with a grain of salt. Look to the positve, if you can. People now are interestee in what you do, how you do it, and generally feel that you are heros in protecting citizens and protecting their rights. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/31 11:58 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 ---