From forens-owner Mon May 1 01:02:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA25425 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 01:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25420 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 01:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from buh (iii-pm3-2-1.inland.net [209.85.112.64]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA25899; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 22:30:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Horton" To: "Donnelly, Andrew (FORENSIC)" , Subject: Alcohol Testing Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 22:04:05 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <833BFC64AC56D21190F00008C71E395402B27A81@SAGEMSG0002.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This weekend in a San Diego newspaper, I read an article about an alcohol related (allegedly) hit and run. Apparently, someone noticed a guy driving erratically and then he crashed into another car. He then drove home, but a witness followed him. When the police arrived at the suspect's home, he said that he didn't remember an accident and had just started drinking to get rid of a headache. Is it possible to tell how long alcohol has been in a person's system? It seems as though the ratio of blood alcohol to urine alcohol would change over time. But by the time blood and urine were taken from the suspect, it might be too late. Besides the witnesses to the erratic driving, is there any other way to prove that this guy was drunk at the time of the accident. I'm sure that it will be easy to prove that he was in the accident, although the paper didn't mention any damage to his car. They also didn't mention the lack of damage to his car either. Mike Horton Chem/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair Perris High School, CA From forens-owner Mon May 1 03:11:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA26325 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 03:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.goldnet.com.br (IDENT:root@[200.230.109.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA26320 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 03:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from testedem (leao32.goldnet.com.br [200.230.109.32]) by coyote.goldnet.com.br (8.9.3/8.8.7) with SMTP id EAA02100; Mon, 1 May 2000 04:12:45 -0300 Message-ID: <001601bfb33d$09ca67e0$206de6c8@testedem> From: "Jorge Paulete Vanrell" To: "M. Horton" Cc: Subject: Re: Alcohol Testing Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 04:15:30 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Mr. Horton: Isn't an uncommon case that vehicle drivers were kept some time after they drink. Measurement of blood alcoholic level, since the time elapsed, is not always the better way but is the only one. At our lab we use to take two samples of the guy supposed to be drunk. The second sample is took exactly half an hour after the firts one. The alcohol level in both sampls allows us to have an idea of the "metabolic speed" give by the decrescent inclination of the line tying both spots. Then we can project retrospectivelly the inclination of this line, thus we can arrive to an idea of the alcohol blood level (+/- 5 %) at the moment of the accident. Obviously, other elements such as clinical examination of the driver, neurological and psychological tests can help to the achievement of the case (including the cases of alcoholic amnesia, as it seems possible in the case you refer). I hope this can help anyway for future samples...! Kind regards Prof. Dr. Jorge Paulete Vanrell Forensic Examiner and Forensic Analyst Full Professor of Forensic Medicine - UNIRP Caixa Postal, 816 São José do Rio Preto, SP - Brasil pericias@goldnet.com.br http://www.pericias-forenses.com.br UIN (ICQ) # 15114027 -----Mensagem original----- De: M. Horton Para: Donnelly, Andrew (FORENSIC) ; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Data: Segunda-feira, 1 de Maio de 2000 02:07 Assunto: Alcohol Testing > >This weekend in a San Diego newspaper, I read an article about an alcohol >related (allegedly) hit and run. Apparently, someone noticed a guy driving >erratically and then he crashed into another car. He then drove home, but a >witness followed him. When the police arrived at the suspect's home, he >said that he didn't remember an accident and had just started drinking to >get rid of a headache. >Is it possible to tell how long alcohol has been in a person's system? It >seems as though the ratio of blood alcohol to urine alcohol would change >over time. But by the time blood and urine were taken from the suspect, it >might be too late. Besides the witnesses to the erratic driving, is there >any other way to prove that this guy was drunk at the time of the accident. >I'm sure that it will be easy to prove that he was in the accident, although >the paper didn't mention any damage to his car. They also didn't mention >the lack of damage to his car either. >Mike Horton >Chem/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair >Perris High School, CA > From forens-owner Mon May 1 12:15:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01321 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 12:15:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01316 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 12:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hdcdojnet.state.ca.us by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14168; Mon, 1 May 2000 09:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DOM_DOJ-Message_Server by hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 May 2000 09:13:25 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 09:14:42 -0700 From: "Joel Duncan" To: Subject: An open letter to John Kelly Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id MAA01317 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I will preface this with a short note that I have become what I disdain. Though this letter is not a discussion of forensic science, I feel it is appropriate in this forum to facilitate future discussions. If you do want to respond to me, but feel this is not the correct forum, my contact information is at the bottom. --jd Mr. Kelly You almost made it this time. Your preemptive message, quoted below, accompanied by your unabashed book advertisement bordered on forensic discussion; however, you managed to shoot yourself in the foot yet again. If you had not yet been properly informed, this is a forensic discussion list. By my understanding, that means your comments posted to the list address should be limited to discussion of the forensic topics at hand, the instigation of a new forensic topic, or a direct question pertaining to forensic science. It is my opinion that your forwarded articles fail to do any of these three. So I refer to the statement that was made early in the last flurry incited by your last "important posting" stating that though the death penalty is a worthy cause, you have made no forensic discussion of it. In your latest posting all references to forensic science are a result of the regulating rules and codes. If you wish to discuss these, make a point of it. Though there may be some intuitive people on this list, none seem to have picked up on your intentions yet. Direct suggestion: Accompany your article postings with a thought out note containing one or more points of forensic discussion. Suggestion for the list: If John Kelley is unable to confine or direct his postings to forensic discussion, ignore them or return them to him directly at kjohn39679@aol.com . This is what I intend to do. and now, the quips... >I'm posting this in advance of an up-coming important posting from the >Washington Post in response to attacks on my creativity... the only thing creative you have done is, create a stir by your actions, not even your cause(s) as might have been intended. >by bitter curmudgeons who seem to spend all day and night with >nothing to do but read forens-l. at least they are curmudgeons who occasionally offer relevant discussion with a better track record than yourself. >The rest of us have work to do, creative and otherwise. > >John Kelly >From all you've shown, I'm guessing yours is "otherwise". As a final note I would like to add that I am always excited to see books advertised by their authors on this list, when they have a relevant topic like __Tainted Evidence__ or __Crime Lab__ . Joel R. Duncan Criminalist - CalDNA email - DuncanJ1@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us Berkeley, California From forens-owner Mon May 1 13:01:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01966 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web213.mail.yahoo.com (web213.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.113]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01961 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 6125 invoked by uid 60001); 1 May 2000 17:01:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20000501170148.6124.qmail@web213.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web213.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 01 May 2000 10:01:48 PDT Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: FW: Arson Question To: "Shonberger, Frank" , "'jason.ashton@esr.cri.nz'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The description sounds like clinkers from a spontaneous heating fire. Your finding other bales in the process of spontaneous heating supports this. My question is What does any of this have to do with arson? \ --- "Shonberger, Frank" wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginn, Mark,SGT > > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 10:29 AM > > To: Shonberger, Frank > > Subject: RE: Arson Question > > > > I think they are clinkers. > > > > Mark A. Ginn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shonberger, Frank > > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 10:27 AM > > To: Barta, Bart, SGT; Ginn, Mark,SGT > > Subject: Arson Question > > > > This Arson question came in from a list that > I subscribe to. I am not an > > arson investigator, do you have any thoughts > as to the answer to this > > question? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Basten [SMTP:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu] > > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 10:27 AM > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: forwarded message > > > > And remember to reply to [Shonberger, Frank] > jason.ashton@esr.cri.nz ... > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 17:18:02 -0400 (EDT) > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: > Admin request: > > /^subject:\s*help\b/i > > > > >From forens-owner Thu Apr 27 17:17:57 2000 > > Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz > (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33]) > > by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) > with ESMTP id RAA25799 > > for ; Thu, 27 Apr > 2000 17:17:47 -0400 (EDT) > > Message-Id: > <200004272117.RAA25799@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> > > Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz > (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by > > kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft > Exchange Internet Mail Service > > Version 5.5.2650.21) > > id 2YZFYBYX; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:18:04 +1200 > > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:17:00 +1300 > > From: "Ashton, Jason" > > Subject: Help: Hay clinkers, or not? > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME > > > > > > One of our scientists has requested the > following information about Hay > > clinkers... > > > > >"Hay clinkers, or not? > > > > >At a recent stable/hay barn fire I located a > number of small ( <1 cubic > > > > cm) grey glassy lumps. These were discovered > in a pile of heavily charred > > > > hay amongst a small (fist sized) pocket of > white ashed hay. Some were > > nearly spherical others were amorphous. All > were light and brittle, some > > > > appeared porous. SEM-EDAX gave the > composition of three samples as (in % > > > > wgt) Si 15 - 30%, K 11 - 16%, Ca 9 - 28 %, P > 3 - 5%, Na 2 - 4 %, mg 2 - > > 4%, with the remainder being O. > > > > >These were considered to be hay clinkers. > > > > >The initial Fire Service investigator is > adamant the fire was caused by > > > > dry hay on hot components on a farm bike, > which was close to where the > > clinkers were found. He stated no mould was > seen on the hay. > > > > >my scene examination was 6 days after the > fire. the weather was warm in > > > > the intervening days. The hay stack was > approximately 100 bales stacked > > > > 2 deep along one wall of the barn. On > examination the interior of some > > of the hay bales displayed a heavy coating of > white mould. The interior > > > > of some bales was dark and hot (even through > a leather glove). Some > > occassional smouldering had been put by the > owners. > > > > >The questions are: If the glassy lumps are > not clinkers what else could > > > > they be? Could smouldering hay produce > clinkers? (I didn't think so) > > Could smouldering hay produce clinkers over 6 > days?" > > > > > > Jason > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Jason M Ashton > > Information Research Services > > ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and > Research > > Private Bag 92021 > > Auckland > > New Zealand ===== There is no limit to what we can accomplish, as long as it doesn't matter who gets the credit. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics Applied Technical Services, Inc. http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From forens-owner Mon May 1 13:36:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02486 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:36:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02481 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:36:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Xraves@aol.com Received: from Xraves@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.be.34525b7 (3314) for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:35:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:35:13 EDT Subject: Cyanoacrylate fuming To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We are working on a project at the West Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner dealing with removing prints from body surfaces. If, for example, we were to use the bodies we have in our office from time to time, would it be better to construct or purchase a hooded tent that would cover the body while resting on some platform or construct small closed off areas around certain portions of the body and perform the fuming that way? We are most concerned with being able to perform the fuming task as easy as possible so the easy insertion of a body into a chamber and removing would be beneficial but does that give a good fuming of the prints that would be present on the body? Would it be better to use a smaller volume to maximize the fuming? I am searching for advice so feel free to point me in any direction. Thanks in advance. Nathan Head Marshall University Forensic Science From forens-owner Mon May 1 15:55:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04347 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail006.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04335 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 15:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18460 invoked from network); 1 May 2000 19:54:23 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail006.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 May 2000 19:54:23 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 1 May 2000 19:38:25 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon May 01 12:53:05 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 May 2000 12:54:22 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 12:53:33 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Xraves@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cyanoacrylate fuming Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Nathan, Have you considered using a portable CAE fuming wand. This might be a better approach in that you can apply the CAE fumes directly to the area where the suspected prints might be located.. You can also visualize while processing as opposed to tenting and fuming or possibly over processing the suspected site. Also, you dont have to affect the entire corpse with CAE vapors and deposits. Thses portable fuming wands with the preloaded CAE cartridges are easibly obtainiable from most law enforcement supply vendors. We have even developed a method whereby we can recycle the old spent CAE cartridges. We have done tenting of victims of homicides at crime scens usong a rack made of PVC pipe (sprinkler type) with galvanized metal tubes for support. The tent was made out of black polyethyelne plastic to facilitate alternate light source examinations in the field. The unit is portable can can be broken down quickly or configured for different sizes and shapes. Just make sure you code the different PVC sections so that you can quickly assemble it. We have tried redwop powder, magnetic fluorescent powder, black magnetic powder on coated polaroid film. Methods seem to work fine in a laboraotry settiing, but not very effective out in the field. I hope this assists you in your search. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> 05/01 10:35 AM >>> We are working on a project at the West Virginia Office of the Chief Medical Examiner dealing with removing prints from body surfaces. If, for example, we were to use the bodies we have in our office from time to time, would it be better to construct or purchase a hooded tent that would cover the body while resting on some platform or construct small closed off areas around certain portions of the body and perform the fuming that way? We are most concerned with being able to perform the fuming task as easy as possible so the easy insertion of a body into a chamber and removing would be beneficial but does that give a good fuming of the prints that would be present on the body? Would it be better to use a smaller volume to maximize the fuming? I am searching for advice so feel free to point me in any direction. Thanks in advance. Nathan Head Marshall University Forensic Science From forens-owner Mon May 1 16:27:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04815 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04810 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 16:27:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Xraves@aol.com Received: from Xraves@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id p.5f.49b0bda (8231); Mon, 1 May 2000 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5f.49b0bda.263f4279@aol.com> Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 16:26:33 EDT Subject: Re: Cyanoacrylate fuming To: GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I think the problem with a full tented cover, like the PVC one you mentioned is the escaping of gases out the bottom and if that would cause a problem in adequate fuming...do you really need the bottom sealed off? If not, that would be good. What about using the tent inside a residence. What do you do once the fuming is finished? Is it safe to remove the tent and let fumes disperse or remove the tent in such a fashion as to release the fumes outside? Can you use the CAE wand without any type of enclosure? Is it that effective to use directly on an area and get good development afterwards? I dabbled with the CAE wand in my fingerprinting class but we used it inside an enclosed see through plastic case so thats why I ask. Our goals are to first, see if we are able to retrieve prints effectively from bodies using cyanoacrylate fuming and second, find an effective way to perform this fuming in the field. I think constructing a tent and using a CAE wand like you mentioned in specific areas (if you can use it without an enclosure) sounds like a good way to go. Any more comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Nathan Head Marshall University Forensic Science From forens-owner Mon May 1 17:05:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA05285 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 1 May 2000 17:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail013.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA05280 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 17:05:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 28798 invoked from network); 1 May 2000 21:04:36 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail013.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 May 2000 21:04:36 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 1 May 2000 20:48:37 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon May 01 14:03:18 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 May 2000 14:04:34 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 14:03:50 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Xraves@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Cyanoacrylate fuming Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Nathan, If you are working indoors there may be a tendancy for fumes to escape from the bottom. You can minimize this by placing sandbags or other suitable weighting devices on the plastic. Some fumes will escape after processing unless you have some sort of port and blower accessory attached. We don't. We just open the tent after a suitable period of time and air out the room, if indoors. Outside scenes don't present too much of a problem. As far as using the wand, you might want to use a vapr mask or respirator with a face shield. The object is not to get your face particularly your eyes too close. You can always examine the print after the fuming has stopped. You dont necessarily need an enclosure unless your faced with a stiff breeze. Although you could wrapp an area of the body you are intersted in with plastic and some duct tape fuming in an open environt is fine. I suggest you experiment and see what works best for you or your application. Just be safe and practice first before applying it to casework. Let me know if you need more info. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> 05/01 1:26 PM >>> I think the problem with a full tented cover, like the PVC one you mentioned is the escaping of gases out the bottom and if that would cause a problem in adequate fuming...do you really need the bottom sealed off? If not, that would be good. What about using the tent inside a residence. What do you do once the fuming is finished? Is it safe to remove the tent and let fumes disperse or remove the tent in such a fashion as to release the fumes outside? Can you use the CAE wand without any type of enclosure? Is it that effective to use directly on an area and get good development afterwards? I dabbled with the CAE wand in my fingerprinting class but we used it inside an enclosed see through plastic case so thats why I ask. Our goals are to first, see if we are able to retrieve prints effectively from bodies using cyanoacrylate fuming and second, find an effective way to perform this fuming in the field. I think constructing a tent and using a CAE wand like you mentioned in specific areas (if you can use it without an enclosure) sounds like a good way to go. Any more comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Nathan Head Marshall University Forensic Science From forens-owner Tue May 2 00:55:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08306 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 00:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sunny.pacific.net.sg (sunny.pacific.net.sg [203.120.90.127]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA08301 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 00:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop1.pacific.net.sg (pop1.pacific.net.sg [203.120.90.85]) by sunny.pacific.net.sg with ESMTP id MAA10699 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:59:35 +0800 (SGT) Received: from renuka (hostname96-97.gov.sg [160.96.97.253] (may be forged)) by pop1.pacific.net.sg with SMTP id MAA14267 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:54:51 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000502043510.006d3e7c@pacific.net.sg> X-Sender: sornadna@pacific.net.sg X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 12:35:10 +0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Renuka Sornarajah Subject: Re: Haemoglobin Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Arthur Young, Thanks a lot for posting details of the Takayama test, precautions and interpretation of the results. I will try out the test and let you know how I get on. With regards, Renuka Dr Renuka Sornarajah DNA Laboratory Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine 11 Outram Road Singapore 169078 Tel (65)2290768 From forens-owner Tue May 2 10:30:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12554 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtu.ru (ns.mtu.ru [195.34.32.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12545 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 10:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saenko (ppp96-180.dialup.mtu-net.ru [212.188.96.180]) by mtu.ru (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FAC978550 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:29:52 +0400 (MSD) From: "Andrew Saenko" To: "Forensic science" Subject: To British colleagues Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:30:24 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal X-Recipient: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Memberlist, I am making a private trip to the United Kingdom in July, 2000. Visiting forensic pathologist divisions in the UK is one of the items on my list. I've been working in this field for 6 years. Currently I am forensic pathologist in the Forensic Bureau in Moscow. I am most interested in meeting my British colleagues. Can anyone of you help me in that? Any help will be highly appreciated. Please respond me directly offlist. Yours, __________________________________________ Andrew V. Saenko Forensic Pathologist Moscow Forensic Bureau Moscow, Russia mailto:forens-sa@mtu-net.ru http://www.chat.ru/~forens_sa eFax: (520)441-2685 From forens-owner Tue May 2 12:17:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14134 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14115 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:17:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by H3-EXCH3 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 12:17:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Thompson, Roger" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 12:18:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB451.DC878D88" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB451.DC878D88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" List Members: I am interested in any budget plan or policy that you have established for long term budgeting for the purchase or lease of forensic equipment over $5000 in value. We have formed a committee to address equipment applications, maintenance in-house vs. vendor, a depreciation formula to make projections for performance life expectancy, vendor support, software support, to list some of the topics. I am a firm believer in inquiring for information as all laboratories address these issues. Any sharing of information would be greatly appreciated, and we will offer our proposal and study at the conclusion to those with interest. Thanks for your time and assistance. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB451.DC878D88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment =

List Members:

I am interested in any budget plan or = policy that you have established for long term budgeting for the = purchase or lease of forensic equipment over $5000 in value.  We = have formed a committee to address equipment applications, maintenance = in-house vs. vendor, a depreciation formula to make projections for = performance life expectancy, vendor support, software support, to list = some of the topics.  I am a firm believer in inquiring for = information as all laboratories address these issues.

Any sharing of information would be = greatly appreciated, and we will offer our proposal and study at the = conclusion to those with interest.

Thanks for your time and = assistance.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB451.DC878D88-- From forens-owner Tue May 2 16:07:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16471 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhro1.mayo.edu (mhro1.mayo.edu [129.176.100.75]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16466 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from excsrv15.mayo.edu by mhro1.mayo.edu with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 2 May 2000 15:07:11 -0500 Received: by excsrv15.mayo.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 15:08:11 -0500 Message-Id: <5F52E8BC47C0D2118E0500A0C9E9259E015943FF@excsrv25.mayo.edu> From: "Fenske, Stacie L." To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 15:08:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am wondering if anyone knows of a good place to look for job opportunities in Forensic Science? I have been out of college for a year and a half. I have been working as a lab. tech but now I am interested in pursuing a career in forensics. I appreciate any help that I can get. Thank you. Stacie From forens-owner Tue May 2 16:32:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16822 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange1.state.id.us (exchange1.dle.state.id.us [164.165.39.254]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16817 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:32:23 -0400 (EDT) From: dave.laycock@dle.state.id.us Received: by exchange1.dle.state.id.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 14:34:15 -0600 Message-ID: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Striker Plates Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 14:34:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Does anyone know if quartz is used in the manufacture of striker plates on match boxes/match books? Thanks. From forens-owner Tue May 2 18:07:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17594 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA17589 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 2 May 2000 22:07:04 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:03:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Alcohol Testing Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:03:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB482.3FD0D6E4" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB482.3FD0D6E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" There is no way to determine how long alcohol has been in the body, but there is a different way to approach this problem which will provide the answer you seek, i.e., the answer to the question "Is the subject's story of only drinking AFTER the accident plausible?" You need a blood or breath alcohol determination to begin with. Based on the subject's height, weight, age, and gender, combined with the type and amount of alcoholic beverage the subject claims to have consumed, you can determine what the maximum blood alcohol level that could be produced by the alleged post-accident drinks would have been. If this level is less than the blood or breath alcohol level found when the subject was tested, then the subject's claimed post-accident drinking does not alone account for the alcohol level found to be in his system. Therefore, he either drank more than he claims after the accident or he could not have consumed all his alcohol after the accident and there was alcohol existing in his system prior to the accident. To determine a reasonable estimate of what the subject's alcohol level was at the time of the accident is considerably more complicated, but it can be done. Again, you need a blood or breath alcohol determination to begin with, or better yet, two alcohol determinations on samples drawn from the subject with a known period elapsing between them. Once the alcohol level in the body at a specific time (the time the blood or breath sample is obtained) is known, the next step is to perform a retrograde extrapolation calculation to estimate and account for the alcohol that the subject's body eliminated between the time of driving and the time of the accident. To begin this evaluation you must necessarily act as if NO alcohol was consumed AFTER the accident, but bear with me - I will later describe how post-accident consumption of alcohol can be accounted for. This is just the starting point for our evaluation. If you have two blood alcohol samples obtained at known times you can calculate, based on the different alcohol levels they contain, a reasonable estimate of the subject's personal alcohol elimination rate (i.e., how much alcohol his body eliminates per hour on average), so long as the subject is not still absorbing alcohol at the time the samples are obtained. Both blood samples should be obtained at least an hour after the last drink known or claimed to have been consumed (2 hours is even better, but 1 hour adequately accounts for the vast majority of cases, while 2 hours would account for even the most unusual of cases - if you know something about the time, amount, and composition of the last meal eaten before the last drink was taken, you can narrow down the time frame). This is to ensure that absorption of alcohol is essentially complete prior to obtaining the samples. You can also use two breath samples instead of blood samples for this determination, since the differences in breath:blood alcohol partition ratios between individuals has no bearing on the rate at which blood or breath alcohol levels drop over time. On the other hand, if you have one blood sample and one breath sample taken at different times, you can still estimate the personal elimination rate but you will have to apply a series of correction factors to account for partition ratio variations, and this will give you a range of elimination values within which the subject should fall, as opposed to a single value specific to the individual on the date in question. To obtain a single value, you need to be comparing the same type of sample (i.e., blood to blood, or breath to breath). If you have only one alcohol determination to work with, or if one of the two samples was obtained prior to completion of alcohol absorption, then you will not be able to determine the individual's personal elimination rate. Instead, you will have to use a range of values to account for the variation in elimination rates that exists among individuals. The average elimination rate for a non-alcoholic adult male with no known liver dysfunction is 0.018g% per hour; or for an adult female, 0.020g% per hour. However, since it is unlikely that any given subject has an exactly average elimination rate, it is invalid to use a single rate and you will instead have to use a range of rates. The conservative approach is to only use a range that will give the maximum reasonable benefit of doubt to the subject. The range I use is 0.010g% per hour (representing someone with a severely reduced alcohol elimination capacity) up to and including the average rate. This calculation will determine the MINIMUM amount of alcohol (expressed as a range of values) that the subject eliminated between the time of the sampling and the time of the accident, but not the maximum. One must keep in mind that long-term heavy drinkers/alcoholics tend to eliminate alcohol much more quickly than average, with demonstrated rates up to 2-3 times (possibly even more) greater than the average rate. However, there is no way to know how much greater that rate might be in any given individual without experimenting on the individual to find out. Hence, it is prudent to use the average rate as a maximum in these calculations to give the benefit of the doubt to the subject. Once you have determined what the minimum blood alcohol level would have been at the time of the accident if all alcohol were to be absorbed prior to the accident (either as a specific single value by using a personal elimination rate, or as a minimum range of values using a range of elimination rates), the final step is to adjust that level to account for alcohol that would be added to the subject's body by the alleged post-accident drinking. The amount added is determined as previously noted in the second paragraph of this missive. You then subtract the amount of alcohol that post-accident drinking would have added to the subject's body from the calculated minimum alcohol level that would have existed without post-accident drinking, and this will determine the minimum alcohol level that would have been present at the time of the accident, even if there were drinks taken after the accident that would later raise the alcohol level. The alcohol level will have been NO LESS than this calculated value at the time of the accident, but could easily have been MORE than this if the subject's personal elimination rate is higher than the range of elimination rates you used, and/or if he drank less after the accident than he claims. Remember that when using a range of rates, we only use the "low end" of the possible range (from well below average up to average) to give maximum reasonable benefit of the doubt to the subject - we never use the portion of the possible range which is greater than average (at least I don't), because there is no way to fairly estimate a reasonable upper limit to that "upper end" of the range, given the upper limit's dependence not only on natural variation but also on drinking experience. Therefore, your final calculated value represents the LEAST the subject's alcohol level could have been, but it could have been greater than that value. Now, if the subject admits to drinks consumed before the accident but drank them sufficiently close to the time of the accident that they may not all have been absorbed at the time of the accident, then you must also account for and subtract the contribution of these not-fully-absorbed drinks, and that is done in the same fashion as I have just described. There are a variety of software products available that perform some of these calculations, and they can be useful in knowledgeable hands, but they are dangerously inaccurate if improperly utilized by the ignorant. Such programs either use "rules of thumb" that incorporate unreliable assumptions, or they ask for data that the non-expert will not know how to accurately provide, so their usefulness and reliability is limited and suspect in the hands of a non-expert. These calculations are complex, require a thorough understanding of the pharmacology and toxicology of ethyl alcohol, and must take into consideration a wide variety of variables. They should not be attempted by laypeople or even by professionals who lack the proper forensic education, training, and experience. Properly carried out by an expert with the right professional background, however, they are quite reliable. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: M. Horton [mailto:scitch@inland.net] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 1:04 AM To: Donnelly, Andrew (FORENSIC); forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Alcohol Testing This weekend in a San Diego newspaper, I read an article about an alcohol related (allegedly) hit and run. Apparently, someone noticed a guy driving erratically and then he crashed into another car. He then drove home, but a witness followed him. When the police arrived at the suspect's home, he said that he didn't remember an accident and had just started drinking to get rid of a headache. Is it possible to tell how long alcohol has been in a person's system? It seems as though the ratio of blood alcohol to urine alcohol would change over time. But by the time blood and urine were taken from the suspect, it might be too late. Besides the witnesses to the erratic driving, is there any other way to prove that this guy was drunk at the time of the accident. I'm sure that it will be easy to prove that he was in the accident, although the paper didn't mention any damage to his car. They also didn't mention the lack of damage to his car either. Mike Horton Chem/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair Perris High School, CA ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB482.3FD0D6E4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Alcohol Testing

There is no way to determine how long alcohol has = been in the body, but there is a different way to approach this problem = which will provide the answer you seek, i.e., the answer to the = question "Is the subject's story of only drinking AFTER the = accident plausible?"

You need a blood or breath alcohol determination to = begin with.  Based on the subject's height, weight, age, and = gender, combined with the type and amount of alcoholic beverage the = subject claims to have consumed, you can determine what the maximum = blood alcohol level that could be produced by the alleged post-accident = drinks would have been.  If this level is less than the blood or = breath alcohol level found when the subject was tested, then the = subject's claimed post-accident drinking does not alone account for the = alcohol level found to be in his system.  Therefore, he either = drank more than he claims after the accident or he could not have = consumed all his alcohol after the accident and there was alcohol = existing in his system prior to the accident.  To determine a = reasonable estimate of what the subject's alcohol level was at the time = of the accident is considerably more complicated, but it can be = done.

Again, you need a blood or breath alcohol = determination to begin with, or better yet, two alcohol determinations = on samples drawn from the subject with a known period elapsing between = them.  Once the alcohol level in the body at a specific time (the = time the blood or breath sample is obtained) is known, the next step is = to perform a retrograde extrapolation calculation to estimate and = account for the alcohol that the subject's body eliminated between the = time of driving and the time of the accident.  To begin this = evaluation you must necessarily act as if NO alcohol was consumed AFTER = the accident, but bear with me - I will later describe how = post-accident consumption of alcohol can be accounted for.  This = is just the starting point for our evaluation.

If you have two blood alcohol samples obtained at = known times you can calculate, based on the different alcohol levels = they contain, a reasonable estimate of the subject's personal alcohol = elimination rate (i.e., how much alcohol his body eliminates per hour = on average), so long as the subject is not still absorbing alcohol at = the time the samples are obtained.  Both blood samples should be = obtained at least an hour after the last drink known or claimed to have = been consumed (2 hours is even better, but 1 hour adequately accounts = for the vast majority of cases, while 2 hours would account for even = the most unusual of cases - if you know something about the time, = amount, and composition of the last meal eaten before the last drink = was taken, you can narrow down the time frame).  This is to ensure = that absorption of alcohol is essentially complete prior to obtaining = the samples.  You can also use two breath samples instead of blood = samples for this determination, since the differences in breath:blood = alcohol partition ratios between individuals has no bearing on the rate = at which blood or breath alcohol levels drop over time.  On the = other hand, if you have one blood sample and one breath sample taken at = different times, you can still estimate the personal elimination rate = but you will have to apply a series of correction factors to account = for partition ratio variations, and this will give you a range of = elimination values within which the subject should fall, as opposed to = a single value specific to the individual on the date in question. = To obtain a single value, you need to be comparing the same type of = sample (i.e., blood to blood, or breath to breath).

If you have only one alcohol determination to work = with, or if one of the two samples was obtained prior to completion of = alcohol absorption, then you will not be able to determine the = individual's personal elimination rate.  Instead, you will have to = use a range of values to account for the variation in elimination rates = that exists among individuals.  The average elimination rate for a = non-alcoholic adult male with no known liver dysfunction is 0.018g% per = hour; or for an adult female, 0.020g% per hour.  However, since it = is unlikely that any given subject has an exactly average elimination = rate, it is invalid to use a single rate and you will instead have to = use a range of rates.  The conservative approach is to only use a = range that will give the maximum reasonable benefit of doubt to the = subject.  The range I use is 0.010g% per hour (representing = someone with a severely reduced alcohol elimination capacity) up to and = including the average rate.  This calculation will determine the = MINIMUM amount of alcohol (expressed as a range of values) that the = subject eliminated between the time of the sampling and the time of the = accident, but not the maximum.  One must keep in mind that = long-term heavy drinkers/alcoholics tend to eliminate alcohol much more = quickly than average, with demonstrated rates up to 2-3 times (possibly = even more) greater than the average rate.  However, there is no = way to know how much greater that rate might be in any given individual = without experimenting on the individual to find out.  Hence, it is = prudent to use the average rate as a maximum in these calculations to = give the benefit of the doubt to the subject.

Once you have determined what the minimum blood = alcohol level would have been at the time of the accident if all = alcohol were to be absorbed prior to the accident (either as a specific = single value by using a personal elimination rate, or as a minimum = range of values using a range of elimination rates), the final step is = to adjust that level to account for alcohol that would be added to the = subject's body by the alleged post-accident drinking.  The amount = added is determined as previously noted in the second paragraph of this = missive.  You then subtract the amount of alcohol that = post-accident drinking would have added to the subject's body from the = calculated minimum alcohol level that would have existed without = post-accident drinking, and this will determine the minimum alcohol = level that would have been present at the time of the accident, even if = there were drinks taken after the accident that would later raise the = alcohol level.  The alcohol level will have been NO LESS than this = calculated value at the time of the accident, but could easily have = been MORE than this if the subject's personal elimination rate is = higher than the range of elimination rates you used, and/or if he drank = less after the accident than he claims.  Remember that when using = a range of rates, we only use the "low end" of the possible = range (from well below average up to average) to give maximum = reasonable benefit of the doubt to the subject - we never use the = portion of the possible range which is greater than average (at least I = don't), because there is no way to fairly estimate a reasonable upper = limit to that "upper end" of the range, given the upper = limit's dependence not only on natural variation but also on drinking = experience.  Therefore, your final calculated value represents the = LEAST the subject's alcohol level could have been, but it could have = been greater than that value.

Now, if the subject admits to drinks consumed before = the accident but drank them sufficiently close to the time of the = accident that they may not all have been absorbed at the time of the = accident, then you must also account for and subtract the contribution = of these not-fully-absorbed drinks, and that is done in the same = fashion as I have just described.

There are a variety of software products available = that perform some of these calculations, and they can be useful in = knowledgeable hands, but they are dangerously inaccurate if improperly = utilized by the ignorant.  Such programs either use "rules of = thumb" that incorporate unreliable assumptions, or they ask for = data that the non-expert will not know how to accurately provide, so = their usefulness and reliability is limited and suspect in the hands of = a non-expert.  These calculations are complex, require a thorough = understanding of the pharmacology and toxicology of ethyl alcohol, and = must take into consideration a wide variety of variables.  They = should not be attempted by laypeople or even by professionals who lack = the proper forensic education, training, and experience.  Properly = carried out by an expert with the right professional background, = however, they are quite reliable.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: M. Horton [mailto:scitch@inland.net]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 1:04 AM
To: Donnelly, Andrew (FORENSIC); = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Alcohol Testing



This weekend in a San Diego newspaper, I read an = article about an alcohol
related (allegedly) hit and run.  Apparently, = someone noticed a guy driving
erratically and then he crashed into another = car.  He then drove home, but a
witness followed him.  When the police arrived = at the suspect's home, he
said that he didn't remember an accident and had = just started drinking to
get rid of a headache.
Is it possible to tell how long alcohol has been in = a person's system?  It
seems as though the ratio of blood alcohol to urine = alcohol would change
over time.  But by the time blood and urine = were taken from the suspect, it
might be too late.  Besides the witnesses to = the erratic driving, is there
any other way to prove that this guy was drunk at = the time of the accident.
I'm sure that it will be easy to prove that he was = in the accident, although
the paper didn't mention any damage to his = car.  They also didn't mention
the lack of damage to his car either.
Mike Horton
Chem/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair
Perris High School, CA

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB482.3FD0D6E4-- From forens-owner Tue May 2 18:43:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18025 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18020 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:43:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36]) by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA15437 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 18:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000502224428.006cae04@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 18:44:28 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: Backspatter Question Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am having a discussion with someone (not a forensic person) who has posited that all entrance wounds have backspatter and has quoted some excerpts from a Vincent DiMaio book [see below]. In the experiments outlined by DiMaio, head shots were performed on calves. In the Foster case, the near-contact entrance wound took place in the mouth in the soft palate with the bullet entering the skull left of the foramen magnum. However, there was extremly little blood found on the gun, with the criminalist who handled the gun recalling only a speck of blood on the barrel. Is it possible that hard material like skull bone, would cause a great deal of backspatter (because the bone is so close to the surface), while in the case of Foster, a bullet initially travelling through soft tissues would have a lot less, with any resulting spatter from the bullet's entrance in the skull being blocked by the intervening throat and soft palate tissues? Even possibly none? (Although it's hard to conceive of almost no backspatter, to be truthful). Thanks in advance for any opinions! Marilyn (NOT a forensic/medical person) By the way, if there are any pathologists or criminalists interested in joining my mailing list, please let me know as I would like to have forensic expertise there. Postings are currently at about 0-5 a day. ************ Excerpt from post from my mailing list ****************** A section of "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques", by Vincent J.M. Di Maio, M.D., addresses the topic of backspatter from gunshot wounds. Backspatter refers to the ejection of blood and tissue *away* from the entrance wound (i.e. towards the weapon). Here's how Di Maio explains it: Backspatter is the ejection of blood and tissue from a gunshot wound of entrance. . . . Backspatter is important because the resultant stains may be found on the weapon, the shooter and objects in the vicinity. [p. 119] Di Maio explains that experiments using a 9 mm pistol and live calves showed that backspatter resuled in *every case* of a head shot. Moreover, the experimenters believed that the amount backspatter would be increased in the case of humans, due to the anatomical differences between calf heads and human heads; from page 120: Experiments by Karger et al. studied backspatter using live calves shot with a 9 x 19 mm pistol. The calves were shot in the head at ranges of: tight contact, loose contact; 5 cm and 10 cm. The resultant backspatter was divided into macrospatter (stain diameter of >0.5 mm) and micro backspatter (stain diameter 0.5 mm or less). There was macrospatter after every shot with the maximum distance traveled varying from 72 to 199 cm. The vast majority of stains were between 0 and 50 cm. The direction of the exiting droplets was at every possible angle resulting, overall, in a 180 degree semi-circle spray. . . . The authors felt that the number of droplets and the maximum distance these droplets would travel would be greater for humans because of the anatomical differences between calf heads and human heads. ------- ********************************************** From forens-owner Tue May 2 19:36:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18399 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:36:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail002.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT002.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.72]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA18394 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 19:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 16250 invoked from network); 2 May 2000 23:36:02 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail002.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 May 2000 23:36:02 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 2 May 2000 23:19:58 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Tue May 02 16:34:43 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 May 2000 16:36:01 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:34:53 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: ah247@freenet.carleton.ca, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Backspatter Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Marilyn, The subject of backspatter of blood or tissue debris from contact and near contact gunshot wounds has generally been studied by forensic pathologists, wound ballisticians, blood spatter reconstructionists. First, based upon my own observations of gunshot victims at crime scenes and at time of post mortem examination, blood spatter will not always be readily apparent. Sometimes the caliber, ammunition, placement of the muzzle (hard contact vs. soft contact or near contact) hair, clothing, or if the gun is present in the oral cavity will have some limiting effect as to the deposition or even the creation of backspatter. Recently, I observed a subject who fired a .45 cal. semiautomatic pistol in his mouth while wrestling with agents. No spatter or saliva was detected on the slide or muzzle of the weapon. I have seen gunshot wounds to the forehead that did not bleed immediately after the shot. When backspatter is present, it is extremely significant. Its abscence does not necessarily mean that the wound was not self inflicted. One must look at the victim and the crime scene in total. It does help to look at each issue individually but eventually they have to be merged so as to see the entire picture. Hope this helps anawer your question. >>> Marilyn Harris 05/02 3:44 PM >>> I am having a discussion with someone (not a forensic person) who has posited that all entrance wounds have backspatter and has quoted some excerpts from a Vincent DiMaio book [see below]. In the experiments outlined by DiMaio, head shots were performed on calves. In the Foster case, the near-contact entrance wound took place in the mouth in the soft palate with the bullet entering the skull left of the foramen magnum. However, there was extremly little blood found on the gun, with the criminalist who handled the gun recalling only a speck of blood on the barrel. Is it possible that hard material like skull bone, would cause a great deal of backspatter (because the bone is so close to the surface), while in the case of Foster, a bullet initially travelling through soft tissues would have a lot less, with any resulting spatter from the bullet's entrance in the skull being blocked by the intervening throat and soft palate tissues? Even possibly none? (Although it's hard to conceive of almost no backspatter, to be truthful). Thanks in advance for any opinions! Marilyn (NOT a forensic/medical person) By the way, if there are any pathologists or criminalists interested in joining my mailing list, please let me know as I would like to have forensic expertise there. Postings are currently at about 0-5 a day. ************ Excerpt from post from my mailing list ****************** A section of "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques", by Vincent J.M. Di Maio, M.D., addresses the topic of backspatter from gunshot wounds. Backspatter refers to the ejection of blood and tissue *away* from the entrance wound (i.e. towards the weapon). Here's how Di Maio explains it: Backspatter is the ejection of blood and tissue from a gunshot wound of entrance. . . . Backspatter is important because the resultant stains may be found on the weapon, the shooter and objects in the vicinity. [p. 119] Di Maio explains that experiments using a 9 mm pistol and live calves showed that backspatter resuled in *every case* of a head shot. Moreover, the experimenters believed that the amount backspatter would be increased in the case of humans, due to the anatomical differences between calf heads and human heads; from page 120: Experiments by Karger et al. studied backspatter using live calves shot with a 9 x 19 mm pistol. The calves were shot in the head at ranges of: tight contact, loose contact; 5 cm and 10 cm. The resultant backspatter was divided into macrospatter (stain diameter of >0.5 mm) and micro backspatter (stain diameter 0.5 mm or less). There was macrospatter after every shot with the maximum distance traveled varying from 72 to 199 cm. The vast majority of stains were between 0 and 50 cm. The direction of the exiting droplets was at every possible angle resulting, overall, in a 180 degree semi-circle spray. . . . The authors felt that the number of droplets and the maximum distance these droplets would travel would be greater for humans because of the anatomical differences between calf heads and human heads. ------- ********************************************** Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us From forens-owner Tue May 2 20:18:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18714 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18702 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:18:03 -0400 (EDT) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.5f.4aad767 (4001) for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5f.4aad767.2640c9da@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 20:16:26 EDT Subject: Re: An open letter to John Kelly To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 100 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/1/00 9:21:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, DUNCANJ1@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us writes: > > Direct suggestion: > Accompany your article postings with a thought out note containing one or > more points of forensic discussion. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. > Suggestion for the list: > If John Kelley is unable to confine or direct his postings to forensic > discussion, ignore them or return them to him directly at kjohn39679@aol.com . > This is what I intend to do. Yea, that will teach him. But then, he has a delete button too. From forens-owner Tue May 2 20:23:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18840 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18835 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:23:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jnh3 (ven-ca7-157.ix.netcom.com [198.211.140.157]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA26965 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 20:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20000502171909.00a2caf0@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 17:24:33 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: Backspatter Question In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20000502224428.006cae04@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk There's a lot of mythology connected with the backspatter question. The best proof I've seen are the wonderful high speed films by the famous electronic strobe light explorer Harold? Edgerton (of E, G & G fame) His work showed that you get backspatter from bullets entering just about ANYTHING, including eggs and light bulbs! Another authority explains that fluids are not compressible and you can't force a bullet and gas into a skull full of brain and blood without making room for the new objects. Sort of like pushing your finger into an orange. Something's gotta give, and the orange juice spits back toward your finger. Gross, but illustrative. John Houde At 06:44 PM 5/2/00 -0400, Marilyn Harris wrote: >I am having a discussion with someone (not a forensic person) who has >posited that all entrance wounds have backspatter and has quoted some >excerpts from a Vincent DiMaio book [see below]. In the experiments outlined >by DiMaio, head shots were performed on calves. > >In the Foster case, the near-contact entrance wound took place in the mouth >in the soft palate with the bullet entering the skull left of the foramen >magnum. However, there was extremly little blood found on the gun, with the >criminalist who handled the gun recalling only a speck of blood on the barrel. > >Is it possible that hard material like skull bone, would cause a great deal >of backspatter (because the bone is so close to the surface), while in the >case of Foster, a bullet initially travelling through soft tissues would >have a lot less, with any resulting spatter from the bullet's entrance in >the skull being blocked by the intervening throat and soft palate tissues? >Even possibly none? (Although it's hard to conceive of almost no >backspatter, to be truthful). > >Thanks in advance for any opinions! > >Marilyn (NOT a forensic/medical person) > >By the way, if there are any pathologists or criminalists interested in >joining my mailing list, please let me know as I would like to have forensic >expertise there. Postings are currently at about 0-5 a day. > >************ Excerpt from post from my mailing list ****************** > >A section of "Gunshot Wounds: Practical > Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and > Forensic Techniques", by Vincent J.M. Di > Maio, M.D., addresses the topic of > backspatter from gunshot wounds. > > Backspatter refers to the ejection of > blood and tissue *away* from the entrance > wound (i.e. towards the weapon). Here's > how Di Maio explains it: > > Backspatter is the ejection of > blood and tissue from a gunshot > wound of entrance. . . . > Backspatter is important because > the resultant stains may be > found on the weapon, the shooter > and objects in the vicinity. > [p. 119] > > Di Maio explains that experiments using a > 9 mm pistol and live calves showed that > backspatter resuled in *every case* of a > head shot. Moreover, the experimenters > believed that the amount backspatter would > be increased in the case of humans, due to > the anatomical differences between calf > heads and human heads; from page 120: > > Experiments by Karger et al. > studied backspatter using live > calves shot with a 9 x 19 mm > pistol. The calves were shot in > the head at ranges of: tight > contact, loose contact; 5 cm and > 10 cm. The resultant > backspatter was divided into > macrospatter (stain diameter of > >0.5 mm) and micro backspatter > (stain diameter 0.5 mm or > less). There was macrospatter > after every shot with the > maximum distance traveled > varying from 72 to 199 cm. The > vast majority of stains were > between 0 and 50 cm. The > direction of the exiting > droplets was at every possible > angle resulting, overall, in a > 180 degree semi-circle spray. > > . . . > > The authors felt that the number > of droplets and the maximum > distance these droplets would > travel would be greater for > humans because of the anatomical > differences between calf heads > and human heads. > > ------- > >********************************************** > ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Tue May 2 23:15:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20035 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 2 May 2000 23:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20030 for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 23:15:39 -0400 (EDT) From: DavidB7818@aol.com Received: from DavidB7818@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.55.55eb44a (9726) for ; Tue, 2 May 2000 23:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55.55eb44a.2640f3b3@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 23:14:59 EDT Subject: Genotyper and Mac G4's To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Does anybody on the list, involved in STR typing, have any direct knowledge of problems with using Genotyper 2.5 software with Macintosh G4 computers? Our labs were about to purchase some, but then heard of incompatability with the motherboards on the G4s. Does anybody know if this also applies to earlier versions of Genotyper? While I'm on the topic, has anybody out there have any experience using Genotyper and/or Genescan with Mac OS 9? Any problems. Thanks Dave Baer From forens-owner Wed May 3 01:16:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA20753 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:16:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA20748 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 01:15:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from inland (iii-pm3-2-19.inland.net [209.85.112.82]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA17208; Tue, 2 May 2000 22:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002601bfb4be$1ff37ca0$527055d1@inland.net> From: "mike horton" To: "Thompson, Roger" , Subject: Re: Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 22:11:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I just got a flyer from Perkin Elmer today with information about leasing equipment from them. There's a simple credit application on the back of the pamphlet. They have a website where this information can be requested, www.perkinelmer.com -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Roger To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:51 AM Subject: Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment >List Members: > >I am interested in any budget plan or policy that you have established for >long term budgeting for the purchase or lease of forensic equipment over >$5000 in value. We have formed a committee to address equipment >applications, maintenance in-house vs. vendor, a depreciation formula to >make projections for performance life expectancy, vendor support, software >support, to list some of the topics. I am a firm believer in inquiring for >information as all laboratories address these issues. > >Any sharing of information would be greatly appreciated, and we will offer >our proposal and study at the conclusion to those with interest. > >Thanks for your time and assistance. > > From forens-owner Wed May 3 08:41:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23432 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.state.me.us (mailhub.state.me.us [141.114.122.227]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA23427 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-email.ps.state.me.us by mailhub.state.me.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:38:19 -0400 Received: from [141.114.109.134] by dps-email.ps.state.me.us; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:42:03 -0400 Message-Id: <001f01bfb4fd$e342e1c0$866d728d@pschelms.ps.state.me.us> From: "Gretchen D. Hicks" To: "Fenske, Stacie L." , Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 08:48:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Try www.aafs.org and www.ascld.org . Also, try the regional forensic group web sites (NEAFS, MAAFS, etc.) Incidentally, or laboratory currently has an entry level forensic chemist position open. The position requires 1 year of related experience and a bachelors in a related science. If you are interested, go to the Maine web page www.state.me.us . You can get the job description, application, and supplemental application there. The position closes May 19 (I believe). We will have two more positions at the same level in the near future. One opening around July and one opening around September. The July position will concentrate in fire debris analysis. The other two positions will work in trace evidence and biological screening. Hope this info helps. Good luck. Gretchen -----Original Message----- From: Fenske, Stacie L. To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:13 PM I am wondering if anyone knows of a good place to look for job opportunities in Forensic Science? I have been out of college for a year and a half. I have been working as a lab. tech but now I am interested in pursuing a career in forensics. I appreciate any help that I can get. Thank you. Stacie From forens-owner Wed May 3 11:48:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA26253 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 11:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26248 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 11:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hdcdojnet.state.ca.us by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA20072; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DOM_DOJ-Message_Server by hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 May 2000 08:46:41 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 08:47:39 -0700 From: "John Tonkyn" To: Subject: Re: Genotyper and Mac G4's Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id LAA26249 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dave, I spoke with PE Tech Support a few months ago and they said they were evaluating the G4 for compatibility with their software - check with them to see if the G4 qualified. We have had problems tracking and extracting 96-lane 377 gels using GeneScan 3.1 and OS 9. We downgraded to OS 8.6 and everything worked fine. In addition, there are a few bugs with Genotyper 2.5 that I was told 2 months ago there would be a patch for in May. I don't think these bugs are related to the OS. Another question, does anyone out there know whether the newest G3 laptops (500 MHz) can be downgraded from OS 9 to 8.6? I had heard that this was not possible, but I don't know why this would be the case. Thanks, -John Tonkyn CA Dept. of Justice/DNA Lab >>> - 5/2/00 8:14 PM >>> Does anybody on the list, involved in STR typing, have any direct knowledge of problems with using Genotyper 2.5 software with Macintosh G4 computers? Our labs were about to purchase some, but then heard of incompatability with the motherboards on the G4s. Does anybody know if this also applies to earlier versions of Genotyper? While I'm on the topic, has anybody out there have any experience using Genotyper and/or Genescan with Mac OS 9? Any problems. Thanks Dave Baer From forens-owner Wed May 3 12:08:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26653 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26648 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:08:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id m.9.502e2ea (4008); Wed, 3 May 2000 12:08:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9.502e2ea.2641a8ea@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:08:10 EDT Subject: Re: Genotyper and Mac G4's To: tonkynj@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/3/00 11:55:59 AM, tonkynj@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us writes: << newest G3 laptops (500 MHz) can be downgraded from OS 9 to 8.6 >> There's a way around just about anything... It seems to me that you could probably do the same thing I did when I upgraded my G3 and decided I hated the new system. All I did was start up from the old CD, dump the harddrive icon, empty the trash, restart with the old CD, re-installed the old system and got back to work. You may also want to run a program like Spring Cleaning to make sure you have no conflicts between the old and the new system. I had a hell of a time when I upgraded from OS 8.6 OS 9 - It cost me three days just getting the first wave of bugs out. I've finally gotten them out and I've decided I can live with it...Now if I can just get AOL 5.0 to work right! :) I've managed to over-ride quite a few programs that I didn't like this way though...Good luck. Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://www.banfound.u-net.com/camp5attach.htm (My Mac can beat up your PC.) From forens-owner Wed May 3 12:16:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26832 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from infoviaplus.net.ar (adv17.infoviaplus.net.ar [200.9.212.61]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26806 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:15:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pentium ([209.13.195.159]) by infoviaplus.net.ar (Tid InfoMail Exchanger v2.20) with SMTP id #957370306.037620001; Wed, 3 May 2000 13:11:46 -0300 Message-ID: <001201bfb51a$e03351a0$eac30dd1@pentium> Reply-To: "Manuel Acebal" From: "Manuel Acebal" To: "mike horton" , "Thompson, Roger" , References: <002601bfb4be$1ff37ca0$527055d1@inland.net> Subject: RE: Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:16:00 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFB501.B9FB1D60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Infomail-Id: 957370306.0EB201AC1E039E.10306 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFB501.B9FB1D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Mike What do you does with the old equipment.? Are you thinking to sale its?. Can you send me a list? Thank you and regards Manuel Acebal ----- Mensaje original ----- De: mike horton Para: Thompson, Roger ; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Enviado: Miércoles, 03 de Mayo de 2000 02:11 a.m. Asunto: Re: Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment I just got a flyer from Perkin Elmer today with information about leasing equipment from them. There's a simple credit application on the back of the pamphlet. They have a website where this information can be requested, www.perkinelmer.com -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Roger To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:51 AM Subject: Request for Assistance Budget Plan for Forensic Equipment >List Members: > >I am interested in any budget plan or policy that you have established for >long term budgeting for the purchase or lease of forensic equipment over >$5000 in value. We have formed a committee to address equipment >applications, maintenance in-house vs. vendor, a depreciation formula to >make projections for performance life expectancy, vendor support, software >support, to list some of the topics. I am a firm believer in inquiring for >information as all laboratories address these issues. > >Any sharing of information would be greatly appreciated, and we will offer >our proposal and study at the conclusion to those with interest. > >Thanks for your time and assistance. > > ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFB501.B9FB1D60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mike
What do you does with the old equipment.? Are = you=20 thinking to sale its?. Can you send me a list?
Thank you and regards
Manuel Acebal
----- Mensaje original -----
De: mike = horton
Para: Thompson, Roger ; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Enviado: Mi=E9rcoles, 03 de = Mayo de 2000=20 02:11 a.m.
Asunto: Re: Request for = Assistance Budget=20 Plan for Forensic Equipment

I just got a flyer from Perkin Elmer today with = information=20 about leasing
equipment from them.  There's a simple credit=20 application on the back of the
pamphlet.  They have a website = where=20 this information can be requested,
www.perkinelmer.com

-----O= riginal=20 Message-----
From: Thompson, Roger <rthompson@cmpd.ci.charl= otte.nc.us>
To:=20 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'=20 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>Date:=20 Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:51 AM
Subject: Request for Assistance = Budget Plan=20 for Forensic Equipment


>List Members:
>
>I = am=20 interested in any budget plan or policy that you have established=20 for
>long term budgeting for the purchase or lease of forensic = equipment=20 over
>$5000 in value.  We have formed a committee to = address=20 equipment
>applications, maintenance in-house vs. vendor, a = depreciation=20 formula to
>make projections for performance life expectancy, = vendor=20 support, software
>support, to list some of the topics.  I = am a=20 firm believer in inquiring for
>information as all laboratories = address=20 these issues.
>
>Any sharing of information would be = greatly=20 appreciated, and we will offer
>our proposal and study at the = conclusion=20 to those with interest.
>
>Thanks for your time and=20 assistance.
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFB501.B9FB1D60-- From forens-owner Wed May 3 12:32:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27135 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:32:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA27130 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 May 2000 16:32:22 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:28:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Alcohol Testing Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:28:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB51C.A791398C" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB51C.A791398C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" In my lengthy post on this subject, I made a typo in the third paragraph. I wrote: "Once the alcohol level in the body at a specific time (the time the blood or breath sample is obtained) is known, the next step is to perform a retrograde extrapolation calculation to estimate and account for the alcohol that the subject's body eliminated between the time of driving and the time of the accident." What I meant to write was: "...alcohol that the subject's body eliminated between the time of TESTING and the time of the accident." The time of testing, of course, is the time that the blood or breath sample was obtained. My apologies for any confusion. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB51C.A791398C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Alcohol Testing

In my lengthy post on this subject, I made a typo in = the third paragraph.  I wrote: "Once the alcohol level in the = body at a specific time (the time the blood or breath sample is = obtained) is known, the next step is to perform a retrograde = extrapolation calculation to estimate and account for the alcohol that = the subject's body eliminated between the time of driving and the time = of the accident."

What I meant to write was: "...alcohol that the = subject's body eliminated between the time of TESTING and the time of = the accident."  The time of testing, of course, is the time = that the blood or breath sample was obtained.

My apologies for any confusion.

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB51C.A791398C-- From forens-owner Wed May 3 14:55:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28606 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 14:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28601 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 14:55:45 -0400 (EDT) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200005031855.OAA28601@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 3 May 2000 11:56:51 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Paper Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:48:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Does anyone know how I can get a copy of "The use of chosen methods of statistical and chemometric analysis in forensic examinations of glass" by Zadora, Grzegorz; Brozek-Mucha, Zuzanna (Faculty of Chemistry, The Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Pol.) in Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych 1999, 40, 33-71? Thank you in advance for your assistance in locating this. My contact information is: Helen R. Griffin Marysville Crime Laboratory 2700 116th St. N.E., Suite P. Public: (425) 257-2146 FAX: (425) 257-2149 hgriffi@WSP.WA.GOV From forens-owner Wed May 3 15:21:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28940 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sd.znet.com (sd.znet.com [207.167.64.5]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28920 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 15:21:02 -0400 (EDT) From: enelson@znet.com Received: from enelson (sdts10-63.znet.net [207.167.66.63]) by sd.znet.com (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-sd) with SMTP id e43JL1p07711 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: enelson@znet.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000503122143.0080cbe0@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: enelson@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 12:21:43 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Short term PMI estimation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Gentlepersons, I would like to find collaborators for a follow-on project to my current article in FSI on short term PMI estimation based upon core body temperature decay. I don't have access to recently dead bodies to gather original data. Unfortunately letters to several authors of original studies wherein temperature data was collected on freshly deceased bodies have been unanswered; I had hoped to utilize their data for additional analysis using my new algorithm. I think animal studies would be a possibility, perhaps using large dogs who are going to be euthanized at local animal shelters (thus no animal will be sacrificed for the study; rather, animals already doomed will be assessed, I'm an animal lover myself and could not bear to sacrifice animals merely to gather original data to further assess the algorithm). Therefore, if anyone has an interest in a collaboration, and has access to either recently deceased humans (or even better, access antemortem as well), or animals at a shelter, I would like to correspond privately to discuss a possible collaboration. If you do not receive FSI and want to see a pre-publication version of the article (which is permitted for posting by FSI regulations), you can see it at: http://members.xoom.com/Code3Felony/pmi-2.htm Cordially, Eric Nelson Notice: This email is intended for viewing by the individual(s) noted in the "To" line of the original message. The contents are private, for their viewing only. Please do not forward any portion of this message without written permission from Eric Nelson. Thank you for your cooperation. "A man who dares to waste an hour of life has not discovered the value of life." Charles Darwin "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night; God said, Let Newton be! And all was light." Alexander Pope "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." Albert Einstein From forens-owner Wed May 3 17:43:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00452 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 17:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA00447 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 17:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 May 2000 21:42:57 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 3 May 2000 17:39:21 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Glass Paper Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 17:39:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB548.0A879556" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB548.0A879556 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" How about writing to the author and asking for a courtesy copy? That's how we get most of our copies of research papers, using the address listed for the authors in CA Selects: Forensic Chemistry (I have also used the addresses listed in Current Contents). We receive official reprints about half the time and photocopies the rest of the time. Only rarely do we not receive a response, even though our requests are written in English and sent all over the world. Most authors are complimented by your request and are happy to send you a copy of their work. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:48 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Paper Does anyone know how I can get a copy of "The use of chosen methods of statistical and chemometric analysis in forensic examinations of glass" by Zadora, Grzegorz; Brozek-Mucha, Zuzanna (Faculty of Chemistry, The Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Pol.) in Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych 1999, 40, 33-71? Thank you in advance for your assistance in locating this. My contact information is: Helen R. Griffin Marysville Crime Laboratory 2700 116th St. N.E., Suite P. Public: (425) 257-2146 FAX: (425) 257-2149 hgriffi@WSP.WA.GOV ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB548.0A879556 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Glass Paper

How about writing to the author and asking for a = courtesy copy?  That's how we get most of our copies of research = papers, using the address listed for the authors in CA Selects: = Forensic Chemistry (I have also used the addresses listed in Current = Contents).  We receive official reprints about half the time and = photocopies the rest of the time.  Only rarely do we not receive a = response, even though our requests are written in English and sent all = over the world.  Most authors are complimented by your request and = are happy to send you a copy of their work.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov]=
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:48 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Glass Paper


Does anyone know how I can get a copy of "The = use of chosen methods of
statistical and chemometric analysis in forensic = examinations of glass" by
Zadora, Grzegorz; Brozek-Mucha, Zuzanna (Faculty of = Chemistry, The
Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Pol.) in Z = Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych 1999,
40, 33-71?  Thank you in advance for your = assistance in locating this.

My contact information is:      = Helen R. Griffin
        =         =         Marysville = Crime Laboratory
        =         =         2700 116th = St. N.E., Suite P.
        =         =         Public: (425) = 257-2146
        =         =         FAX: (425) = 257-2149
        =         =         hgriffi@WSP.WA.GOV

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB548.0A879556-- From forens-owner Wed May 3 20:22:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01445 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 20:22:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01440 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 20:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete (pm4-105.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.105]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id e440LvG10446 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 17:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200005040021.e440LvG10446@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett%atdial.net@POP3.atdial.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 17:22:07 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Export a genotyper screen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Anybody know how to export a MAC genotyper screen to a PC format so it can be imported into a PC file such as Power Point? 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 forens-owner Wed May 3 21:06:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01834 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 21:06:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01829 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 21:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (h207-21-136-156.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.156]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA15201; Wed, 3 May 2000 18:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000503180243.00ce2370@uclink4.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 18:08:06 -0700 To: "Peter D. Barnett" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: Export a genotyper screen In-Reply-To: <200005040021.e440LvG10446@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I've done it with the "allele table" (apple-5). I suppose the procedure is similar in other cases. Pull down the "Table" tab, and export as an Excel file. The name doesn't have to end in .XLS but it helps. Write the file to an IBM-formatted disc and it will be PC-readable. I don't know the best way to import it to PowerPoint, but there are several, including load into Excel and then cut-and-paste. Charles Brenner forensic mathematics to the gentry www.dna-view.com At 05:22 PM 5/3/00 -0700, Peter D. Barnett wrote: >Anybody know how to export a MAC genotyper screen to a PC format so it can >be imported into a PC file such as Power Point? > >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 forens-owner Wed May 3 22:44:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02506 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 22:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02501 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 22:44:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.37.4b388c6 (4567) for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 22:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37.4b388c6.26423dd2@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 22:43:30 EDT Subject: Re: Export a genotyper screen To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/3/00 7:27:41 PM, pbarnett@FSALab.com writes: >Anybody know how to export a MAC genotyper screen to a PC format so it >can be imported into a PC file such as Power Point? If you wish to maintain the *display* features of the electropheragram (peaks, colors, etc.), then consider an on-screen image capture software program, like Capture. Just press a couple of keys and the screen image (or any part of it) is downloaded as a JPEG or BMP file. Then, use Photoshop or other graphics program to crop it (if necessary) and save it to the Clipboard. Then, just paste as an image. If the *data* is all that you're interested in, then Charles Brenner's recommendation is fast and easy. Arthur W. Young Acadiana Crime Lab somewhere in the swamps of southwest Louisiana... From forens-owner Wed May 3 23:04:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02702 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02697 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:04:22 -0400 (EDT) From: RiIwan@aol.com Received: from RiIwan@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.ac.49b08a6 (4237); Wed, 3 May 2000 23:03:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 23:03:40 EDT Subject: Re: Genotyper and Mac G4's To: DavidB7818@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We've recently received an order of G4's with OS 9 (updated to 9.0.4). I have not detected any problems with Genotyper 2.1 or 310 Genscan 3.1 software. Rich Iwanicki Mass State Police Crime Lab The opinions above are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Mass State Police Crime Lab. From forens-owner Wed May 3 23:08:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02819 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:08:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.36.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02814 for ; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from default (mharris.dialup.NRCan.gc.ca [132.156.133.36]) by nrn1.NRCan.gc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA27724; Wed, 3 May 2000 23:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000504030924.006c8368@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 23:09:24 -0400 To: ArtWYoung@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: Re: Export a genotyper screen Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk > Then, use Photoshop or >other graphics program to crop it (if necessary) and save it to the >Clipboard. Arthur; Actually, you can crop the image in PowerPoint with their Image Tools (I think that's the name). TTYL, Marilyn From forens-owner Thu May 4 00:10:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03385 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 00:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03380 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 00:10:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from azoth.dnai.com (azoth.dnai.com [207.181.194.94]) by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA41530; Wed, 3 May 2000 20:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by azoth.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA89726; Wed, 3 May 2000 20:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000503202623.00ae3220@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 20:32:06 -0700 To: "Christopher J. Basten":; From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Good bloodstain pattern analysis book? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, Would those of you who know about such things please recommend a good comprehensive reference book/primer on bloodstain pattern analyses? Prefer one by a sufficiently recognized and respected author so that one could reasonable expect a purported expert witness in the field to know the name. Thanks. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Thu May 4 00:54:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03764 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 00:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03752 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 00:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from laptop ([63.203.74.163]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0FU000823QONQU@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 3 May 2000 21:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 21:44:18 -0700 From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Good bloodstain pattern analysis book? In-reply-to: <4.3.1.2.20000503202623.00ae3220@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0FU00082AQONQU@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 08:32 PM 5/3/2000 -0700, Kim Kruglick wrote: >Folks, > Would those of you who know about such things please recommend a good comprehensive reference book/primer on bloodstain pattern analyses? Prefer one by a sufficiently recognized and respected author so that one could reasonable expect a purported expert witness in the field to know the name. Thanks. Kim - You should know that no expert with any sense would ever admit on the witness stand to reading (much less relying on) any book. Any self-proclaimed expert who admits to being knowledgeable about books by Stuart James, Tom Bevel, Bart Epstein, Herb McDonald probably doesn't know too much to begin with. The reason an expert is an expert is because he or she has figured everything out for themselves without relying on anything that has been done in the past - that's hearsay, and lawyers won't allow it. That's why crime labs have to do all of this validation nonsense - just because something works in 3000 crime labs around the world, does not mean it will work in May, 2000, in Oakland. It has to be re-validated. And are we sure that genetic theories that worked in the second millenium will work in the third - which doesn't begin until next year? I sense re-validation will be necessary - get your pea seeds ready. 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 forens-owner Thu May 4 01:16:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04068 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx0-smtp.goodnet.com (sloth.goodnet.com [207.98.129.103]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04056 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 01:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from skirshne (tnt1-1-215.phoenix.goodnet.com [209.54.248.215]) by mx0-smtp.goodnet.com with SMTP id WAA04375; Wed, 3 May 2000 22:16:03 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <000a01bfb525$49214dc0$d7f836d1@skirshne> From: "Scott Kirshner" To: "Peter D. Barnett" , References: <0FU00082AQONQU@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Subject: Re: Good bloodstain pattern analysis book? Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 10:30:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Mr. Barnett, Kim asked for a reference book/primer on bloodstain pattern analyses not a lecture on what an expert is or is not. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Good bloodstain pattern analysis book? > At 08:32 PM 5/3/2000 -0700, Kim Kruglick wrote: > >Folks, > > Would those of you who know about such things please recommend a good > comprehensive reference book/primer on bloodstain pattern analyses? Prefer > one by a sufficiently recognized and respected author so that one could > reasonable expect a purported expert witness in the field to know the name. > Thanks. > > Kim - > > You should know that no expert with any sense would ever admit on the > witness stand to reading (much less relying on) any book. Any > self-proclaimed expert who admits to being knowledgeable about books by > Stuart James, Tom Bevel, Bart Epstein, Herb McDonald probably doesn't know > too much to begin with. > > The reason an expert is an expert is because he or she has figured > everything out for themselves without relying on anything that has been > done in the past - that's hearsay, and lawyers won't allow it. That's why > crime labs have to do all of this validation nonsense - just because > something works in 3000 crime labs around the world, does not mean it will > work in May, 2000, in Oakland. It has to be re-validated. And are we sure > that genetic theories that worked in the second millenium will work in the > third - which doesn't begin until next year? I sense re-validation will be > necessary - get your pea seeds ready. > > 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 forens-owner Thu May 4 05:48:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05928 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 05:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f15.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.15]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA05923 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 05:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 65066 invoked by uid 0); 4 May 2000 09:47:33 -0000 Message-ID: <20000504094733.65065.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 194.65.14.68 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 May 2000 02:47:33 PDT X-Originating-IP: [194.65.14.68] From: "Fatima Machado" To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Glass Paper Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:47:33 WEST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk If you want to contact the author of that article, the email address of one of them (Suzana Brozec Mucha) is the following: sbrozek@ies.krakow.pl Regards fatima_machado@hotmail.com Laboratorio de Policia Cientifica R. Gomes Freire 174 1000 Lisboa, Portugal Tel:351-1-3533131-ext 1446 Fax:351-1-3540217 Home:fatimam@teleweb.pt ----Original Message Follows---- From: Robert Parsons To: "'hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Glass Paper Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 17:39:12 -0400 How about writing to the author and asking for a courtesy copy? That's how we get most of our copies of research papers, using the address listed for the authors in CA Selects: Forensic Chemistry (I have also used the addresses listed in Current Contents). We receive official reprints about half the time and photocopies the rest of the time. Only rarely do we not receive a response, even though our requests are written in English and sent all over the world. Most authors are complimented by your request and are happy to send you a copy of their work. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:48 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Paper Does anyone know how I can get a copy of "The use of chosen methods of statistical and chemometric analysis in forensic examinations of glass" by Zadora, Grzegorz; Brozek-Mucha, Zuzanna (Faculty of Chemistry, The Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Pol.) in Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych 1999, 40, 33-71? Thank you in advance for your assistance in locating this. My contact information is: Helen R. Griffin Marysville Crime Laboratory 2700 116th St. N.E., Suite P. Public: (425) 257-2146 FAX: (425) 257-2149 hgriffi@WSP.WA.GOV ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Thu May 4 06:06:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06112 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 06:06:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06107 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 06:06:12 -0400 (EDT) From: LamarM@aol.com Received: from LamarM@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id r.2f.4cb6463 (2619); Thu, 4 May 2000 06:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f.4cb6463.2642a56b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 06:05:31 EDT Subject: Locating Journal Articles To: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 77 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You may wish to try UnCover, a fee based resource locating and downloading journal articles. http://uncweb.carl.org/ Good Luck, Lamar Miller, Miami From forens-owner Thu May 4 08:14:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06920 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 08:14:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:14:34 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-Id: <200005041214.IAA06920@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Training in DNA Statistics/Population Genetics Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk North Carolina State University offers three opportunities for training in the statistical and population genetic aspects of DNA evidence. 1. Three-day workshop, May 28,29,30, 2000 Fee $300 Continuing Education Unit given see: http://statgen.ncsu.edu Summer Institute in Statistical Genetics Send application form to Ms Debra Hibbard Department of Statistics NC State University Raleigh NC 27695-8203 FAX (919) 515-7315 2. Three-day short course, May 28,29,30, 2000 Fee $479 1-hour graduate credit Register online at http://www2.ncsu.edu/acp/ for BIT 815F 056 DNA Evidence 3. Semester-long web course, August 21-December 15, 2000 Fee $595 3-hours graduate credit Register online at http://www2.ncsu.edu/oit for ST610C (internet course) For further information, contact Dr Bruce Weir by email at weir@stat.ncsu.edu Program in Statistical Genetics Phone: (919) 515-3574 Department of Statistics Fax: (919) 515-7315 North Carolina State University URL: www.stat.ncsu.edu Raleigh NC 27695-8203 (click on "statistical genetics") Street Address: Patterson Hall, Room 220 2501 Founders Drive Raleigh NC 27695 From forens-owner Thu May 4 08:16:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07089 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 08:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA07074 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 08:16:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:16:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Of Interest to drug chemists (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 07:55:34 EDT From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Of Interest to drug chemists While developing some methods using substituted phenethylamine standards on CE/MS using ES, It apeared that four of the five compounds gave M+1 peaks and one was giving just an M peak. Andre from HP stated that the mass spec never lies. Further examination revealed that my source for MW of MDEA, Mills listed a MW of 208 while Merck listed a MW of 207. I would be interested in hearing from other labs using CE/MS. You may direct your mail to EarlNMeyer@aol.com Thanks. From forens-owner Thu May 4 08:31:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA07343 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 08:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from virtual2.microworld.com (qmailr@ip185-139.konnections.com [207.173.185.139]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA07338 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 08:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 14117 invoked from network); 4 May 2000 12:31:51 -0000 Received: from pm489-35.dialip.mich.net (HELO 003136) (198.110.188.45) by ns.microworld.com with SMTP; 4 May 2000 12:31:51 -0000 Message-ID: <003c01bfb5c5$796c7900$2dbc6ec6@192> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: , References: <4.3.1.2.20000503202623.00ae3220@mail.dnai.com> Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Good bloodstain pattern analysis book? Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 08:36:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk "Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction" by Tom Bevel and Ross Gardener. This is fairly recent, and comprehensive. It's my personal favorite. There are is also: "Interpretation of Bloodstain Evidence at Crime Scenes", by Stuart James. Also fairly recently updated. James also authors a second companion volume on "Scientific and Legal Issues" related to bloodstain patterns. And finally, "Bloodstain Patterns" by Herbert MacDonell. Which is a bit older. Regards, Daryl Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime & Clues PMB 163 3923 28th St. SE Grand Rapids, MI, 49512 http://crimeandclues.com Primary e-mail: dclemens@crimeandclues.com Secondary e-mail/MSN Messenger: identtec@hotmail.com Fax/Voice Mail: 1-877-283-8519 ----- Original Message ----- From: Kim Kruglick To: Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:32 PM Subject: [forensic-science] Good bloodstain pattern analysis book? > Folks, > Would those of you who know about such things please recommend a good comprehensive reference book/primer on bloodstain pattern analyses? Prefer one by a sufficiently recognized and respected author so that one could reasonable expect a purported expert witness in the field to know the name. Thanks. > Best regards, > Kim Kruglick > mailto:kim@kruglaw.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Forensic Resource and > Criminal Law Search Site > http://www.kruglaw.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *--- FREE VOICEMAIL FOR YOUR HOME PHONE! ---* > With eVoice Now you can keep in touch with clients, vendors, co-workers, > friends and family ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Sign Up Today for FREE! > http://click.egroups.com/1/3426/3/_/75397/_/957410899/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > > From forens-owner Thu May 4 09:26:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08218 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 09:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.state.ut.us (email.state.ut.us [168.180.96.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08213 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 09:26:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from STATE-GATE-Message_Server by email.state.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 04 May 2000 07:25:59 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 X-GWFix: Yes Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 07:25:55 -0600 From: "J. Gabriel Bier" To: Subject: Re: Export a genotyper screen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4D156877.D3B253B7" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --=_4D156877.D3B253B7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I suggest using Adobe Photoshop. =20 When you print from the Mac, it gives you an option (destination) usually = you would select printer..... but, choose file. When you do this, it = creates a *.ps file (postscript) and you can save this to a disk. You may = require to burn a CD in the event that the file is too big. Stick with = simple panels (ie. one sample, two samples) and you will be ok for floppy. Put the disk, or *.ps file on your PC, and if you have Adobe Acrobat, you = can just double click the file icon.... and presto... you have *.pdf file = that can be read by a Mac, Unix, or PC. This will allow you to read it as = PDF. =20 Now, if you want *.jpg or *.bmp it gets a little trickier, you need Adobe = Photoshop; this is the prefered option. Photoshop is very powerful. You = can do the same thing I mentioned earlier with Adobe Photoshop. J. Gabriel Bier Criminalist / Utah CODIS Administrator Utah DPS Bureau of Forensic Svcs. 4501 South 2700 West Box 148285 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-8285 jbier@dps.state.ut.us=20 801-965-3870 laboratory 801-241-1518 pager 801-965-4544 fax --=_4D156877.D3B253B7 Content-Type: text/x-vcard Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="J. Gabriel Bier.vcf" QkVHSU46VkNBUkQNClZFUlNJT046Mi4xDQpYLUdXVFlQRTpVU0VSDQpGTjpKLiBHYWJyaWVsIEJp ZXINClRFTDtXT1JLOjgwMSA5NjUtMzg3MA0KT1JHOjtEUFMtQ0wNCkVNQUlMO1dPUks7UFJFRjtO R1c6SkJJRVJAZHBzLnN0YXRlLnV0LnVzDQpOOkJpZXI7Si4gR2FicmllbA0KWC1HV1VTRVJJRDpK QklFUg0KRU5EOlZDQVJEDQoNCg== --=_4D156877.D3B253B7-- From forens-owner Thu May 4 11:15:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09466 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:15:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09461 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 May 2000 15:15:48 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:12:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Cc: "BABU THOMAS (E-mail)" , "DANIEL NIPPES (E-mail)" , "EARL RITZLINE (E-mail)" , "KATHI KING (E-mail)" , "LAURIE PRIVATEER (E-mail)" , Michael Kelley , Mike Gibbons Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:12:09 -0400 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BFB5DB.1DDEFBE2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFB5DB.1DDEFBE2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" The "I love you" or "loveletter" virus has been showing up all around the world for at least the last 24 hrs. It just appeared on one of my e-mail discussion lists this morning. It seems a potentially very damaging virus, and no message containing these phrases should be opened under any circumstances. It is NOT a hoax. For more information, go here: http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/love.htm McAfee already has a plug in ("extra.dat") for their software to protect against this virus. I suspect that Norton and other antivirus programs will have, or soon will have, one also. I am going to immediately update our McAfee software on all our lab computers, and suggest others do the same. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: David Hyde [mailto:DHyde@ci.pasadena.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 9:49 AM To: forensic-science@egroups.com Subject: Re: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER What kind of virus was it? --- Officer David Hyde Pasadena Police Department Identification Division and Crime Scene Unit 1114 Jeff Ginn Memorial Drive Pasadena, Texas 77506 713.477.1221 ext. 4305 713.475.5549 713.477.4976 Fax dhyde@ci.pasadena.tx.us >>> csandor@vt.edu 05/04/00 08:24AM >>> iI GOT THE MAIL FROM THE AFROTC DET THIS MORNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS A VIRIUS DO NOT OPEN THE ATTACHED FILE OR THE E-MAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE FREE! GET THE OFFICIAL COMPANION TO TELEVISION'S HOTTEST GAME SHOW PHENOMENON PLUS 5 MORE BOOKS FOR $2. Click for details. http://click.egroups.com/1/3014/3/_/75397/_/957448290/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFB5DB.1DDEFBE2 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgsPAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcFAAQACwAMAAkABAAEAQEggAMADgAAANAHBQAE AAsADAAJAAQABAEBCYABACEAAAA2OTFDNkQ4N0MzMjFENDExODFBRTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQD5BgEE gAEAagAAAFJFOiBbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5jZV0gRE8gTk9UIE9QRU4gQU5ZIE1BSUwgV0lUSCBU SEUgU1VCSkVDVCBMSU5FICJJIExPVkUgWU9VIiBJVCBXSUxMIEtJTEwgWU9VUiBDT01QVVRFUgC+ HQENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABA5AGAAwNAAAyAAAAAwAJWQEAAAADAN4/5AQAAAMANgAAAAAAAwADgAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAACdqAQAeAASACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAA AAQAAAA5LjAACwANgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAABoUAAAAAAAADAAWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAAYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAACwAGgAggBgAA AAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAAAAADAAKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMA B4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABGFAAAAAAAAAwAIgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAGIUA AAAAAAAeAAmACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA2hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAKgAggBgAAAAAA wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AC4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAAB AAAAAQAAAAAAAAACAQkQAQAAAKwGAACoBgAA0gkAAExaRnUMP1iWAwAKAHJjcGcxMjXiMgNDdGV4 BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcTAoAP8wBQBFY/CFUHshElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBzZXQyBgAGwxEl9jMERhO3 MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4wNREiDGBjAFAzCwkBZDM2FlALpiBUQGhlICJJIBewdqUdEHkIYCIgBbEi HWIWbBQgDrByHeB2aXIudQQgE+AEIGIJ4SBzBGhvA/BuZyB1cB4gB0ADIArACGBuZCDqdB0BdwWw bCEwAhAFwP5hBUAegB9wBUAhUgtgIpEMMjQfUBQALiAgSY0FQGofMAVAYXBwInAfGCEd8AOgAiAd EG9mIGBteSBlLQDAAxFkXQQAYx8wAJAk8WwEAHT/BCAhUAQAJYAFsAMAIEAjtAkUEGVtBCBhIHBv tw6wAjAHMWwloB2AciWgtGRhAMBnIDIfAywgkNkhIW5vJYAHkHMqIB0Q/wWgAjALcSAyIVEUECjQ I4D3H3AHkR/xdSHBH6Ad8CSAvyUwITAhERKBAHAloGMfEOcmYCiQAZBuYweQI7QnYZhOT1QosSAA YXgjsf5GBbEnkR0QC4Ah8QDAKTC7AiAq0GcrQB0AGCA6CqILCoQKgGgCQHA6Ly/idzRgLmYtFBAm YBggwi4FoG0vdi0BAATwVHMvHWIuM/BtMzpNOGNBZgngIJEYIGFkPyWgH2IowQpAIFALgCAoFiIO wS0QLinwdCIpnyHjIVEfEB/gJWB0dyShWyFAK0BwA2AOsGMkQWf/C3EikydhHwMjsh/gHzAkgPc7 kSFQIjFOF8Ek8SryKPD/MuEq4SkwHwQ7QQnAKgAEIP8D8CCxE+AdgCrQBbE6gCTx/0BKJTEHQDqA POMqADKhLFP/K0AHcAeAJjAiMB5wJaAgcP85gSVBCHAF0DdEOoc+QiCxi0TiC2BiK9FtcHUesXsq xT0wZyuwIpE+swQgZC8rQCFSK5AHgC4zOkJvHUbwUBPxAiAqwUYtQfxCQzM0MVEJ8A3REiAdAOZt JvEzNFJlKjACIAdA5xIgBRAHgCBMAaAFsCIw7QWweTM0IjFJISAHMAOgPlI/QBKBCFBDwCEQaXSv JaAIUCCwTWBlS5V0I7BuUAiRL8BLIUwzOjM0Ld1Tsk8FECoxTbFNK3RTs6NLlQNhOiBEQKBpITBk SHkBACBbJeI7EDrqRFZyQC8gLgqwK5ABANVNoC4M0C4fMF0zNAZgrwIwVfAc8AhwcynweSrQ4k1Z 4CAwNCrQAdBasKAgOTo0ORDATTM0/lRXICHiTCM0sC8gCfAvwHZATWAg8XAjoDUxWMV1vGJqO4FV 8E1QVfBbXA4KXVYATzBzT1BFTgkQwE5ZBdBBSUwgkFdJVEgc4EhFBgBAVUJKRUNUMzRMjElOYeAd MUxPVmHguFlPVR3gYYBhYUxhUBZLZDJjoVISIE9NUJBVVEVSUp8KVz3C/msLgCTRJXAfBDrABCBQ oO4/ZZ9TSDM0TwEgDeASgf9WGDM0SrBX9EqgBvBqkVYA3mUKsTZQKREzNElYESkwf2qBMkNWAD9B JpMq8k3kU9svwCUxVVCRMzQxcQAjYPJKAREgRwuAA6BUkCeRvwcxVgAFEB2Aa4wq0FQOwEEfcTc3 NTA2MzQ3UDEzLjR0MC4OIDIOMSWwDtAjsDQzMDV5dIo1LhpgWxB0jFsQN842MUAxADM0ZGhXb1hy fTM6PntQK9ArkCEgBbBAlnZRwAmAdVpQNS9aYGN8oBZQMDg6I1BbQCDre1EzNGkdQEcwkWHCYSMs RlJlIGGzQX8hVEMVVgBFfnJJBfBNT1LSTmLgRyGBLyFj4oCBgEEgVklSSVUF8ENgKn9zVFRBQ2HQ RJ8xQGFAYeCAwGGzRS1hIn9ov1NKh8+I34nviv4zNEepgDFXSGAwV2DgVAXwOlRgMEJ/kQXQZDFJ T5pOYTBSYeB/IEVFgkAXcZCAM4URRoTgQ0lB/2FQZRJg4I4BCuNboWAwZWDrhQCC4FOOAScF8Iyw hGB0RVMwoEdbQGHhjLBXP0qgYdAwgJKgMIBgwFBMDYMhNYCiYeBCT09LTQXwRoUxMzQkMiOxQ/1s kWsh4wEALBFCcEmlM/WOY5XyfDBdKC8xL3YQo3EgmQAvXy90QDN4UAGZcTk1NzQ0ODL4OTAvhy+b z5zfne+Lbv9bZmxhJDIrVirQFBAhIVCgzzsBVfAjwFwPZUddPaBh+3BgPTBiBPIfoKF1KMACYN8A cJYgK2aiEqJ+LSEQpOcJo38KfaoQHgBwAAEAAABmAAAAW2ZvcmVuc2ljLXNjaWVuY2VdIERPIE5P VCBPUEVOIEFOWSBNQUlMIFdJVEggVEhFIFNVQkpFQ1QgTElORSAiSSBMT1ZFIFlPVSIgSVQgV0lM TCBLSUxMIFlPVVIgQ09NUFVURVIAAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABv7XPWZe5T0XEISYR1IGuEACWS4V6 AAHDAsAAAwAmAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAsAAgABAAAAHgBCEAEAAAAhAAAAPHM5MTEzOWExLjA2NEBj aS5wYXNhZGVuYS50eC51cz4AAAAAAwD9P+QEAABAADkAIC7OHdu1vwEDAPE/CQQAAB4AMUABAAAA CQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAAHgAwQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAZQAAAAAAD AIAQ/////wIBRwABAAAAOAAAAGM9VVM7YT0gO3A9SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTTtsPUVYQ0gxLTAw MDUwNDE1MTIwOVotMjc1OTgAAgH5PwEAAABYAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAA AC9PPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT01NIENPTEwvT1U9SVJDQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPVJQQVJT T05TAB4A+D8BAAAADwAAAFJvYmVydCBQYXJzb25zAAAeADhAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAAC Afs/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENP TU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD6PwEAAAAPAAAAUm9i ZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOUABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAEAABzD2mr0d27W/AUAACDDi+94d 27W/AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAHgAdDgEAAABmAAAAW2ZvcmVuc2ljLXNjaWVuY2VdIERP IE5PVCBPUEVOIEFOWSBNQUlMIFdJVEggVEhFIFNVQkpFQ1QgTElORSAiSSBMT1ZFIFlPVSIgSVQg V0lMTCBLSUxMIFlPVVIgQ09NUFVURVIAAAAeADUQAQAAAD0AAAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMxMTgx OTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1N0EzNDc3QTVAZXhjaDEuaXJjYy5jYy5mbC51cz4AAAAACwApAAAAAAALACMA AAAAAAMABhDCFLqRAwAHEGgGAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAVEhFIklMT1ZF WU9VIk9SIkxPVkVMRVRURVIiVklSVVNIQVNCRUVOU0hPV0lOR1VQQUxMQVJPVU5EVEhFV09STERG T1JBVExFQVNUVEhFTEFTVDI0SFJTSVRKVVNUQVBQRUFSRQAAAAACAX8AAQAAAD0AAAA8QTY2M0Uw MUJGRjU3RDMxMTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1N0EzNDc3QTVAZXhjaDEuaXJjYy5jYy5mbC51cz4AAAAA 3l4= ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFB5DB.1DDEFBE2-- From forens-owner Thu May 4 11:47:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09836 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09831 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:47:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11054; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:47:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Robert Parsons cc: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" , "BABU THOMAS (E-mail)" , "DANIEL NIPPES (E-mail)" , "EARL RITZLINE (E-mail)" , "KATHI KING (E-mail)" , "LAURIE PRIVATEER (E-mail)" , Michael Kelley , Mike Gibbons Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 May 2000, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > > The "I love you" or "loveletter" virus has been showing up all around the > world for at least the last 24 hrs. Yeah, it has pretty much shut down the Micro$oft Windoze boxes here, too. I still wonder whose bright idea it was to have a mail reader automatically execute programs attached to mail sent in by random people. Doh. billo From forens-owner Thu May 4 11:53:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09973 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09968 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:53:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 May 2000 15:53:25 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:49:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:49:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.5F2D0170" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.5F2D0170 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:47 AM To: Robert Parsons Cc: 'forensic-science@egroups.com'; FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail); BABU THOMAS (E-mail); DANIEL NIPPES (E-mail); EARL RITZLINE (E-mail); KATHI KING (E-mail); LAURIE PRIVATEER (E-mail); Michael Kelley; Mike Gibbons Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER On Thu, 4 May 2000, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > > The "I love you" or "loveletter" virus has been showing up all around the > world for at least the last 24 hrs. Yeah, it has pretty much shut down the Micro$oft Windoze boxes here, too. I still wonder whose bright idea it was to have a mail reader automatically execute programs attached to mail sent in by random people. Doh. billo ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.5F2D0170 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:47 AM
To: Robert Parsons
Cc: 'forensic-science@egroups.com'; FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail); BABU
THOMAS (E-mail); DANIEL NIPPES (E-mail); EARL RITZLINE (E-mail); KATHI
KING (E-mail); LAURIE PRIVATEER (E-mail); Michael Kelley; Mike Gibbons
Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT
LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER




On Thu, 4 May 2000, Robert Parsons wrote:

> From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
>
> The "I love you" or "loveletter" virus has been showing up all around the
> world for at least the last 24 hrs. 


Yeah, it has pretty much shut down the Micro$oft Windoze boxes here,
too.  I still wonder whose bright idea it was to have a mail reader
automatically execute programs attached to mail sent in by random
people.  Doh.


billo

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.5F2D0170-- From forens-owner Thu May 4 11:54:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10074 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10069 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 May 2000 15:54:30 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 4 May 2000 11:50:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:50:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.86410C98" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.86410C98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Well, only a fool or a novice leaves that auto execute setting on. It's easy to turn off so that attachments are not opened unless you open them intentionally, which of course one should never do if the message is not from a known and trusted source. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:47 AM To: Robert Parsons Cc: 'forensic-science@egroups.com'; FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail); BABU THOMAS (E-mail); DANIEL NIPPES (E-mail); EARL RITZLINE (E-mail); KATHI KING (E-mail); LAURIE PRIVATEER (E-mail); Michael Kelley; Mike Gibbons Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER On Thu, 4 May 2000, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > > The "I love you" or "loveletter" virus has been showing up all around the > world for at least the last 24 hrs. Yeah, it has pretty much shut down the Micro$oft Windoze boxes here, too. I still wonder whose bright idea it was to have a mail reader automatically execute programs attached to mail sent in by random people. Doh. billo ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.86410C98 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL WITH THE SUBJECT = LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR COMPUTER

Well, only a fool or a novice leaves that auto = execute setting on.  It's easy to turn off so that attachments are = not opened unless you open them intentionally, which of course one = should never do if the message is not from a known and trusted = source.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:47 AM
To: Robert Parsons
Cc: 'forensic-science@egroups.com'; FORENS-L POSTING = (E-mail); BABU
THOMAS (E-mail); DANIEL NIPPES (E-mail); EARL = RITZLINE (E-mail); KATHI
KING (E-mail); LAURIE PRIVATEER (E-mail); Michael = Kelley; Mike Gibbons
Subject: RE: [forensic-science] DO NOT OPEN ANY MAIL = WITH THE SUBJECT
LINE "I LOVE YOU" IT WILL KILL YOUR = COMPUTER




On Thu, 4 May 2000, Robert Parsons wrote:

> From: Robert Parsons = <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
>
> The "I love you" or = "loveletter" virus has been showing up all around the
> world for at least the last 24 hrs.  =


Yeah, it has pretty much shut down the Micro$oft = Windoze boxes here,
too.  I still wonder whose bright idea it was = to have a mail reader
automatically execute programs attached to mail sent = in by random
people.  Doh.


billo

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB5E0.86410C98-- From forens-owner Thu May 4 14:27:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12609 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA12593 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 14:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:27:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Anil Aggrawal" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 10:51:10 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Anil Aggrawal" ] >From forens-owner Thu May 4 10:51:04 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.124]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09259 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 10:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 82093 invoked by uid 65534); 4 May 2000 14:50:16 -0000 Message-ID: <20000504145016.82092.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [202.54.109.121] From: "Anil Aggrawal" To: "Forensic List" Subject: Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 22:45:15 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB61A.6A26DD00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB61A.6A26DD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi friends I wish to inform that Vol 1, No. 2 (July - Dec 2000) of the "Internet = Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology" is going to be out soon. = All those who are interested in submitting articles for the same may do = so immediately. The address of the journal is given below. Thanks Regards Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/marygoldgupta/index.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell = them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called = when the top doctors have failed! ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB61A.6A26DD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi friends
I wish to inform that Vol 1, No. 2 = (July - Dec=20 2000) of the "Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology" is = going to=20 be out soon. All those who are interested in submitting articles for the = same=20 may do so immediately. The address of the journal is given below.=20 Thanks
Regards
Professor Anil = Aggrawal
Professor of=20 Forensic Medicine
Maulana Azad Medical College
S-299 Greater=20 Kailash-1
New Delhi-110048
Phone: 6465460, 6413101
Email:dr_anil@hotmail.comWebsites:
1.Anil=20 Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology
http= ://www.freeyellow.com/members2/marygoldgupta/index.html
2.=20 Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page
http://= members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html
3.=20 Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page
http://www.f= ortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235
 
Many people ask me why I chose Forensic = Medicine as=20 a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the = honor of=20 being called when the top doctors have = failed!
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFB61A.6A26DD00-- From forens-owner Thu May 4 22:48:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18763 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 4 May 2000 22:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18757 for ; Thu, 4 May 2000 22:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200005050248.WAA18757@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id KH07JRGM; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:48:05 +1200 Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 15:47:00 +1300 From: "Ashton, Jason" Subject: Query - Fire from fireplace ash To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We have a case where a fire was supposedly started from ash gathered from a fireplace & put in a box. Any information or references people could supply on fires from ash remains, smouldering in confined spaces, rates of combustion of ash... would be of help. Thank you Jason ------------------------------------------------- Jason M Ashton Information Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and Research Private Bag 92021 Auckland New Zealand From forens-owner Fri May 5 08:27:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA23067 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA23062 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 08:27:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 16:01:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Anil Aggrawal" To: "Forensic List" Subject: get forens forensic_anil@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 23:29:14 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0124_01BFB620.8EF51BA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0124_01BFB620.8EF51BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable get forens forensic_anil@hotmail.com Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/marygoldgupta/index.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell = them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called = when the top doctors have failed! ------=_NextPart_000_0124_01BFB620.8EF51BA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

get forens forensic_anil@hotmail.com

Professor Anil Aggrawal
Professor of = Forensic=20 Medicine
Maulana Azad Medical College
S-299 Greater = Kailash-1
New=20 Delhi-110048
Phone: 6465460, 6413101
Email:dr_anil@hotmail.comWebsites:
1.Anil=20 Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology
http= ://www.freeyellow.com/members2/marygoldgupta/index.html
2.=20 Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page
http://= members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html
3.=20 Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page
http://www.f= ortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235
 
Many people ask me why I chose Forensic = Medicine as=20 a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the = honor of=20 being called when the top doctors have = failed!
------=_NextPart_000_0124_01BFB620.8EF51BA0-- From forens-owner Fri May 5 10:31:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24406 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA24401 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 5 May 2000 14:31:00 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 5 May 2000 10:27:19 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forensic-science] Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:27:19 -0400 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BFB69E.04D83C12" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFB69E.04D83C12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" The CAI site will only help you if you are using CAI's antivirus software. The patch there won't work with AV software from other companies. Here are the URL's for downloading patches that will take care of the problem for users of McAfee and Norton antivirus programs: McAfee: http://www.nai.com/ Click on the patch icon. A zipped file will download. When download is complete, upzip the file and copy it into your McAfee antivirus directory (you'll see other .dat (Data) files there, add this one to them). Then reboot your computer to activate the patch. Norton: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/download.html I don't use Norton, so I'm not familiar with the procedure. Follow instructions on the website for installing the update. Both companies' servers are being overworked due to so many people downloading the fixes, so you may have to try several times to access the pages and successfully download. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: David Hyde [mailto:DHyde@ci.pasadena.tx.us] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 9:21 AM To: forensic-science@egroups.com Subject: Re: [forensic-science] ** High Priority ** I found the cure for that Love-Letter virus. I also got the virus from THIS list. Go to this web site: http://www.cai.com/virusinfo/virusalert.htm#love_letter Luckly I don't use Outlook at work, so as far as I can tell it didn't email itself out from my computer. David --- Officer David Hyde Pasadena Police Department Identification Division and Crime Scene Unit 1114 Jeff Ginn Memorial Drive Pasadena, Texas 77506 713.477.1221 ext. 4305 713.475.5549 713.477.4976 Fax dhyde@ci.pasadena.tx.us >>> sloanegd@earthlink.com 05/05/00 12:21AM >>> Don't open the chris e-mail. It contains a virus. It says love letter or something. I got it and it was sent via e-mail to all of you. Sorry. Gabe --- Gabe Sloane --- sloanegd@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ beMANY! has a new way to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving more each month: Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! http://click.egroups.com/1/3821/3/_/75397/_/957493115/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFB69E.04D83C12 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhQOAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcFAAUACgAbABMABQAeAQEggAMADgAAANAHBQAF AAoAGwATAAUAHgEBCYABACEAAAAwOTRDQTJFOEZGMjFENDExODFBRTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQATBwEE gAEAFwAAAFJFOiBbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5jZV0ACQgBDYAEAAIAAAACAAIAAQOQBgCIDQAAMwAA AAMACVkBAAAAAwDeP+QEAAADADYAAAAAAAMAA4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFKFAAAnagEA HgAEgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUAAAEAAAAEAAAAOS4wAAsADYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA AABGAAAAAAaFAAAAAAAAAwAFgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAYUAAAAAAAALAAGACCAGAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAsABoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwAC gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAeACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAA AAAAAAMACIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAAHgAJgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYA AAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4ACoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAeAAuACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAgEJEAEAAADGBwAAwgcA AB4NAABMWkZ1p3EYPQMACgByY3BnMTI14jIDQ3RleAVBAQMB9/8KgAKkA+QHEwKAD/MAUARWPwhV B7IRJQ5RAwECAGNo4QrAc2V0MgYABsMRJfYzBEYTtzASLBEzCO8J97Y7GB8OMDURIgxgYwBQMwsJ AWQzNhZQC6YgVMRoZRIgQUkgAJAOsBogA/BsAyACIGx5IKEdAGxwIHkIYCAGkJceowrAHRB1AJBu Zx0iBicEIABwdGl2aXKrH6AdYG8BgHcfYS4c42UKsHQT0CB0HQAfcXfNAiAnBUAioHJrHbEiQHUQ wFYg9yADUh4AIkIgvQWgbQqwAwAHkCGASCJiwx9iIkEgVVJMIDECEBEFwGRvdx4gb2Fkfx/CIeMH kSJAIfAdtAGQa90dEGMfYiEQJkNwA2ACYH5lJJAm8h+gBJAEICmxTdhjQWYJ4CBRZAewF8EPAiAg WSohCcBhbXM6zwqiCoQKgCt0OiAeUAJAIHA6Ly93L4AubpULcC4lES8txENsDeD/IzAsYSnjIfMN 4AIgIYAQwPQgegUgcAmAJFADEB2l+yc2MhFXHQADoCc2HuAEINclEipgDrAsH5BwMmEmQ/cy0yvi BaBwHkAdgB7gAjB+bx6iBcErhiCGJ6AYIGPVLFByHkAoHrEnHeEUEJMpkSTDLmQokShEIfD8YSky wyhSImE1sCeQLAA/IkA1AQIgJjE3sCJBbSn/MhEc8QOgGCAG4CSwN8QlEv51DrAFwDehANAggSHw JjTdIeMuLcosJC7scwbAIGFjBZAv82F2YwnwP2Ev+zN3LxBtGAAt0x1QJzAiwm8q4SwVNbAhACAg ICSQbv0+kWYtgAMQBzAFwCNTKeXNQ/BkCHAhcSBGBvAXsPMH4AuAc3QgwD/hAiA88v0mQ3c+YB1z JvJJ0gdAMLC/H9EmUjXQOwEhcC3KQiSxZSUIJzpBcnYrAh9iYvplH8JvTyEjAjKhSPA9M/9G0QOB HkAykDcQMvEnOjY0/ngHkEazHrIAwB5BQ9A9NP85oRQQTyEHQCIwB3M/o0Pw2wQRMTRnB5Er4nMa 0FYy3GZ1HeAeQDN5Rz6ALADHCkAw0E0tYiBQE/FKYcE1sEYtQUJDLcRJYF8YIA3CEiA9kQQAdC3E UmxlZ0pRVVFDBRAHgCB+TAGgBbAh8DmRLcQokUl3K/AHMAOgUiCQEoEIUG30bXUDAHQeQAhQHeBd MOplW2V0IYBQCJFD8Frx1kwtyi3ELWOCTwUQXUD9XXJNVkFW0WODW2UDYS7gJztQIKAsAEh5AQAg WycAwAMQLFA6RGZCQGNfL+AKsGSQAQAvwC4M0C79H6BdLcQGYAIwLuBlgGYQy1QQNbBNVBEwNTWw AdBBamAgOToyMRDATd0txFRm8CbiW/MtBPAIkPpuQ/BAXTADYDXQJZAlEfFolXViajlhLuBdIC7g zltrvmiFLcoqKiWwY/D9IiBQBRAFsGBycOAtyh1QfwIQYFA8oilBSQEm4yhzTPlQES1MFCA/YiCj MhEdUHsHQEbRZz6RJlIgpCRjVPxISQXwMLBJ8FizPUQ1Af9LER1jLbsvGSlgL+QgowuAvwIQezQH QASQYZBE8SMXsN1PIF81cT9iLcpMWUEeMe1Fmk8/UBewbyMwKJIjEf9Gs2ewR3EFwIDBHVApYDER 7x5wAyA3USegZCLCKnBmsXs3QRQQbB8ACGBHYSRybf8eQD8WMhEtymXjb89jGC3E/k8BIA3gEoFl 6C3EWoBnxO9acAbwiEFl0GUKsUUARAH/RTVn4SCAiDEh8EpRZdAgke8AkCxjLABdtFND8SZxYGHF LcQxjrA0IEoBEVjQ/wuAA6BkYARgByJl0AUQTyAbiTw1sFQOwIDBNzc1BDA2LcQ3MTMuND2R4C4O IGrBDsEhgDQzk2oQkjo1LhpgNDmSPEmU8Dc2SVBheC3EZO5oZz9oQi3KPpkAHWAncdk9IGdkbLCK wWhMMVlg+yURagEvmrIWUA4garFq8H4gmQGFVSKzNxA0QXNTaN8FEAQgZMBmoiGASQVAMeG/AZBJ 0R9QdSaeIWSQeQQg/3zSWSB01AWwLcQhAAeAPMH/H9CeAXYTN1Er4jdRIUAg4f9EAXUhigCdpD+T HeIfAyGA7lMFsDmgQPtHAaBhFWLN/1jQpkEGAJlTpziZT1lgPSDrBUGnR0WZ4kyaMS7gniD/IDE3 019AP2GqUUD7Ys+u3x+v77D/sg4txE+wTUFO/FkhVDGewj0gB+AhQB5AO1ECVFJiY/Aw8jfTcGj/ PRK1UB3hp6Er4ikwiqAw8v+g1WXxH9GPwR0QmdAiEQRgnQIwaC7gf4AFwGh1VuD5T6B1eR/CbNN2 EF/BrBP/dGEf0YyAS/FsgX2FXlEHkf53PNAiEUeAHeG5Ix4wNbCfC1Ag0QORDsEtcCAkHDFjC4BJ UFJFRSlRHeBzKiF5u2Mwsi5syS8xGC8zOGrAwnAvXy+NkfAzlgDC4Tk1N5Tw/jOOsJrAqojEz8Xf xu/H//9lFWsWihFJ8J7RB4FkkkaxvwnwopNm4S7wa69ssEds5/99hcnhjhBXYEswBQFPsMr1f4oA AmAAcCMwyoXLg8v+Lf9gUM53zP+tX8lfym/Lf8yPf21Wzi/PP9BP0V/YLwqAfQHe0AAAHgBwAAEA AAATAAAAW2ZvcmVuc2ljLXNjaWVuY2VdAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABv7aUv6PookXdIf8R1IGuEACW S4V6AAHonmAAAwAmAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAsAAgABAAAAHgBCEAEAAAAhAAAAPHM5MTI4NDk4LjAz NEBjaS5wYXNhZGVuYS50eC51cz4AAAAAAwD9P+QEAABAADkAUN/JBJ62vwEDAPE/CQQAAB4AMUAB AAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAAHgAwQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAZQAAA AAADAIAQ/////wsA8hABAAAAAgFHAAEAAAA4AAAAYz1VUzthPSA7cD1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIgQ09N O2w9RVhDSDEtMDAwNTA1MTQyNzE5Wi0yOTczMgACAfk/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgA Ky/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVO VFMvQ049UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD4PwEAAAAPAAAAUm9iZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOEABAAAACQAAAFJQ QVJTT05TAAAAAAIB+z8BAAAAWAAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1JTkRJ QU4gUklWRVIgQ09NTSBDT0xML09VPUlSQ0MvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1SUEFSU09OUwAeAPo/ AQAAAA8AAABSb2JlcnQgUGFyc29ucwAAHgA5QAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAQAAHMIA9uQSe tr8BQAAIMBI82ASetr8BHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAAeAB0OAQAAABMAAABbZm9yZW5zaWMt c2NpZW5jZV0AAB4ANRABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzExODE5NzEwMDA5NjRCODU3QTM0 NzdBQkBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAAALACkAAAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGEDnJIrIDAAcQ rwgAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABUSEVDQUlTSVRFV0lMTE9OTFlIRUxQWU9V SUZZT1VBUkVVU0lOR0NBSVNBTlRJVklSVVNTT0ZUV0FSRVRIRVBBVENIVEhFUkVXT05UV09SS1dJ VEhBVlNPRlRXQVJFRlJPTU9UAAAAAAIBfwABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzExODE5NzEw MDA5NjRCODU3QTM0NzdBQkBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAACB1g== ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFB69E.04D83C12-- From forens-owner Fri May 5 14:40:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26672 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26667 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 14:39:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (d2372.pppdel.vsnl.net.in [203.197.192.17]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id AAA08894 for ; Sat, 6 May 2000 00:12:17 +0500 (GMT+0500) Message-ID: <391335FC.1B27EAFE@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 02:28:36 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Newsgroup Subject: Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi friends I wish to inform that Vol 1, No. 2 (July - Dec 2000) of the "Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology" is going to be out soon. All those who are interested in submitting articles for the same may do so immediately. The address of the journal is given below. Thanks Regards Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/marygoldgupta/index.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed! From forens-owner Fri May 5 17:16:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA28072 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:16:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA28067 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 17:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 17:16:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hayden Baldwin" To: Subject: New Virus's coming Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:43:43 -0500 Organization: Forensic Enterprises, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 There is a warning of new and additional viruses coming, see http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,36152,00.html?tw=wn20000505 Hayden Hayden B. Baldwin Forensic Enterprises, Inc. Orland Park, IL 60462 http://www.feinc.net mailto:hbb@feinc.net From forens-owner Sun May 7 14:08:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14954 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 14:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14942 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 14:07:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from metsys.demon.co.uk ([158.152.36.125]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12oVT7-0007F3-0U; Sun, 7 May 2000 19:07:54 +0100 Message-ID: <3915B0AA.88DCC3C3@metsys.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 19:06:34 +0100 From: John Standen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Parsons CC: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: Forensic statistics - HELP References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk MSc student in Forensic Archaeology, I urgently need Primary sources (online Journals) not books. With any references to the use of statistics in Forensic science that are ONLY relevent to a forensic archaeologist or anthropologist. Can access through the academic service ATHENS or BIDS, etc. Any advice will be much appreciated as my current references are NIL! John From forens-owner Sun May 7 20:32:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18038 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 7 May 2000 20:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wwcst212.netaddress.usa.net (wwcst212.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.212]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA18033 for ; Sun, 7 May 2000 20:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26561 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2000 00:32:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000508003238.26560.qmail@wwcst212.netaddress.usa.net> Received: from 204.68.24.212 by wwcst212 for [206.152.118.11] via web-mailer(M3.3.1.96) on Mon May 8 00:32:38 GMT 2000 Date: 7 May 00 19:32:38 CDT From: Catherine Chmidling To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, HISTARCH@asu.edu Subject: meeting announcement X-Mailer: USANET web-mailer (M3.3.1.96) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id UAA18034 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Apologies for cross-posting: BARFAA 2000 SEVENTH ANNUAL MIDWEST BIOARCHAEOLOGY AND FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY ASSOCIATION University of Missouri - Columbia October 20-22 The seventh annual meeting of the Midwest Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology Association will be hosted by the University of Missouri’s Anthropology Students Association. The meeting will consist of formal and informal papers, open discussions and posters, and workshops offered by MU faculty. “Works in progress” and posters are strongly encouraged, as is student participation. Like past meetings, the goal of the conference is to provide an informal forum for osteologists, forensic anthropologists, and bioarchaeologists to present and get feedback on current research, methodological advances, and specimens of particular interest. Abstracts: Electronic submission of abstracts is preferred. Either email the abstract or attach it to an email to mubarfaa@netscape.net. Send snail-mail abstracts to: ASA - BARFAA abstracts Department of Anthropology University of Missouri 107 Swallow Hall Columbia, MO 65211 Abstract deadline: September 15, 2000 (postmarked) Registration: Please make checks payable to “ASA”. The registration fee is $35 before September 15, and $40 after that date. The registration fee includes all conference materials, a welcome reception Friday evening, continental breakfasts Saturday and Sunday mornings, and lunch on Saturday. We understand that decisions to attend are sometimes made at the last minute, but we would greatly appreciate registration being paid as early as possible to facilitate making arrangements for the meeting. Conference Agenda: There will be a reception Friday evening from 6:30 to 9:30 (drinks and appetizers) with on-site registration. Saturday’s all-day sessions will begin with registration and continental breakfast at 8:00, followed by the program of papers, posters, and discussions. On Sunday, three half-day workshops are being offered by faculty from the MU Department of Anthropology. Preregistration for these workshops is recommended, as space is limited. A detailed program with the titles and times of presentations and the locations of all events will be mailed to those who preregister, and will also be posted on the following webpages: http://www.luc.edu/depts/anthropology/BARFAA/ http://web.missouri.edu/~anthwww/asa.htm Hotel Information: A block of rooms at reduced rates has been reserved at the only hotel within walking distance of campus (about a 10-15 minute walk). Call the Ramada Inn at 573-443-2090, and identify yourself as part of the “BARFAA 2000” group. The reduced rate is $49 a night. Reservations must be made by October 13. Other hotels in Columbia: Best Western Columbia, 3100 I-70 Drive, SE, 573-474-6161 Comfort Inn, Hwy. 63 & I-70, 573-443-4141 Hampton Inn, 3410 Clark Lane, 800-426-7866 Hawthorn Suites, 805 Keene St., 800-527-1133 Holiday Inn East, 1612 N. Providence Rd., 573-449-2491 Holiday Inn Executive Center, 2200 I-70 Dr., SW, 573-445-8531 Holiday Inn Express, 801 Keene St., 573-449-4422 Red Rood Inn, I-70 & Providence Rd., 573-442-0145 Further Information: Along with the detailed program, directions, maps, information about restaurants, parking, etc., will be sent to all preregistered attendees. If you have any questions, please email either Deborah Cunningham (dlcfcb@mizzou.edu) or Catherine Chmidling (chmidling@usa.net), or contact us at 573-882-4731. BARFAA 2000 - REGISTRATION FORM University of Missouri - Columbia October 20-22 Fees: $35 due before September 15; $40 due after September 15, 2000. Registration fee includes all conference materials plus a reception Friday night, continental breakfasts on Saturday and Sunday, and lunch on Saturday. Name (as you would like it to appear on your nametag): ___________________________________ Address:­­­­­­­­­­­­ _____________________________________________ ­_____________________________________________ ­_____________________________________________ ­_____________________________________________ Phone: __________________ Email: _____________________ Do you plan to attend the reception Friday night? ___ yes ___ no Workshop Registration: Due to limited microscope and computer access, the workshops have limited attendance. Please return this form as soon as possible in order to reserve a spot. Places will be assigned on a “first come, first served” basis - there is not enough room for everyone to attend a formal workshop. But, in addition to the workshops listed below, we will have a room set aside for “interesting cases”. So, be sure to bring some! If you plan on attending a workshop on Sunday, please rank the workshops according to your preference (e.g., 1 for your first choice, etc.): __ “Sex and Reason: Logic-crunching and Data-mining in Order to Estimate Sex and Age”, Bob Benfer and Dave McBride (limited to 14 people). This workshop will take place in the anthropology computer lab, and will be most useful to participants who have some experience with spreadsheets and with sex estimation. We will practice increasing the usefulness of a sample of any size by bootstrapping. Attendees are encouraged to bring a data set of individuals that need to be classified by 3-35 attributes in a DOS text file or an Excel file. All attendees will receive a copy of an ID3 program. __ “Vertebrate Taphonomy: A Paleontological Perspective”, R. Lee Lyman (limited to 15 people). Various kinds of modifications to mammal bones that have been observed on archaeological and paleontological specimens will be described and illustrated with examples. These will include: weathering, digestive corrosion, burning, carnivore and rodent gnawing, green- and dry-bone fractures, and knife and saw cuts. __ “Histological Aging Workshop”, Sam Stout and Margaret Streeter (limited to 10 people). In this workshop, participants will obtain hands-on experience in recent histological methods that estimate age from human bone. Please return this form to: ASA - BARFAA registration Department of Anthropology University of Missouri 107 Swallow Hall Columbia, MO 65211 ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. From forens-owner Mon May 8 09:28:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23015 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rottweiler.fiu.edu (rottweiler.fiu.edu [131.94.64.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23010 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.46.102] (chmja.fiu.edu [131.94.46.102]) by rottweiler.fiu.edu (8.9.3/FIU UCS V1.2) with ESMTP id JAA20464; Mon, 8 May 2000 09:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:29:21 -0400 To: "John Tonkyn" From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: Genotyper and Mac G4's Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear John, Why exactly would you like to downgrade your PB to OS 8.6 ? I've a PB G3/400 and I installed OS 9 a few month ago. First I was so pissed off with my computer which was continuously freezing and the different bugs. But the only thing to do is to switch off the virtual memory and now all is perfect. I think that OS 9 is as good as OS 8.6 concerning the stability of the system, once the virtual memory is switched off. Be really careful with the virtual memory and the laptop, it can crash totally your system. Refer to the TIL of Apple for that : http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n25130 Don't let go your powerbook on sleep with the virtual memory. They say it is corrected with 9.0.4. I installed 9.0.4, but for the moment I prefer to keep my virtual memory off. And generally with the Apple systems, it's quite difficult to use an old system with a machine which came out with the new system and it can lead to big problems of incompatibility. Another thing with MacOS 9, you have to restart the system quite often, because I think that the fragmentation of the RAM is not so well accepted with the OS 9 as it was with the OS 8.6. For example, if you open and close 200 hundreds applications in one day, your RAM will be so fragmented that the system freezes easily. So, at least once a day you have to restart the system if you open and close often the applications. And with the system 9 you have a lot of good news like Sherlock 2, iTools (yes, you can have it with OS 8.6 and a little bit of ResEdit, but it's always better to work with a "clean system"), etc... Hope this helps you, Best Regards, Eric Stauffer >Dave, >I spoke with PE Tech Support a few months ago and they said they >were evaluating the G4 for compatibility with their software - check >with them to see if the G4 qualified. We have had problems tracking >and extracting 96-lane 377 gels using GeneScan 3.1 and OS 9. We >downgraded to OS 8.6 and everything worked fine. In addition, there >are a few bugs with Genotyper 2.5 that I was told 2 months ago there >would be a patch for in May. I don't think these bugs are related >to the OS. Another question, does anyone out there know whether the >newest G3 laptops (500 MHz) can be downgraded from OS 9 to 8.6? I >had heard that this was not possible, but I don't know why this >would be the case. Thanks, >-John Tonkyn >CA Dept. of Justice/DNA Lab > >>>> - 5/2/00 8:14 PM >>> > >Does anybody on the list, involved in STR typing, have any direct knowledge >of problems with using Genotyper 2.5 software with Macintosh G4 computers? >Our labs were about to purchase some, but then heard of incompatability with >the motherboards on the G4s. Does anybody know if this also applies to >earlier versions of Genotyper? > >While I'm on the topic, has anybody out there have any experience using >Genotyper and/or Genescan with Mac OS 9? Any problems. > >Thanks > >Dave Baer -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry Florida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA --------------------------------------------------------------- From forens-owner Tue May 9 10:09:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07276 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.state.me.us (mailhub.state.me.us [141.114.122.227]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07271 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-email.ps.state.me.us by mailhub.state.me.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:05:52 -0400 Received: from [141.114.109.134] by dps-email.ps.state.me.us for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:09:01 -0400 Message-Id: <000701bfb9c1$293921e0$866d728d@pschelms.ps.state.me.us> From: "Gretchen D. Hicks" To: Subject: Lab director opening Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:16:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01BFB99F.A1DB36A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BFB99F.A1DB36A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Maine State Police Crime Laboratory is currently in the process of = hiring a civilian director. If anyone is interested, I have included a = copy of the newspaper (Kennebec Journal) advertisement. Gretchen Professional (5/7/00) 367105 DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICE CRIME LABORATORY Salary Range $41,600 to = $58,094 The Maine State Police is seeking applicants for the position of = Director of State Police Crime Laboratory. This is professional services = and scientific work of a managerial nature in planning, coordinating, = and directing the activities of the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory. = Responsibilities include managing all laboratory sections and programs; = supervising scientific, technical and administrative staff. Work is = performed under administrative direction. Minimum Qualifications: A = Masters Degree in Forensic Science, Biology, Chemistry, toxicology or a = related life or physical science and six (6) years experience performing = professional forensic science laboratory work which includes at least = four years experience supervising forensic laboratory programs. = Equivalent work experience may be substituted for education on a year = for year basis. The value of State Paid Health and Dental Insurance is = $190.84 bi-weekly. Value of State's share of employees retirement is = 17.13% of salary. Please send a resume to April Panosian, Personnel = Specialists, Department of Public Safety, 18 Meadow Road, State House = Station 104, Augusta, Maine 04333-0142, telephone (207)287-3966. Resumes = will be accepted until June 2, 2000. The State of Maine is an = Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Employer. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BFB99F.A1DB36A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The Maine State Police Crime = Laboratory is=20 currently in the process of hiring a civilian director.  If anyone = is=20 interested, I have included a copy of the newspaper (Kennebec Journal)=20 advertisement.
 
Gretchen
 
Professional = (5/7/00)
367105=20 DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICE CRIME LABORATORY Salary Range $41,600 to = $58,094 The=20 Maine State Police is seeking applicants for the position of Director of = State=20 Police Crime Laboratory. This is professional services and scientific = work of a=20 managerial nature in planning, coordinating, and directing the = activities of the=20 Maine State Police Crime Laboratory. Responsibilities include managing = all=20 laboratory sections and programs; supervising scientific, technical and=20 administrative staff. Work is performed under administrative direction. = Minimum=20 Qualifications: A Masters Degree in Forensic Science, Biology, = Chemistry,=20 toxicology or a related life or physical science and six (6) years = experience=20 performing professional forensic science laboratory work which includes = at least=20 four years experience supervising forensic laboratory programs. = Equivalent work=20 experience may be substituted for education on a year for year basis. = The value=20 of State Paid Health and Dental Insurance is $190.84 bi-weekly. Value of = State's=20 share of employees retirement is 17.13% of salary. Please send a resume = to April=20 Panosian, Personnel Specialists, Department of Public Safety, 18 Meadow = Road,=20 State House Station 104, Augusta, Maine 04333-0142, telephone = (207)287-3966.=20 Resumes will be accepted until June 2, 2000. The State of Maine is an=20 Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity = Employer.
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BFB99F.A1DB36A0-- From forens-owner Wed May 10 08:45:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17826 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 08:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA17821 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 08:45:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Aldridge, Michael" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:18:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:18:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB9EB.39801854" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB9EB.39801854 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I need methods for qualitative analysis of ethylene glycol for animal abuse cases in the Charlotte Poice Crime Lab Thanks From forens-owner Wed May 10 08:46:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17846 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 08:46:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA17841 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 08:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:46:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Greenspan, Allen" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:56:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "Greenspan, Allen" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Salary information Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:55:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I am posting the following for another member of our laboratory who is giving a talk in the near future. Anyone who can provide her with some information, please respond directly to her at the following: Robin_Gall@sheriff.org Thanks in advance. I am giving a talk at the upcoming 2000 Northwest & Rocky Mountain ACS Joint Regional Meeting June15-17. My talk is to undergraduate students and focuses on careers in forensic science. I would like to include a few salary ranges from various labs across the country. In our system, the salaries are public information. If this is true in your labs, and it wouldn't be too much trouble, please send me the salary range for the different position in your lab. Thank you Robin Gall 954-831-8585 Robin_Gall@sheriff.org From forens-owner Wed May 10 10:01:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19085 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 10:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from us6.usit.net (US6.USIT.NET [199.1.48.49]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19080 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 10:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ken ([216.80.162.240]) by us6.usit.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id JAA14879 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 09:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000d01bfba87$a2444e40$f0a250d8@ken> From: "K. Habben" To: "Forens-L" Subject: ethylene glycol Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:57:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Call Dr. Bill Brewer - (803) 788-2260 ext 241 - he has a very good procedure - he is a toxicologist with Clemson Vet. in Columbia, SC Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: Basten To: Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 8:45 AM Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Aldridge, Michael" ] (fwd) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:18:20 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Aldridge, Michael" > To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" > Subject: > Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 15:18:23 -0400 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB9EB.39801854" > > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB9EB.39801854 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > I need methods for qualitative analysis of ethylene glycol for animal abuse > cases in the Charlotte Poice Crime Lab > > Thanks > > > From forens-owner Wed May 10 12:56:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21271 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 10 May 2000 12:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21266 for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 12:56:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.bc.4f1ee03 (4360) for ; Wed, 10 May 2000 12:55:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:55:19 EDT Subject: Job Announcement - Business Developer To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Good Afternoon Everyone, I'm not sure if there's anyone on this list that would be interested in a position like this, but I figured I'd give it a shot. It sounds like a really good job for someone with an interest in prison reform. Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm Vice President of Venture Operations The search is on for a business developer willing to take complete charge of the development of multiple businesses in the greater Chicago market. Funding of over $10 million is slated for opening new companies that will employ a large number of work release prisoners in positions that will teach an employable trades. These business need to be profitable and completive with existing commercial companies, and pay similar wages. The business can be in any line or industry. The right candidate for this position will posses a passion for creating something of value. They will have a strong understanding of financials, business plans, profit and loss, and marketing. While this person must have vision and be able to think out side of the box, they will need to be grounded in reality. A strong communicator that is able to build relationships and develop win/win solutions are values that would help make this person a success. Past experience in start ups, new ventures or building a business are highly desirable. I see no "mold" that the right person will come from. They will have talent to achieve what they set their mind and heart on. I would like to share more information with potential candidates on a one on one basis. I can be reached at 703-312-6733 or by Email at rtroup@tmg-dc.com. Roger Troup From forens-owner Thu May 11 10:04:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01049 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 10:04:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rottweiler.fiu.edu (rottweiler.fiu.edu [131.94.64.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01044 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 10:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.46.102] (chmja.fiu.edu [131.94.46.102]) by rottweiler.fiu.edu (8.9.3/FIU UCS V1.2) with ESMTP id KAA18533 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 10:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:06:12 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Fire and Arson Investigator Journal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear List, I'm looking for someone who is subscribed to the Journal "Fire and Arson Investigator". I need to browse the collection for the several past years in order to complete my literature research for my master's thesis. Is there any member of the list around Miami who can help me ? I will appreciate your help, Thanks in advance, Best Regards, Eric Stauffer -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry, CP 194 Florida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA Phone : (305) 348-6657 Fax : (305) 348-3772 E-mail : estauf01@fiu.edu --------------------------------------------------------------- From forens-owner Thu May 11 16:48:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06132 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns.datasync.com (root@ns.datasync.com [205.216.82.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06121 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doy95 (gul1-38.datasync.com [209.102.166.102]) by ns.datasync.com (8.8.8/Datasync) with SMTP id PAA29861 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 15:48:08 -0500 Message-ID: <031c01bfbb81$9d855700$9fa666d1@doy95> From: "Geo & Joyce Leonard" To: "Forensic list" Subject: Gas Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:46:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0319_01BFBB60.15905BE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BFBB60.15905BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Bloomberg News Service] A terrible diet and room with no ventilation = are=20 being blamed for the death of a man who was killed by his own gas. There = was=20 no mark on his body but an autopsy showed large amounts of methane gas = in his=20 system. His diet had consisted primarily of beans and cabbage (and a = couple=20 of other things). It was just the right combination of foods. It appears = that=20 the man died in his sleep from breathing the poisonous cloud that was = hanging=20 over his bed. Had he been outside or had his windows been opened, it = wouldn't=20 have been fatal. But the man was shut up in his near airtight bedroom.=20 According to the article, "He was a big man with a huge capacity for=20 creating "this deadly gas." Three of the rescuers got sick and one was=20 hospitalized. ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BFBB60.15905BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[Bloomberg News Service] A terrible = diet and room=20 with no ventilation are
being blamed for the death of a man who was = killed=20 by his own gas. There was
no mark on his body but an autopsy showed = large=20 amounts of methane gas in his
system. His diet had consisted = primarily of=20 beans and cabbage (and a couple
of other things). It was just the = right=20 combination of foods. It appears that
the man died in his sleep from = breathing the poisonous cloud that was hanging
over his bed. Had he = been=20 outside or had his windows been opened, it wouldn't
have been fatal. = But the=20 man was shut up in his near airtight bedroom.
According to the = article, "He=20 was a big  man with a huge capacity for
creating "this deadly=20 gas."  Three of the rescuers got sick and one was=20
hospitalized.
------=_NextPart_000_0319_01BFBB60.15905BE0-- From forens-owner Thu May 11 16:51:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06263 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns.datasync.com (root@ns.datasync.com [205.216.82.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA06258 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 16:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doy95 (gul1-38.datasync.com [209.102.166.102]) by ns.datasync.com (8.8.8/Datasync) with SMTP id PAA30522 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 15:51:30 -0500 Message-ID: <032a01bfbb82$14ea3860$9fa666d1@doy95> From: "Geo & Joyce Leonard" To: "forensic list" Subject: Gas Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:49:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0327_01BFBB60.8C920EA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0327_01BFBB60.8C920EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Bloomberg News Service] A terrible diet and room with no ventilation = are=20 being blamed for the death of a man who was killed by his own gas. There = was=20 no mark on his body but an autopsy showed large amounts of methane gas = in his=20 system. His diet had consisted primarily of beans and cabbage (and a = couple=20 of other things). It was just the right combination of foods. It appears = that=20 the man died in his sleep from breathing the poisonous cloud that was = hanging=20 over his bed. Had he been outside or had his windows been opened, it = wouldn't=20 have been fatal. But the man was shut up in his near airtight bedroom.=20 According to the article, "He was a big man with a huge capacity for=20 creating "this deadly gas." Three of the rescuers got sick and one was=20 hospitalized. ------=_NextPart_000_0327_01BFBB60.8C920EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[Bloomberg News Service] A terrible = diet and room=20 with no ventilation are
being blamed for the death of a man who was = killed=20 by his own gas. There was
no mark on his body but an autopsy showed = large=20 amounts of methane gas in his
system. His diet had consisted = primarily of=20 beans and cabbage (and a couple
of other things). It was just the = right=20 combination of foods. It appears that
the man died in his sleep from = breathing the poisonous cloud that was hanging
over his bed. Had he = been=20 outside or had his windows been opened, it wouldn't
have been fatal. = But the=20 man was shut up in his near airtight bedroom.
According to the = article, "He=20 was a big  man with a huge capacity for
creating "this deadly=20 gas."  Three of the rescuers got sick and one was=20
hospitalized.
------=_NextPart_000_0327_01BFBB60.8C920EA0-- From forens-owner Thu May 11 19:28:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07433 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 2000 19:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amukta.gci.net (amukta.gci.net [208.138.130.216]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07428 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 19:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uqjtg ([208.161.167.119]) by amukta.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.05) with SMTP id FUF55T00.KQ7 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 15:27:29 -0800 Message-ID: <00d901bfbba0$4793e720$a234fea9@uqjtg> From: "August Goodman" To: Subject: tapeworms, boney changes and pernicious anemia Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:26:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D6_01BFBB5D.389F9B80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01BFBB5D.389F9B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1254" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am currently writing my dissertation on the intestinal parasites of a = population of pre-Columbian Peruvian mummies. I have found = Diphyllobothrium eggs in my samples. I have read that Diphyllobothrium = has been linked with pernicious anemia in Scandinavian populations, but = I am having a hard time finding any articles that deal with the = Diphyllobothrium-pernicious anemia connection in other populations. Does = anyone have any ideas?=20 =20 Also, I am trying to find references or any information about a link = between pernicious anemia and cribra orbitalia and porotic hyperostosis. I realize that this isn't a forensic topic, but I was hoping that = someone out there might have some pertinent information. Thanks, Elizabeth Martinson ------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01BFBB5D.389F9B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1254" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
I am currently writing my dissertation = on the=20 intestinal parasites of a population of pre-Columbian Peruvian mummies. = I have=20 found Diphyllobothrium eggs in my samples. I have read that = Diphyllobothrium has=20 been linked with pernicious anemia in Scandinavian populations, but I am = having=20 a hard time finding any articles that deal with the = Diphyllobothrium-pernicious=20 anemia connection in other populations. Does anyone have any ideas?=20
 
Also, I am trying to find references or = any=20 information about a link between pernicious anemia and cribra orbitalia = and=20 porotic hyperostosis.
 
I realize that this isn't a = forensic topic,=20 but I was hoping that someone out there might have some pertinent=20 information.
 
Thanks,
Elizabeth = Martinson
------=_NextPart_000_00D6_01BFBB5D.389F9B80-- From forens-owner Sun May 14 10:30:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06980 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 14 May 2000 10:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06975 for ; Sun, 14 May 2000 10:30:27 -0400 (EDT) From: lgriggs@msegroup.com Received: from pavilion (user-2ivfim9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.202.201]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA05538; Sun, 14 May 2000 10:30:20 -0400 (EDT) To: "Legalinvestigation@Onelist. Com" , "Investigators2000@egroups. com" , "Insurancefraudinvestigations-Req-S526@Egroups. Com" , "Insurance" , "Forensic-Science@Egroups. Com" , "Forensic Science" , "Expert Witness Network" , "Claims@Insurance-Directory. Com" , "Adjusters@Egroups. Com" Subject: Introduction Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:29:56 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk To reintroduce myself and my company: My name is Lee Griggs and I am a Certified Forensic Locksmith with over 40 years of experience in my field. So what is a Forensic or Investigative Locksmith? As a Forensic Locksmith, my duties are to examine lock components, hardware, installation, service and performance of lock hardware whether it is on a vehicle or a commercial/residential installation. I determine, based on scientific - peer reviewed - experienced examinations whether or not a locking devise (ignition lock, door lock, panic devise, etc.,) was properly installed, bypassed by forcible or covert methods and whether or not that devise was working properly at the time of an incident. If there is suspected fraud (someone is trying to simulate theft or bypass) this can be determined through scientific examination. My work is with law enforcement, insurance companies and attorneys. I deal with facts - opinions are based on the facts presented by the evidence examined. I don't deal in motive nor do I determine theft, fraud or whatever. The opinions are based on methods accepted by experts in the field covered such as professional tool mark examiners. There is a process on the market today being widely accepted by insurance companies dealing with "last key used" in auto theft or possible auto insurance fraud. This process is not scientifically accepted or proven. It has not been peer reviewed nationally or internationally. This process is now under major scrutiny and is creating some potential problems for insurers. If I can provide information or assistance on this subject to anyone, just ask. If I can assist any law enforcement agency, attorney or insurance company regarding ANY form of security devise (including door locks, panic devices, auto ignition locking systems, anti-theft systems,etc., please do not hesitate to contact me. The first phone call costs you nothing and may save you dollars. Protection Technology, Inc. Lee Griggs, CFL Telephone: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 URL: http://www.msegroup.com From forens-owner Mon May 15 12:48:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14961 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:48:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (root@spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.24]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14956 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 12:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13098 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:48:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from newtonpc (ENewton.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.46]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA26493 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:48:05 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000515174802.00761fc8@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:48:02 +0100 To: From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Request for assistance with Bayesian Stats In-Reply-To: <032a01bfbb82$14ea3860$9fa666d1@doy95> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi all, I have a colleague in my department who needs some assistance with Bayesian statistics. I'm afraid I don't know the specifics, but it would be very much appreciated it if anyone out there who may be able to help her could please contact me off-list and I will put the two (or more!) of you in touch. (I deliberately didn't field the question to everyone due to it not being of a forensic nature.) Many thanks in advance to all who respond! Best wishes to all, -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Mon May 15 13:25:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15474 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from augustine.gci.net (augustine.gci.net [208.138.130.19]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15469 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 13:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uqjtg ([208.161.166.16]) by augustine.gci.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.05) with SMTP id FUM31I04.F0X for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 09:24:54 -0800 Message-ID: <000d01bfbe92$75864660$f962fea9@uqjtg> From: "August Goodman" To: "forens list" Subject: Robert Wade's post Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:24:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFBE4F.661354E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFBE4F.661354E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1254" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is anyone else having a problem with Robert Wade's post on intestinal = metaplasia? I cannot open nor delete it and it makes Outlook Express = stop responding when I highlight it. This has never happened before.=20 August Goodman ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFBE4F.661354E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1254" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 
Is anyone else having a problem with = Robert Wade's=20 post on intestinal metaplasia? I cannot open nor delete it and it makes = Outlook=20 Express stop responding when I highlight it. This has never = happened=20 before.
August = Goodman
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BFBE4F.661354E0-- From forens-owner Mon May 15 16:08:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA17749 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 16:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17744 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 16:08:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikechambs@aol.com Received: from Mikechambs@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.c0.3b83f44 (4562) for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 16:08:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:08:09 EDT Subject: Enrollment To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 77 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Please once again publish the process for enrolling on this list. Thanks in advance, Mike From forens-owner Mon May 15 16:22:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18063 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 16:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-c.netway.at (pop-c.netway.at [195.96.0.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA18058 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 16:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-d.netway.at (pop-d.netway.at [195.96.0.131]) by pop-c.netway.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14943 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:22:24 +0200 Received: from netway.at (t1p203.at-732.netway.at [212.27.72.203]) by pop-d.netway.at (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e4FKMN626421 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:22:23 +0200 Message-ID: <39205C05.73DBD275@netway.at> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:20:22 +0200 From: KTPI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" Subject: reagens for urine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi all, I would need some help. I remember a reagens which gives a (suppose) violet color reaction with urine. People use it for identifying urine in swimming pools, I would need it for case work. Could anybody provide me with the exact receipt for the solution? Thanks Dr.Friederike Bluemelhuber Kriminaltechnisches Privatinstitut Mag.Bluemelhuber GesmbH Robert Stolzstr.18 A-4020 Linz Austria http:/www.ktpi.at From forens-owner Mon May 15 18:43:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA19658 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19653 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:43:37 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.a4.45cb955 (4537) for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:42:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:42:50 EDT Subject: Fwd: A washingtonpost.com article from kjohn39679@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_a4.45cb955.2651d76a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_a4.45cb955.2651d76a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/15/00 6:28:35 PM, register@washingtonpost.com writes: << You have been sent this message from kjohn39679@aol.com as a courtesy of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com). To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63556-2000May13.html Inappropriate forensic science contributes to wrongful convictions. When the Sentence Is Death by David Broder BALTIMORE –– Before he was elected mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke spent five years as state's attorney. In that time, he authorized his prosecutors to seek the death penalty in 12 murder cases and saw nine juries impose the capital punishment he had sought. "Society is entitled to exact the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime," he told me. "But by the time I finished my second term as mayor, all nine of those cases had been overturned for one reason or another, all relating to the penalty phase. "It forced me to take a closer look at the process by which death penalties were being imposed, and what I have learned is that the disparities are enormous in who gets put to death in this country." Those inconsistencies make it "almost a roll of the dice" whether convicts die for their crimes, he said. "There is no common standard from one jurisdiction to the next." That concern is what prompted Schmoke to lend his support to an effort, announced last week, for a serious, nonpartisan study of the way the death penalty is being administered in this country and what steps might be taken to improve it. The membership of the newly formed National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions is unusual, because it includes both supporters and opponents of the death penalty. I was particularly interested in asking the supporters why they thought such an investigation is needed. They had a variety of answers, which in my view add up to an impressive case for examining current practices. It is not an academic question. Since the Supreme Court decided in 1976 that the death penalty was permissible under certain conditions, almost 600 people have been executed--and the pace is increasing. Thirty-eight states impose capital punishment, and Congress has greatly expanded the list of federal crimes where the death penalty may be applied. But both Congress and the states have signaled their uneasiness with the process, and the decision by Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, to order a moratorium on executions last January captured national headlines. Ryan acted after 13 prisoners on Illinois death row had been exonerated, largely by the efforts of Northwestern University journalism students and other private citizens. Here in Maryland, demonstrators outside the State House in Annapolis last week urged a similar moratorium. They argued that there is racial bias in the application of the death penalty, that it is imposed most often in black-on-white crimes. Schmoke, who is an African American, said he thinks the racial factor is "not a matter of intent," but simply "a byproduct of prosecutorial discretion varyi ng so widely between even nearby jurisdictions, say, Baltimore County and the city of Baltimore." Beth Wilkinson, the former prosecutor who asked the jury to sentence Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber, to death, told me that "the adequacy of counsel" is her main concern about capital cases. "McVeigh had very talented counsel," she said, "but often in the state courts that is not true." Her view was endorsed by retired Judge Robert Burns, who served for 18 years on the bench in Jefferson Parish, La., and, like the others, supports the death penalty. "I've seen public defenders who are so overworked and underfinanced that they had to try the case almost like it was a theft charge," he said. Both Wilkinson and Judge Burns said it is penny-wise and pound-foolish to provide such low pay and such meager investigative resources for public defenders in murder cases. "If you do the trial right the first time," Burns said, "it will save the taxpayers money down the line, because there will be far fewer grounds for appeals." The final committee member I interviewed was William Sessions, the director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan and Bush and also a former federal judge in Texas. Sessions told me he strongly believes that "some crimes are so heinous that the forfeiture of life is an appropriate penalty." For him, the great question in the application of the death penalty involves the use of DNA evidence. "When I came to the FBI," he said, "we had no capacity to use and review DNA evidence, but by December of 1988, we had a program that became the national model. Out of the first 100 cases where we tested prisoners, 33 people who had been identified by witnesses and by serology [blood type identification] as being the criminals involved were exonerated by DNA testing." "There are 3,500 people now on death row," Sessions said, "and many have been there for years, long before DNA evidence was available. As a prosecutor and a judge and an FBI director, I want to be sure we've got the right people. And now we can be." (For more information call 202-662-4240 or visit www.constitutionproject.org.) ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb03.mail.aol.com (v73.12) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:28:35 -0400 Received: from nas1.washingtonpost.com (nas1.washingtonpost.com [206.132.25.65]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:27:44 2000 Received: from nas1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nas1.washingtonpost.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA20748; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:27:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Message-Id: <200005152227.SAA20748@nas1.washingtonpost.com> Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from kjohn39679@aol.com >> --part1_a4.45cb955.2651d76a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb03.mail.aol.com (v73.12) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:28:35 -0400 Received: from nas1.washingtonpost.com (nas1.washingtonpost.com [206.132.25.65]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:27:44 2000 Received: from nas1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nas1.washingtonpost.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA20748; Mon, 15 May 2000 18:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:27:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Message-Id: <200005152227.SAA20748@nas1.washingtonpost.com> Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from kjohn39679@aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailer: Unknown You have been sent this message from kjohn39679@aol.com as a courtesy of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com). To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63556-2000May13.html When the Sentence Is Death BALTIMORE –– Before he was elected mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke spent five years as state's attorney. In that time, he authorized his prosecutors to seek the death penalty in 12 murder cases and saw nine juries impose the capital punishment he had sought. "Society is entitled to exact the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime," he told me. "But by the time I finished my second term as mayor, all nine of those cases had been overturned for one reason or another, all relating to the penalty phase.

"It forced me to take a closer look at the process by which death penalties were being imposed, and what I have learned is that the disparities are enormous in who gets put to death in this country."

Those inconsistencies make it "almost a roll of the dice" whether convicts die for their crimes, he said. "There is no common standard from one jurisdiction to the next."

That concern is what prompted Schmoke to lend his support to an effort, announced last week, for a serious, nonpartisan study of the way the death penalty is being administered in this country and what steps might be taken to improve it.

The membership of the newly formed National Committee to Prevent Wrongful Executions is unusual, because it includes both supporters and opponents of the death penalty. I was particularly interested in asking the supporters why they thought such an investigation is needed. They had a variety of answers, which in my view add up to an impressive case for examining current practices.

It is not an academic question. Since the Supreme Court decided in 1976 that the death penalty was permissible under certain conditions, almost 600 people have been executed--and the pace is increasing. Thirty-eight states impose capital punishment, and Congress has greatly expanded the list of federal crimes where the death penalty may be applied.

But both Congress and the states have signaled their uneasiness with the process, and the decision by Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a Republican, to order a moratorium on executions last January captured national headlines. Ryan acted after 13 prisoners on Illinois death row had been exonerated, largely by the efforts of Northwestern University journalism students and other private citizens.

Here in Maryland, demonstrators outside the State House in Annapolis last week urged a similar moratorium. They argued that there is racial bias in the application of the death penalty, that it is imposed most often in black-on-white crimes.

Schmoke, who is an African American, said he thinks the racial factor is "not a matter of intent," but simply "a byproduct of prosecutorial discretion varying so widely between even nearby jurisdictions, say, Baltimore County and the city of Baltimore."

Beth Wilkinson, the former prosecutor who asked the jury to sentence Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber, to death, told me that "the adequacy of counsel" is her main concern about capital cases. "McVeigh had very talented counsel," she said, "but often in the state courts that is not true."

Her view was endorsed by retired Judge Robert Burns, who served for 18 years on the bench in Jefferson Parish, La., and, like the others, supports the death penalty. "I've seen public defenders who are so overworked and underfinanced that they had to try the case almost like it was a theft charge," he said.

Both Wilkinson and Judge Burns said it is penny-wise and pound-foolish to provide such low pay and such meager investigative resources for public defenders in murder cases. "If you do the trial right the first time," Burns said, "it will save the taxpayers money down the line, because there will be far fewer grounds for appeals."

The final committee member I interviewed was William Sessions, the director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan and Bush and also a former federal judge in Texas. Sessions told me he strongly believes that "some crimes are so heinous that the forfeiture of life is an appropriate penalty."

For him, the great question in the application of the death penalty involves the use of DNA evidence. "When I came to the FBI," he said, "we had no capacity to use and review DNA evidence, but by December of 1988, we had a program that became the national model. Out of the first 100 cases where we tested prisoners, 33 people who had been identified by witnesses and by serology [blood type identification] as being the criminals involved were exonerated by DNA testing."

"There are 3,500 people now on death row," Sessions said, "and many have been there for years, long before DNA evidence was available. As a prosecutor and a judge and an FBI director, I want to be sure we've got the right people. And now we can be."

(For more information call 202-662-4240 or visit www.constitutionproject.org.) --part1_a4.45cb955.2651d76a_boundary-- From forens-owner Mon May 15 20:44:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21054 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21049 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 20:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from inland (iii-pm3-2-38.inland.net [209.85.112.101]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA10608; Mon, 15 May 2000 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016f01bfbecf$60a81880$657055d1@inland.net> From: "mike horton" To: "KTPI" , Subject: luminol Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:40:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I have a bottle of powdered luminol and have misplaced the recipe for mixing it up properly. I seem to remember that it involves luminol, water, and sodium hydroxide. Can someone fill me in on the specifics? Thanks in advance, Mike Horton Physics/Chem teacher Science Dept. Chair Perris High School, CA scitch@inland.net From forens-owner Mon May 15 22:47:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA22256 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:47:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe40.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22251 for ; Mon, 15 May 2000 22:47:32 -0400 (EDT) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 70514 invoked by uid 65534); 16 May 2000 02:47:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000516024702.70513.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.138.131.215] To: "mike horton" Cc: References: <016f01bfbecf$60a81880$657055d1@inland.net> Subject: Re: luminol Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:35:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Mike: Here's a link. No warranty expressed or implied, your mileage may vary....assorted legal warnings insert here..... http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/schs/eureka/luminol.htm Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike horton" To: "KTPI" ; Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 7:40 PM Subject: luminol > I have a bottle of powdered luminol and have misplaced the recipe for mixing > it up properly. I seem to remember that it involves luminol, water, and > sodium hydroxide. Can someone fill me in on the specifics? > Thanks in advance, > Mike Horton > Physics/Chem teacher > Science Dept. Chair > Perris High School, CA > scitch@inland.net > > From forens-owner Tue May 16 00:26:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23472 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23467 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:26:21 -0400 (EDT) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.a6.461acd6 (4262) for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:25:42 EDT Subject: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hello all- I've recently been asked by our local rape crisis center about reference pubic hairs and their necessity. I understand that hairs are unique, to the point of being microscopically distinctive with changes like time, treatment, diet, and season, but in light of mitochondrial DNA analysis, is it still necessary to pluck so many reference pubic hairs from the victim at the time of the rape exam? In my near decade of casework, I can cite less than 0.1% (1 case in 1000) where foreign pubic hairs were of use. I'd hate to deny that one victim her day in court, but in light of the numbers, is it still necessary? Has anyone been successful in dropping the collection of reference pubic hairs? Any thoughts would be appreciated! Arthur W. Young Acadiana Crime Lab from somewhere in the swamps of southwest Louisiana... From forens-owner Tue May 16 00:40:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23735 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:40:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rottweiler.fiu.edu (rottweiler.fiu.edu [131.94.64.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23730 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:40:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.2.18] (fiudial2-18.fiu.edu [131.94.2.18]) by rottweiler.fiu.edu (8.9.3/FIU UCS V1.2) with ESMTP id AAA29871; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:41:05 -0400 To: "mike horton" From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: luminol Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Mike, Here is the recipe I have : 0.1 g of Luminol 0.5 g of Sodium Carbonate 0.7 g of Sodium Perborate 100 ml of Distilled Water Hope this helps you, Best Regards, Eric Stauffer -- "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them." Sir Robert Peel, 1829 ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry Florida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA ----------------------------------------------------------- From forens-owner Tue May 16 00:41:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA23855 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:41:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rottweiler.fiu.edu (rottweiler.fiu.edu [131.94.64.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA23850 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.2.18] (fiudial2-18.fiu.edu [131.94.2.18]) by rottweiler.fiu.edu (8.9.3/FIU UCS V1.2) with ESMTP id AAA30078; Tue, 16 May 2000 00:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:42:14 -0400 To: KTPI From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: reagens for urine Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1253670348==_ma============" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --============_-1253670348==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dear Dr. Bluemelhuber, There is a test called Microquant (manufactured by Merck). The purpose of this test is to analyze urea in swimming-pool water (determination of concentration). This test uses the principle of the decomposition of the urea in ammonia (with urease as catalyst) as following : H2NCONH2 + H2O -> 2NH3 + CO2 I think, it is a strip that is used to indicate the concentration and in regards to the intensity of the color, you have an indication of the concentration. The color changes from the transparent to the violet as the amount of ammonia is released (ammonia is combined with blue-indigo). There is also the DMAC (para-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde), which will react with the urea (in acidic condition) to give a Schiff Base, which is pink-purple. If you need any further details, feel free to email me. Hope this helps, Best Regards, Eric Stauffer -- "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them." Sir Robert Peel, 1829 ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry Florida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA ----------------------------------------------------------- --============_-1253670348==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: reagens for urine

Dear Dr. Bluemelhuber,

There is a test called Microquant (manufactured by Merck). The purpose of this test is to analyze urea in swimming-pool water (determination of concentration).

This test uses the principle of the decomposition of the urea in ammonia (with urease as catalyst) as following :

H2NCONH2 + H2O -> 2NH3 + CO2

I think, it is a strip that is used to indicate the concentration and in regards to the intensity of the color, you have an indication of the concentration. The color changes from the transparent to the violet as the amount of ammonia is released (ammonia is combined with blue-indigo).

There is also the DMAC (para-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde), which will react with the urea (in acidic condition) to give a Schiff Base, which is pink-purple.

If you need any further details, feel free to email me.

Hope this helps,

Best Regards,

Eric Stauffer

--
"The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them." Sir Robert Peel, 1829

-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stauffer
Graduate Student
International Forensic Research Institute
Department of Chemistry
Florida International University
Miami, FL-33199
USA
-----------------------------------------------------------
--============_-1253670348==_ma============-- From forens-owner Tue May 16 05:21:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA26215 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 05:21:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (root@spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.13]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA26210 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 05:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09530; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:21:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from RHBrodyPC (Rhbrody.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.36]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10703; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:21:15 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000516102115.0088d420@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:21:15 +0100 To: From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Re: Request for assistance with Bayesian Stats Cc: forensic-science@egroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi all, Just a note to say thank you to all those who responded to my request for assistance (re: Bayesian stats). I have forwarded your addresses to my colleague, who will no doubt be contacting you very soon (and is very grateful, too!). Best wishes to all, -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Tue May 16 10:16:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29795 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:16:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (root@spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.13]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29790 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 10:16:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA19092; Tue, 16 May 2000 15:16:06 +0100 (BST) Received: from nmrpc2 (Nmrpc2.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.33]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA27448; Tue, 16 May 2000 15:16:04 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200005161416.PAA27448@kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:16:00 +0100 To: forensic-science@egroups.com From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Forensic Practice/Teaching (was:" I'm not an expert now but, will be...") Cc: In-Reply-To: <20000516113607.13787.qmail@web124.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi all, Apologies for missing the start of this thread, only my PC has been off-line for over a week and a half now, and I've only been able to have on-line access at the discretion of others. So... It sounds as though the thread has been ongoing for a short while, but has really piqued my interest. I have always been passionate about forensic science and aspired to work within the field. However, as some of you are probably aware, there simply isn't the level of crime here in the U.K. to sustain a large forensic science work-force (y'see, living where there's relatively little crime does have its down-side! ;P). As a consequence of that, and a few other things, I eventually found myself back at school as a mature student (well, technically speaking - 23 at any rate) and studying for a degree that combined a few of my greatest interests: Forensic Science & Chemistry. I graduated in '97 and continued my fascination in the subjects by researching for my doctorate - both degrees at the University of Bradford, U.K.. During this time, I have also uncovered what has since become another great passion of mine - teaching. I am truly fortunate enough to be able to have learned more about what I love, to research the subject even further and to be able to teach to those also willing to learn. However, this now leaves me with somewhat of a dilemma, that I hope some of you may be able to shed some light on: It is still my very great intention to relocate to the U.S. upon completion of my research (funding ends this coming Sept.) and to pursue a career in the forensic sciences. On top of this, however, I would still very much like to continue teaching what I have learned to others. So, does anyone know if such a combination of careers exists, or if crime laboratories encourage such activities? From what I have heard from other members on this list, forensic scientists are very over-worked, so I cannot foresee lab directors sanctioning time away from their caseloads. Any comments? Best wishes to all - and thanks for listening! -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Tue May 16 13:01:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA01934 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01929 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 16 May 2000 17:01:26 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 16 May 2000 12:57:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forensic-science] Forensic Practice/Teaching (was:" I'm not an expert now but, will be...") Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:57:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFBF57.C686AABC" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFBF57.C686AABC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Geoff, I think you will find that many forensic scientists in the US teach in addition to their lab duties, but in most cases it is entirely "on their own time" in a non-duty status. We're a little unusual in my lab in that we all have regular teaching duties as part of our work day, but this is because of an agreement with the College that serves as our host and landlord - they provide a physical plant and all building maintenance and utilities to us free of charge, and we in return provide our professional staff to teach one class each per semester. It saves both organizations a great deal of money, but it does mean we get fewer cases done per person than would people employed in a lab with no teaching responsibilities. I have heard of a few other crime labs with similar arrangements as ours, but not many. In some labs, the professional staff have teaching responsibilities for local law enforcement (how to operate breath test instrumentation, crime scene evidence collection, etc.), and that is part of their duty hours; but in my experience most teaching is done as a side-line, in the evenings or on weekends, say at the local community college. This is for the precise reason you state - caseloads are far too heavy to include teaching as part of normal duties for the staff in most labs; the lab just can't afford to give up that time away from casework. If you want to teach in addition to doing casework, you should have no trouble doing that here in the States, provided you are willing to give up "off-duty" hours to do it. Labs generally will have no objection so long as it doesn't negatively impact your casework productivity in the lab. Best of luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Bruton [mailto:g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:16 AM To: forensic-science@egroups.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forensic-science] Forensic Practice/Teaching (was:" I'm not an expert now but, will be...") Hi all, Apologies for missing the start of this thread, only my PC has been off-line for over a week and a half now, and I've only been able to have on-line access at the discretion of others. So... It sounds as though the thread has been ongoing for a short while, but has really piqued my interest. I have always been passionate about forensic science and aspired to work within the field. However, as some of you are probably aware, there simply isn't the level of crime here in the U.K. to sustain a large forensic science work-force (y'see, living where there's relatively little crime does have its down-side! ;P). As a consequence of that, and a few other things, I eventually found myself back at school as a mature student (well, technically speaking - 23 at any rate) and studying for a degree that combined a few of my greatest interests: Forensic Science & Chemistry. I graduated in '97 and continued my fascination in the subjects by researching for my doctorate - both degrees at the University of Bradford, U.K.. During this time, I have also uncovered what has since become another great passion of mine - teaching. I am truly fortunate enough to be able to have learned more about what I love, to research the subject even further and to be able to teach to those also willing to learn. However, this now leaves me with somewhat of a dilemma, that I hope some of you may be able to shed some light on: It is still my very great intention to relocate to the U.S. upon completion of my research (funding ends this coming Sept.) and to pursue a career in the forensic sciences. On top of this, however, I would still very much like to continue teaching what I have learned to others. So, does anyone know if such a combination of careers exists, or if crime laboratories encourage such activities? From what I have heard from other members on this list, forensic scientists are very over-worked, so I cannot foresee lab directors sanctioning time away from their caseloads. Any comments? Best wishes to all - and thanks for listening! -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join Garden.com's affiliate program and enjoy numerous benefits. To learn more click here: http://click.egroups.com/1/2955/5/_/75397/_/958486582/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFBF57.C686AABC Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [forensic-science] Forensic Practice/Teaching (was:" = I'm not an expert now but, will be...")

Geoff,

I think you will find that many forensic scientists = in the US teach in addition to their lab duties, but in most cases it = is entirely "on their own time" in a non-duty status.  = We're a little unusual in my lab in that we all have regular teaching = duties as part of our work day, but this is because of an agreement = with the College that serves as our host and landlord - they provide a = physical plant and all building maintenance and utilities to us free of = charge, and we in return provide our professional staff to teach = one  class each per semester.  It saves both organizations a = great deal of money, but it does mean we get fewer cases done per = person than would people employed in a lab with no teaching = responsibilities.  I have heard of a few other crime labs with = similar arrangements as ours, but not many.

In some labs, the professional staff have teaching = responsibilities for local law enforcement (how to operate breath test = instrumentation, crime scene evidence collection, etc.), and that is = part of their duty hours; but in my experience most teaching is done as = a side-line, in the evenings or on weekends, say at the local community = college.  This is for the precise reason you state - caseloads are = far too heavy to include teaching as part of normal duties for the = staff in most labs; the lab just can't afford to give up that time away = from casework.

If you want to teach in addition to doing casework, = you should have no trouble doing that here in the States, provided you = are willing to give up "off-duty" hours to do it.  Labs = generally will have no objection so long as it doesn't negatively = impact your casework productivity in the lab.  Best of = luck.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Bruton [mailto:g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:16 AM
To: forensic-science@egroups.com
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: [forensic-science] Forensic = Practice/Teaching (was:" I'm not an
expert now but, will be...")



Hi all,

Apologies for missing the start of this thread, only = my PC has been
off-line for over a week and a half now, and I've = only been able to have
on-line access at the discretion of others.  = So...

It sounds as though the thread has been ongoing for a = short while, but has
really piqued my interest.  I have always been = passionate about forensic
science and aspired to work within the field.  = However, as some of you are
probably aware, there simply isn't the level of = crime here in the U.K. to
sustain a large forensic science work-force (y'see, = living where there's
relatively little crime does have its down-side! = ;P).  As a consequence of
that, and a few other things, I eventually found = myself back at school as a
mature student (well, technically speaking - 23 at = any rate) and studying
for a degree that combined a few of my greatest = interests:  Forensic
Science & Chemistry.  I graduated in '97 = and continued my fascination in
the subjects by researching for my doctorate - both = degrees at the
University of Bradford, U.K..

During this time, I have also uncovered what has = since become another great
passion of mine - teaching.  I am truly = fortunate enough to be able to have
learned more about what I love, to research the = subject even further and to
be able to teach to those also willing to = learn.

However, this now leaves me with somewhat of a = dilemma, that I hope some of
you may be able to shed some light on:  It is = still my very great intention
to relocate to the U.S. upon completion of my = research (funding ends this
coming Sept.) and to pursue a career in the forensic = sciences.  On top of
this, however, I would still very much like to = continue teaching what I
have learned to others.  So, does anyone know = if such a combination of
careers exists, or if crime laboratories encourage = such activities?  From
what I have heard from other members on this list, = forensic scientists are
very over-worked, so I cannot foresee lab directors = sanctioning time away
from their caseloads.


Any comments?

Best wishes to all - and thanks for listening!
-G.

Geoff Bruton
Department of Chemical & Forensic = Sciences
University of Bradford
United Kingdom

---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
Join Garden.com's affiliate program and enjoy = numerous benefits.
To learn more click here:
http://click.egroups.com/1/2955/5/_/75397/_/958486582/=
---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------

To Post a message, send it to:   = forensic-science@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: = forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFBF57.C686AABC-- From forens-owner Tue May 16 13:21:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02291 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (root@spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.13]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02286 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13788; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:21:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from nmrpc2 (Nmrpc2.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.33]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA19009; Tue, 16 May 2000 18:21:23 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200005161721.SAA19009@kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:21:25 +0100 To: forensic-science@egroups.com From: Geoff Bruton Subject: RE: [forensic-science] Forensic Practice/Teaching (was:" I'm not an expert now but, will be...") Cc: 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 Bob & Chris, et al., Many thanks for your comments - they have certainly been great food for thought! Despite having attended night-school in this country during my working career, I was only ever taught by professional teachers, regardless of subject. This potentially new avenue sounds like a great idea! I'll be sure to look into it whenever and wherever in the U.S. I finally settle... Many thanks once again - your advice is as valuable and welcome as ever! Best wishes to all, -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Tue May 16 16:01:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03889 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03884 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.194]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA23576; Tue, 16 May 2000 15:01:33 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3921A536.E53E687C@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:44:55 -0500 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ArtWYoung@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Are you talking about limiting the number of pubic hairs collected in sexual assault kits or eliminating their collection all together? With the advent of STR and mito-DNA this seems like a good reason to continue looking for foreign hairs in the combings. Our percentage of cases with foreign hairs in the combings is around 3-5%. From information I gathered at the Hair and Fiber class at the FBI academy (back in '92) I think they reported something like 5-7% at that time. I have worked cases where pubic hair associations were the only physical evidence. Then when you can do STR-DNA or mito-DNA on the hairs, you just may have something. So, at this point our State has no plans that I am aware of to discontinue the collection and combings of pubic hairs in sexual assault kits. ArtWYoung@aol.com wrote: > Hello all- > I've recently been asked by our local rape crisis center about reference > pubic hairs and their necessity. I understand that hairs are unique, to the > point of being microscopically distinctive with changes like time, treatment, > diet, and season, but in light of mitochondrial DNA analysis, is it still > necessary to pluck so many reference pubic hairs from the victim at the time > of the rape exam? > In my near decade of casework, I can cite less than 0.1% (1 case in > 1000) where foreign pubic hairs were of use. I'd hate to deny that one > victim her day in court, but in light of the numbers, is it still necessary? > Has anyone been successful in dropping the collection of reference pubic > hairs? > > Any thoughts would be appreciated! > Arthur W. Young > Acadiana Crime Lab > from somewhere in the swamps of southwest Louisiana... From forens-owner Tue May 16 16:47:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04483 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:47:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04478 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:47:13 -0400 (EDT) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200005162047.QAA04478@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 16 May 2000 13:48:45 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: LSD synthesis, seeds Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:46:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We have a case, involving suspected LSD manufacture, with plant material, more specifically ground up seed material. Botanically it has been determined to not be "Heavenly Blue Morning Glories", or "Hawaiian Babywoodrose". It has fragments of dark, shiny,black/brown, seed coats as much as 8mm in length and about 0.5mm thick. Chemical analysis of the material did not identify any lysergic acid or other alkaloid, however, the seed material had been extracted already. Has anyone seen this type of material? Are there other plant sources of lyseric acid that might resemble this, or could the seed material have been the wrong type to carry out a clandestine synthesis of LSD? Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed May 17 08:19:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13601 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13596 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:19:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 02:56:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: devnull@pop.butcherfamily.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 02:45:16 -0400 To: profiling-l@egroups.com From: Devon Null Subject: Columbine High School Massacre: Entire 700-page Sheriff's Report online Cc: Devon Null Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" APBnews.com, as part of its continuing coverage of the Columbine High School massacre and its aftermath, has posted online the entire 700-page report released Monday by Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff John Stone. The interactive report, which APBnews.com transferred from CD-ROM to the Internet, allows users to review the complete time line of the killings; crime scene photos; maps of the school; audio recordings of 911 calls; clips of local television coverage; the cafeteria surveillance tape; and many other facets of the case. The report can be accessed at: ==================================================== Jefferson County Sheriff, Colorado April 20, 1999 Foreword On a sunny spring day in April 1999, a suburban high school in Jefferson County, Colorado, found itself under attack by two of its own. In less than fifteen minutes of the first-lunch period on that Tuesday, two student gunmen killed 13 and wounded 21 before they turned the guns on themselves - the most devastating school shooting in U.S. history. Columbine High School is one of three in the unincorporated southeast portion of Jefferson County. The county itself lies on the west side of the Denver metropolitan area and is the most populated county in the state. The large unincorporated region along the county's southern plains and foothills has a population of nearly 100,000 residents - 1,945 of who attended Columbine High School. The two student gunmen were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Their plans for attacking the school, recovered by investigators after the tragedy had taken place, evolved over one year's time. In those plans, Klebold and Harris outlined a mission to kill as many students and faculty as possible. They would set off destructive bombs inside the school and then shoot any survivors trying to run out. Bombs inside their cars would explode later, killing law enforcement, fire or medical personnel responding to the scene. There are indications that their initial plan was for the Columbine High School attack to occur on Monday, April 19. While there was no specific reference made in their writings to this date being an important anniversary, it must be noted that April 19, 1999 was the fourth anniversary of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and the sixth anniversary of the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas. However, the Columbine tragedy occurred on April 20, perhaps due to unfinished preparations on the part of the killers. Or perhaps there is a connection with the history of this date. To begin with, 4/20 carries the same numerals as 420, the California criminal code for possession of marijuana. Due to the significance of these numbers in popular drug culture, some students were absent from school that day in recognition of what they termed "national marijuana day." April 20, 1999, also marked the 110th anniversary of Adolph Hitler's birth. It is also critical to note that when many of the Columbine students heard what sounded like pop guns coming from outside the cafeteria during the first lunch period, they thought that senior prank day had come. School-wide pranks initiated by graduating seniors are a tradition throughout the United States, and up to that point Columbine's seniors, ready to graduate in just four weeks, had not participated in any such activity. It seemed right to students who heard the first few shots that, as it was toward the end of the school year, prank day was finally upon them. But it wasn't a prank. Not when two hate-filled students, heavily armed with firearms and bombs, chose April 20, 1999, as the day to attack and kill students and faculty at their school. |===============================<-30->=============================| From forens-owner Wed May 17 08:32:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13960 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [152.1.95.53] (stuber.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.53]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13955 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 08:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:32:58 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Christopher J. Basten" Subject: Forwarded message from Sgt. Kidd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1253555715==_ma============" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --============_-1253555715==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Approved: investigate We are currently trying to obtain information on the below 9mm Luger cartridge. Attached are two photographs of the cartridge. [Note: They are not attached because they were too big. The pictures can be accessed via the URLs below. Point your browser to http://statgen.ncsu.edu/majordomo/SK9mmHead.jpg and http://statgen.ncsu.edu/majordomo/SK9mmside.jpg ] The cartridge bears the headstamp "SK 9mm LUGER". The primer sealant is a clear red lacquer. The bullet sealant is also a clear red lacquer. The cartridge casing is magnetic and bears a light "copper wash" coating. The bullet is NOT magnetic and bears a bright brass finish. We are trying to determine the following: The country of origin? The name of the manufacturer? The factory name or number? The meaning of the letters "SK"? The name of the importer? Ammunition packaging information? (what the box looks like and number of rounds in the box) Where this ammunition can be purchased in the United States? Any information regarding this cartridge would be appreciated. Thank You, Sgt. David Kidd Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Laboratory Room #2175 9105 NW 25 Street Miami, Florida 33172-1505 (305) 471-3042 Office (305) 471-2052 Fax -- _________________________________________________________ Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 Department of Statistics Fax: (919)515-7315 North Carolina State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu Raleigh, NC 27695-8203 Location: Patterson Hall 220 D URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/basten/basten.html _________________________________________________________ --============_-1253555715==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Forwarded message from Sgt. Kidd
Approved: investigate

We are currently trying to obtain information on the below 9mm Luger
cartridge.

Attached are two photographs of the cartridge.
[Note:  They are not attached because they were too big.
The pictures can be accessed via the URLs  below.  Point your
browser to

http://statgen.ncsu.edu/majordomo/SK9mmHead.jpg

and

http://statgen.ncsu.edu/majordomo/SK9mmside.jpg

]


The cartridge bears the headstamp "SK 9mm LUGER".
The primer sealant is a clear red lacquer.
The bullet sealant is also a clear red lacquer.
The cartridge casing is magnetic and bears a light "copper wash" coating.
The bullet is NOT magnetic and bears a bright brass finish.

We are trying to determine the following:

The country of origin?
The name of the manufacturer?
The factory name or number?
The meaning of the letters "SK"?
The name of the importer?
Ammunition packaging information? (what the box looks like and number of
rounds in the box)
Where this ammunition can be purchased in the United States?

Any information regarding this cartridge would be appreciated.

Thank You,

Sgt. David Kidd
Miami-Dade Police Department
Crime Laboratory Room #2175
9105 NW 25 Street
Miami, Florida 33172-1505

(305) 471-3042 Office
(305) 471-2052 Fax



 

 



--
_________________________________________________________
 Christopher J. Basten            Phone:    (919)515-1934              
 Department of Statistics         Fax:      (919)515-7315              
 North Carolina State University  Email:    basten@statgen.ncsu.edu
 Raleigh, NC 27695-8203           Location: Patterson Hall 220 D              
 URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/basten/basten.html     
_________________________________________________________
--============_-1253555715==_ma============-- From forens-owner Wed May 17 09:17:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14926 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA14921 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id la089165 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 23:17:26 +1000 Received: from DVBH-T-001-p-131-20.tmns.net.au ([139.134.131.20]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Implicated-MailRouter V2.7e 1/6094106); 17 May 2000 23:17:26 Message-ID: <008f01bfc001$5f41a0a0$1483868b@default> From: "Debra Rees" To: Subject: Blood samples from suspects Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:11:10 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi to all I am not a forensic person, I'm a criminologist - hope you don't mind me intruding onto your list. I'm interested in the process of collecting blood samples from criminal suspects for DNA, drug & alcohol analysis etc. Is there any significance to the different coloured tops the collection vials have? Is one vial of blood specifically for DNA testing and another specifically for drug & alcohol testing? Hope these questions aren't to inane. TYIA Debra Rees Australia From forens-owner Wed May 17 09:29:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15214 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:29:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA15209 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:29:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Gervforsci@aol.com Received: from Gervforsci@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id y.6d.3e6bfc4 (15551) for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6d.3e6bfc4.2653f888@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:28:40 EDT Subject: Job openings To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The Montgomery County Police Crime Laboratory in Rockville, MD has two job openings: Forensic Scientist (Drug Analyst) Minimum requirements include a B.S. in one of the sciences with a strong chemistry background and three year's experience as a Forensic Drug Chemist. Forensic Scientist (Serologist/DNA Analyst) Minimum requirements include a B.S. in one of the sciences with a stron biology background and three year's experience as a serologist and DNA analyst. Applicants who can meet the DAB guidelines for education and have experience using the ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer are preferred. If you are interested or have any questions e-mail me at: Gervforsci@aol.com Rich Gervasoni From forens-owner Wed May 17 12:05:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17742 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail020.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17737 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 12:05:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20657 invoked from network); 17 May 2000 16:05:21 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail020.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 17 May 2000 16:05:21 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 17 May 2000 15:47:59 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed May 17 09:04:01 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 17 May 2000 09:05:19 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:04:29 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: dmrees@bigpond.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Blood samples from suspects Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Debra, Yes, there is a difference inthe types of blood collection tubes used for forensic blood specimin collection. For DNA analysis, purple stoppered tubes that contain EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) are generally used. Yellow stoppered ACD tubes may also be used. Gray stoppered tube that contain sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate are required to be used for the collection of blood specimins for forensic blood alcohol analysis. The preservatives in this particular tube is used to prevent clotting and to retard hemolytic breakdown of the blood. Check with the authorities in your jurisdiction because they may mandate specific preservatives in the specimin vials depending upon what type of analysis is to be performed, i.e. DNA, forensic blood alcohol or drugs of abuse. Sometimes one type of tube can be used to perform different analysis. The forensic science service in your area should be able to provide you with the most suiable vial for the analysis required. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "Debra Rees" 05/17 6:11 AM >>> Hi to all I am not a forensic person, I'm a criminologist - hope you don't mind me intruding onto your list. I'm interested in the process of collecting blood samples from criminal suspects for DNA, drug & alcohol analysis etc. Is there any significance to the different coloured tops the collection vials have? Is one vial of blood specifically for DNA testing and another specifically for drug & alcohol testing? Hope these questions aren't to inane. TYIA Debra Rees Australia From forens-owner Wed May 17 15:34:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20740 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20730 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 15:33:29 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: mushroom analysis Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:33:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC036.C6FF7C64" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC036.C6FF7C64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC036.C6FF7C64 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" mushroom analysis

What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material.

I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least.

It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC036.C6FF7C64-- From forens-owner Wed May 17 16:34:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21883 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 16:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.101.238.2] ([209.101.238.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA21878 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 16:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbitproxy01 by [209.101.238.2] via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 17 May 2000 20:34:53 UT Received: by HBITMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:41:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE011B546@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'Aldridge, Michael'" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: mushroom analysis Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:36:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Try this article: Lee, R.E., "A Technique for the Rapid Isolation and Identification of Psilocin from Psilocin/Psilocybin Containing Mushrooms," Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 30, No. 3, July 1985, pp. 931-941. It works great! Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA-USA) -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 12:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Wed May 17 17:16:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22474 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:16:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22469 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:16:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 17 May 2000 21:16:56 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 17 May 2000 17:12:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: RE: mushroom analysis Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:12:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC044.9FB6D2F2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC044.9FB6D2F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC044.9FB6D2F2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" mushroom analysis
This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method.  Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first.  I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone.  I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool.  You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates.  Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective.  You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract.  Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly).  Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants.  Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode.  No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity.  As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample.
 
The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants.  If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present.  Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with.  Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself .  Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems.  First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US.  Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds.  Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing.  I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment).  Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly.  Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic.  If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid.  I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples.  With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with).
 
Hope this helps.  Good luck.
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM
To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: mushroom analysis

What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material.

I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least.

It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC044.9FB6D2F2-- From forens-owner Wed May 17 21:37:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24970 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 2000 21:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24965 for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 21:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.51.17]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20000518013710.CJSL1339.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 01:37:10 +0000 Message-ID: <39234910.8D363759@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:36:16 -0700 From: John Bowden Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: Re: mushroom analysis References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7A78DAFD5177E778AD63969F" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --------------7A78DAFD5177E778AD63969F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a quick note on this topic. I usually had good results by extracting with methanol, either for a few hours (overnight) or for 10 - 15 minutes in a sonicator. I realize that this method is not as elegant as some, but it usually worked. I certainly make no claim that the extraction was quantitative. The major problem was that occasionally the 'rooms would have a great deal of fatty compounds that also extracted. The illicit compounds were still identifiable, but it lead to much more junk on the column as fatty acids do not chromatograph well. I used to think along the lines Robert Parsons that better extraction was gained by pulverizing the mushrooms. That is until a mycologist told me that the psilocybe compounds are primarily a surface phenomenon. After that I merely made the pieces small enough to get in the extraction tube (a screw cap culture tube). The results were essentially the same. John P. Bowden "Dum Spiro Spero" Robert Parsons wrote: > This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. > Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no > problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, > however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps > and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the > MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a > wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow > going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is > much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. > Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed > things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You > wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the > extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some > of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom > of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't > use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL > acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a > bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I > filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be > colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 > mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, > there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, > because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities > to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize > sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very > greatly from sample to sample.The psilocin peak will be a relatively > small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip > the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may > miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to > have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the > more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that > sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any > significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to > work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, > and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly > preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the > problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species > extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species > resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe > compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce > detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their > life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. > I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature > (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe > compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from > decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried > and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target > compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh > mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in > plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very > rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, > partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with > well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I > find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect > because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin > with).Hope this helps. Good luck.Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aldridge, Michael > [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM > To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) > Subject: mushroom analysis > > What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin > form mushroom material. > > I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the > results are inelegant to say the least. > > It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite > variable from item to item > --------------7A78DAFD5177E778AD63969F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a quick note on this topic.  I usually had good results by extracting with methanol, either for a few hours (overnight) or for 10 - 15 minutes in a sonicator.
I realize that this method is not as elegant as some, but it usually worked.  I certainly make no claim that the extraction was quantitative.

The major problem was that occasionally the 'rooms would have a great deal of fatty compounds that also extracted.  The illicit compounds were still identifiable, but it lead to much more junk on the column as fatty acids do not chromatograph well.

I used to think along the lines Robert Parsons that better extraction was gained by pulverizing the mushrooms.  That is until a mycologist told me that the psilocybe compounds are primarily a surface phenomenon.  After that I merely made the pieces small enough to get in the extraction tube (a screw cap culture tube).  The results were essentially the same.

John P. Bowden
"Dum Spiro Spero"

Robert Parsons wrote:

 This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method.  Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first.  I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone.  I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool.  You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates.  Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective.  You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract.  Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly).  Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants.  Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode.  No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity.  As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample.The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants.  If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present.  Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with.  Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself .  Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems.  First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US.  Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds.  Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing.  I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment).  Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly.  Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic.  If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid.  I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples.  With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with).Hope this helps.  Good luck.Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM
To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: mushroom analysis
 
What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material.

I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least.

It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item

--------------7A78DAFD5177E778AD63969F-- From forens-owner Fri May 19 10:41:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23027 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23022 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:41:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id v.31.548be59 (4588); Fri, 19 May 2000 10:40:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <31.548be59.2656ac4d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:40:13 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us, ArtWYoung@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Jenny I was just wondering as you were talking about hair analysis. I recently read a statement that "There is no minimum number of microscopic characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as to possible origin." Can someone help me through this one? Would someone help me through this one? It seems that we could reach a conclusion that because an elephant has large ears that if he (or she to be politically correct) were to flap them hard enough he or she could fly. Afterall, bees fly. So it is possible that elephants could fly. But triers of fact can see the unlikelihood of such being the case. Can they, however, determine the weight of hair evidence when an examiner testifies based upon the comparison of just one characteristic that two hairs could have originated from the same source. Or can we among us derive testimony format that will better educate our students? If this statement that I have read is really part of a protocol then it seems that there is no standard. And I was just wondering. I have read hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of FBI laboratory reports spanning the period from the early 1970's until the middle 1990's. Many of those reports and transcripts from trial that I have read of FBI hair testimony note a specific number of characteristics that must be detected before a valid comparison can be made from which an opinion can be drawn concerning common origin of two hairs. The numbers varied from about 13 to 21 characteristics. When did the understanding change and why did it change and was the new understanding peer reviewed in the scientific literature and can someone point me to the record of that peer review. I was just wondering. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri May 19 13:29:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27474 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:29:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dnai.com (dnai.com [207.181.194.98]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27469 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from azoth.dnai.com (azoth.dnai.com [207.181.194.94]) by dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA60139; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by azoth.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA94581; Fri, 19 May 2000 10:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000519102831.00ab1810@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:35:50 -0700 To: "Christopher J. Basten":; From: Kim Kruglick Subject: ABO from hair? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id NAA27470 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, Got this request this AM via my Web site. Attempted translation below. Don't get the word "sanguineo" though & thus don't know if it affects the answer. Anyhow, if anyone has info on ABO from hair could you post it so I can forward it to this young man? Thanks. kk >Hola que tal mi nombre es Javier Moncada, soy estudiante de Bacteriología último semestre, y hago mis práçticas en el instituto de Medicina legal de la Ciudad de Medellin Colombia. > >Quiero pedirles el favor me brinden información acerca de si hay alguna metodología existente para determinar grupo sanguineo ABO en pelos, y si la hay que alguno de ustedes me brinde bibliografia o información. >Es una gran ayuda que pueden brindarme. > >Les quedare eternamente agradecido. >_________________________________________________________ >http://www.latinmail.com. Gratuito, latino y en español. Hello that so my name is Javier Moncada, I am student in my last semester in Bacteriology, and will practice in the institute of legal Medicine of the City of Medellin, Colombia. I want to request a favor can you provide information to me about if there is some existing methodology to determine sanguineo group ABO in hairs, and if there is some references or information to me. It is a great aid if you can provide that to me. To you I will be been thankful eternally. From forens-owner Fri May 19 13:31:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27598 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27593 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:31:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:31:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: uncertain models Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:10:43 -0400 (EDT) From: John Buckleton To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Can a scientific decision of certainty be based on an uncertain model? Or more specifically, can the FBI state that DNA must have come from a person based on calculations done using the product rule? The answer obviously is that they can, but what level of uncertainty is there in their statement of certainty. John Buckleton North Carolina State University NC USA From forens-owner Fri May 19 13:32:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27720 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27715 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:32:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DAB Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:16:52 -0400 (EDT) From: John Buckleton To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Probability of exclusion Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The recent DAB draft guidlines mention the probability of exclusion as an alternative to likelihood ratios for mixtures of DNA. The reference therein is to Devlin 1992 which describes PE for paternity. Does anyone know the mathematical definition of PE that the DAB mean? John Buckleton North Carolina State University NC USA From forens-owner Fri May 19 15:09:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29979 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:09:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doaisd01001.state.mt.us (doaisd01001.state.mt.us [161.7.1.78]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29974 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 15:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by doaisd01001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 19 May 2000 13:08:57 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:08:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fred, I have not encountered triers of fact having problems determining how much weight to assign microscopical hair associations. You mentioned someone testifying that two hairs may have originated from the same source based upon one microscopic feature. What was your source for that information? My guess is that the other features compared favorably and the one feature was unusual and strengthened the association. So, how do the triers of fact determine the weight of microscopical hair associations? Because hair examinations are somewhat subjective, jurors need to know how much training and experience an examiner has, as well as the results of an examiner's hair proficiency tests and results of any hair associations that were further subjected to DNA analysis. Jurors should be told that a microscopical hair examination can merely include or exclude a person as being a possible source of the questioned hair. Unique or unusual will strengthen a hair association. The examiner will testify that microscopical hair examinations cannot provide absolute personal identification....that it is not possible to individualize human hair microscopically to a particular person to the exclusion of all others because hairs from one person (e.g.,head) show a range of microscopical variation, and sometimes that range overlaps between people. If known and questioned hairs cannot be distinguished microscopically, then they may share a common origin. In other words, the person contributing the known hairs can't be excluded as a source of the questioned hair. This sort of disclaimer is commonly used by hair examiners, and should help the jury in assigning weight to hair evidence. How many features should be compared? There are hair charts available in forensic reference books that list about 20 microscopic hair features, but the features evolve over the length of a hair so there can be a lot of variation to take into consideration. An experienced examiner does not simply compare 5 or 13 or 20 features. The examiner compares a composite of all observable features and continually assesses and reevaluates while comparing. Hair examination comes down to pattern recognition, the ability to recognize subtle differences and knowing what is unusual based upon experience. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 7:40 AM To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us; ArtWYoung@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Jenny I was just wondering as you were talking about hair analysis. I recently read a statement that "There is no minimum number of microscopic characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as to possible origin." Can someone help me through this one? Would someone help me through this one? It seems that we could reach a conclusion that because an elephant has large ears that if he (or she to be politically correct) were to flap them hard enough he or she could fly. Afterall, bees fly. So it is possible that elephants could fly. But triers of fact can see the unlikelihood of such being the case. Can they, however, determine the weight of hair evidence when an examiner testifies based upon the comparison of just one characteristic that two hairs could have originated from the same source. Or can we among us derive testimony format that will better educate our students? If this statement that I have read is really part of a protocol then it seems that there is no standard. And I was just wondering. I have read hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of FBI laboratory reports spanning the period from the early 1970's until the middle 1990's. Many of those reports and transcripts from trial that I have read of FBI hair testimony note a specific number of characteristics that must be detected before a valid comparison can be made from which an opinion can be drawn concerning common origin of two hairs. The numbers varied from about 13 to 21 characteristics. When did the understanding change and why did it change and was the new understanding peer reviewed in the scientific literature and can someone point me to the record of that peer review. I was just wondering. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri May 19 16:37:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01916 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 16:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01911 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 16:37:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id z.55.6211836 (3955); Fri, 19 May 2000 16:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55.6211836.2656ffb6@aol.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 16:36:06 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: aammen@state.mt.us CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/19/00 3:09:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, aammen@state.mt.us writes: << Fred, I have not encountered triers of fact having problems determining how much weight to assign microscopical hair associations. You mentioned someone testifying that two hairs may have originated from the same source based upon one microscopic feature. What was your source for that information? My guess is that the other features compared favorably and the one feature was unusual and strengthened the association. >> Aamen Not that someone testified that two hairs may have originated from the same source based upon one microscopic feature but that there was no mininum number of features/characteristics that had to be measurable in order to render an opinion that two hairs could have originated from the same source. If there is no minimum number then one characteristic fits that description. Your explanation is appreciated. The point of view is correct but then I guess we are led to the tension between the probative nature of the evidence measured against the prejudicial effect. We can then say to the jury, "I could discern no differences but that does not mean the hairs originated from the same source. You really ought to conduct mitochondrial DNA analysis on these hairs to find out if they originated from the same source." ? Aammen, if I close my eyes I can discern no differences either. Should I tell the jury that my eyes were closed? I do not ask this sarcastically but in all seriousness. I want to educate the juror as much as possible to understand the true significance of the data. I remember a case at the FBI where the serology examiner could not eliminate the suspect but the DNA examiner could and so the prosecutor would not call the DNA examiner. That seemed sort of unfair. The DNA examiner thought so too. Fred (Thank you for your response.) From forens-owner Fri May 19 17:38:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02711 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:38:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02706 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 19 May 2000 21:38:25 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:34:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:33:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC1D9.F1A656DC" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC1D9.F1A656DC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Fred: Haven't we been through this once before? The key phrase you quoted is "POSSIBLE origin." You read way too much into the phrase "COULD have originated from the same source." When a hair examiner says that, they are NOT saying the hairs DID have a common origin, or even that they were likely to have had one, only that they were unable to find any differences that would justify saying they could NOT have originated from the same source. Since they could not exclude the hairs from a common source, obviously they have to say that a common source is still "possible" (i.e., not eliminated from possibility). Therefore the hairs "could have" (perhaps better phrased as "might have") a common source. Establishing or using a "minimum number" of characteristics (or points of comparison) is only relevant in an attempt to individualize ("identify") a piece of evidence, as in fingerprint examination; although I don't know of any type of exam in which there is consensus regarding the "minimum number" which needs to be used. Opinions vary widely, so I'm not sure how definitive the concept can be even in those types of exams. Yet hair examination today is very different in its aim from those types of exams. I understand there was once a time when some hair examiners (microscopists) were willing to opine about the conclusive origin of a hair sample, and so various authorities established the "minimum numbers" of common characteristics they felt were needed to feel "certain" about a conclusion, but the unacceptably high error rates in published proficiency testing studies effectively put an end to that. I don't know any hair examiner today who would attempt to individualize a hair based on microscopic comparisons alone, no matter how many "characteristics" were used (DNA testing of hairs is of course another matter). Here is my understanding, as one who is NOT a hair examiner you understand (hair folks out there please take me to task if I err). Today, microscopic hair comparisons result in no more than an exclusion/inclusion determination. If the conclusion is an EXclusion, it means there were significant irreconcilable differences noted between the questioned and known samples, and so in the examiner's opinion they could not have originated from a common source. If the conclusion is an INclusion, it simply means that the examiner could not tell the two apart with the comparisons used (i.e., there were no discernable differences). Since the examiner is not individualizing the hairs, there is no point in a "minimum number" of points of comparison. The examiner uses however many points he/she is able to or finds necessary. In an exclusion, a single unexplainable discrepancy may be reason enough to declare an exclusion and go no further with the exam, so the "minimum number" might very well be "1" in that case. In an inclusion, the number of points of comparison used depends largely on the nature and condition of the samples. There will be more points possible with some samples than with others. In an inclusion, essentially the examiner studies the samples until they've seen all they can without finding any distinguishing differences. The examiner goes as far as is possible or practical for them to go, then concludes that the discernable features are either indistinguishable or at least insufficiently different to declare an exclusion, and so by default it becomes an inclusion. That is NOT intended to mean the two hairs came from the same source, only that they cannot be distinguished by that particular examiner using the methods that examiner used. That's all, and no more should be inferred into it than that. Setting some arbitrary minimum number of comparison points is not useful in determining an inclusion or exclusion - one uses as many points as are available and needed given the evidence and circumstances at hand. However, in my opinion a responsible examiner should report in detail the number and nature of the points of comparison which were made and provide some guidance as to the significance of those characteristics, i.e., which are commonly indistinguishable between different people (and so are relatively meaningless) and which are more demonstrative by virtue of being highly variable between people. This is to convey to the investigator and/or trier of fact some idea of what the strength of the association or non-association is, to assist them in determining the appropriate weight to give to the conclusion. In an exclusion this is relatively easy: you use words that essentially indicate "They are very different; you've got the wrong person," period. In an inclusion, care in describing the strength of association is critical to avoid it being given undue weight. What you definitely don't want is for an inclusion/association to be misinterpreted as an individualization/identification. You are simply saying you can't tell them apart from their discernable (to you) characteristics; you are NOT saying they necessarily have a common origin, but rather that they MIGHT (or might not) have one because you simply can't tell them apart. Unfortunately we don't have statistical databases on hair characteristics that allow us to put the nice, neat, objective numbers on hair inclusions that we would like to have (and which attorneys and investigators often expect), so the indication of the strength of association is largely a subjective one based on the knowledge and experience of the examiner; but a hair microscopist is obligated to try to put it in perspective for the client somehow or the information isn't useful in a valid way. Hair comparisons have their greatest value in excluding suspects. Inclusions are nothing CONclusive, but merely additional circumstantial evidence to be weighed along with all the other available evidence; useful but not demonstrative. Trying to put arbitrary "minimum numbers" on their component examinations would serve no useful purpose, since there is no data upon which to base them. This would be a fertile area for research to see if such "numbers" could be developed and validated, but since DNA exams on hair can be so much more strongly demonstrative as inclusions than any microscopic exam can ever hope to be, I doubt anyone is going to expend the effort to do that research. Right now it's a great screening test to save some time - if the hairs are not similar (an exclusion), you need go no further. If they are similar (an inclusion), then you can go on to a DNA exam. If DNA is not possible then the microscopic exam results can be used like any other screening test - as one indicator to be considered along with many others in the case. But no case should be decided based on a microscopic hair exam alone. It simply doesn't have that kind of discriminating power. 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, May 19, 2000 10:40 AM To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us; ArtWYoung@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Jenny I was just wondering as you were talking about hair analysis. I recently read a statement that "There is no minimum number of microscopic characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as to possible origin." Can someone help me through this one? Would someone help me through this one? It seems that we could reach a conclusion that because an elephant has large ears that if he (or she to be politically correct) were to flap them hard enough he or she could fly. Afterall, bees fly. So it is possible that elephants could fly. But triers of fact can see the unlikelihood of such being the case. Can they, however, determine the weight of hair evidence when an examiner testifies based upon the comparison of just one characteristic that two hairs could have originated from the same source. Or can we among us derive testimony format that will better educate our students? If this statement that I have read is really part of a protocol then it seems that there is no standard. And I was just wondering. I have read hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of FBI laboratory reports spanning the period from the early 1970's until the middle 1990's. Many of those reports and transcripts from trial that I have read of FBI hair testimony note a specific number of characteristics that must be detected before a valid comparison can be made from which an opinion can be drawn concerning common origin of two hairs. The numbers varied from about 13 to 21 characteristics. When did the understanding change and why did it change and was the new understanding peer reviewed in the scientific literature and can someone point me to the record of that peer review. I was just wondering. Fred Whitehurst ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC1D9.F1A656DC Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA

Fred:

Haven't we been through this once before?  The = key phrase you quoted is "POSSIBLE origin."  You read = way too much into the phrase "COULD have originated from the same = source."  When a hair examiner says that, they are NOT saying = the hairs DID have a common origin, or even that they were likely to = have had one, only that they were unable to find any differences that = would justify saying they could NOT have originated from the same = source.  Since they could not exclude the hairs from a common = source, obviously they have to say that a common source is still = "possible" (i.e., not eliminated from possibility).  = Therefore the hairs "could have" (perhaps better phrased as = "might have") a common source.

Establishing or using a "minimum number" of = characteristics (or points of comparison) is only relevant in an = attempt to individualize ("identify") a piece of evidence, as = in fingerprint examination; although I don't know of any type of exam = in which there is consensus regarding the "minimum number" = which needs to be used. Opinions vary widely, so I'm not sure how = definitive the concept can be even in those types of exams.  Yet = hair examination today is very different in its aim from those types of = exams.  I understand there was once a time when some hair = examiners (microscopists) were willing to opine about the conclusive = origin of a hair sample, and so various authorities established the = "minimum numbers" of common characteristics they felt were = needed to feel "certain" about a conclusion, but the = unacceptably high error rates in published proficiency testing studies = effectively put an end to that.  I don't know any hair examiner = today who would attempt to individualize a hair based on microscopic = comparisons alone, no matter how many "characteristics" were = used (DNA testing of hairs is of course another matter).

Here is my understanding, as one who is NOT a hair = examiner you understand (hair folks out there please take me to task if = I err).  Today, microscopic hair comparisons result in no more = than an exclusion/inclusion determination.  If the conclusion is = an EXclusion, it means there were significant irreconcilable = differences noted between the questioned and known samples, and so in = the examiner's opinion they could not have originated from a common = source.  If the conclusion is an INclusion, it simply means that = the examiner could not tell the two apart with the comparisons used = (i.e., there were no discernable differences). Since the examiner is = not individualizing the hairs, there is no point in a "minimum = number" of points of comparison.  The examiner uses however = many points he/she is able to or finds necessary.  In an = exclusion, a single unexplainable discrepancy may be reason enough to = declare an exclusion and go no further with the exam, so the = "minimum number" might very well be "1" in that = case.  In an inclusion, the number of points of comparison used = depends largely on the nature and condition of the samples.  There = will be more points possible with some samples than with others.  = In an inclusion, essentially the examiner studies the samples until = they've seen all they can without finding any distinguishing = differences.  The examiner goes as far as is possible or practical = for them to go, then concludes that the discernable features are either = indistinguishable or at least insufficiently different to declare an = exclusion, and so by default it becomes an inclusion.  That is NOT = intended to mean the two hairs came from the same source, only that = they cannot be distinguished by that particular examiner using the = methods that examiner used.  That's all, and no more should be = inferred into it than that.  Setting some arbitrary minimum number = of comparison points is not useful in determining an inclusion or = exclusion - one uses as many points as are available and needed given = the evidence and circumstances at hand.

However, in my opinion a responsible examiner should = report in detail the number and nature of the points of comparison = which were made and provide some guidance as to the significance of = those characteristics, i.e., which are commonly indistinguishable = between different people (and so are relatively meaningless) and which = are more demonstrative by virtue of being highly variable between = people.  This is to convey to the investigator and/or trier of = fact some idea of what the strength of the association or = non-association is, to assist them in determining the appropriate = weight to give to the conclusion.  In an exclusion this is = relatively easy: you use words that essentially indicate "They are = very different; you've got the wrong person," period.  In an = inclusion, care in describing the strength of association is critical = to avoid it being given undue weight.  What you definitely don't = want is for an inclusion/association to be misinterpreted as an = individualization/identification. You are simply saying you can't tell = them apart from their discernable (to you) characteristics; you are NOT = saying they necessarily have a common origin, but rather that they = MIGHT (or might not) have one because you simply can't tell them = apart. 

Unfortunately we don't have statistical databases on = hair characteristics that allow us to put the nice, neat, objective = numbers on hair inclusions that we would like to have (and which = attorneys and investigators often expect), so the indication of the = strength of association is largely a subjective one based on the = knowledge and experience of the examiner; but a hair microscopist is = obligated to try to put it in perspective for the client somehow or the = information isn't useful in a valid way.  Hair comparisons have = their greatest value in excluding suspects.  Inclusions are = nothing CONclusive, but merely additional circumstantial evidence to be = weighed along with all the other available evidence; useful but not = demonstrative.  Trying to put arbitrary "minimum = numbers" on their component examinations would serve no useful = purpose, since there is no data upon which to base them.

This would be a fertile area for research to see if = such "numbers" could be developed and validated, but since = DNA exams on hair can be so much more strongly demonstrative as = inclusions than any microscopic exam can ever hope to be, I doubt = anyone is going to expend the effort to do that research.  Right = now it's a great screening test to save some time - if the hairs are = not similar (an exclusion), you need go no further.  If they are = similar (an inclusion), then you can go on to a DNA exam.  If DNA = is not possible then the microscopic exam results can be used like any = other screening test - as one indicator to be considered along with = many others in the case.  But no case should be decided based on a = microscopic hair exam alone.  It simply doesn't have that kind of = discriminating power.

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, May 19, 2000 10:40 AM
To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us; = ArtWYoung@aol.com
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA


Jenny
I was just wondering as you were talking about hair = analysis.

I recently read a statement that "There is no = minimum number of microscopic
characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as = to possible origin."

Can someone help me through this one?  Would = someone help me through this
one?   It seems that we could reach a = conclusion that because an elephant has
large ears that if he (or she to be politically = correct) were to flap them
hard enough he or she could fly.  Afterall, = bees fly.  So it is possible that
elephants could fly.


But triers of fact can see the unlikelihood of such = being the case.  Can
they, however, determine the weight of hair evidence = when an examiner
testifies based upon the comparison of just one = characteristic that two hairs
could have originated from the same source.  Or = can we among us derive
testimony format that will better educate our = students?

If this statement that I have read is really part of = a protocol then it seems
that there is no standard.

And I was just wondering.  I have read hundreds = upon hundreds upon hundreds
of FBI laboratory reports spanning the period from = the early 1970's until the
middle 1990's.  Many of those reports and = transcripts from trial that I have
read of FBI hair testimony note a specific number of = characteristics that
must be detected before a valid comparison can be = made from which an opinion
can be drawn concerning common origin of two = hairs.     The numbers varied
from about 13 to 21 characteristics. When did the = understanding change and
why did it change and was the new understanding peer = reviewed in the
scientific literature and can someone point me to = the record of that peer
review.

I was just wondering.

Fred Whitehurst

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC1D9.F1A656DC-- From forens-owner Fri May 19 17:45:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02878 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:45:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acaix1.ucis.dal.ca (acaix1.UCIS.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.50]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02873 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:45:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from is2.dal.ca (root@IS2.Dal.Ca [129.173.1.66]) by acaix1.ucis.dal.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id SAA105004 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:45:37 -0300 Received: from MGray-1 (MGray-1.Med.Dal.Ca [129.173.88.186]) by is2.dal.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA58602 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:45:36 -0300 Message-Id: <200005192145.SAA58602@is2.dal.ca> From: "John Norman" Organization: Dalhousie University To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:49:50 -0300 Subject: DNA degradation in saliva over time Reply-to: jenorman@is2.dal.ca X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi, Can DNA be extracted from a saliva sample that is approx. 25 years old? Unfortunately this question was given to me by a friend who assumed that I would know the answer. She didn't know anything about how the sample was stored, collected, amount etc so I can't provide any of that information. I assume that the sample was air dried and stored at room temperature but I don't know. This sample will presumably be used in a criminal investigation so I assume that any data collected will be heavily scrutinized. I did a medline search but didn't find anything on DNA degradation in saliva over time. I would appreciate any info that may help me answer this question. Thanks John Norman PhD candidate/ LLB student Laboratory of Michael W. Gray, Ph.D Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Evolutionary Biology Program Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Medicine Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada From forens-owner Fri May 19 18:09:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA03369 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03364 for ; Fri, 19 May 2000 18:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 19 May 2000 17:08:38 -0500 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB785@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DNA degradation in saliva over time Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:08:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Since you couldn't find an answer with the literature search, the answer is probably the same as we used to get from the DNA lab at AFIP: "Gee, don't know that anybody ever tried that before. Let's try it and see, the worst you can get is no DNA recovered." Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: John Norman [mailto:jenorman@is2.dal.ca] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 4:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DNA degradation in saliva over time Hi, Can DNA be extracted from a saliva sample that is approx. 25 years old? Unfortunately this question was given to me by a friend who assumed that I would know the answer. She didn't know anything about how the sample was stored, collected, amount etc so I can't provide any of that information. I assume that the sample was air dried and stored at room temperature but I don't know. This sample will presumably be used in a criminal investigation so I assume that any data collected will be heavily scrutinized. I did a medline search but didn't find anything on DNA degradation in saliva over time. I would appreciate any info that may help me answer this question. Thanks John Norman PhD candidate/ LLB student Laboratory of Michael W. Gray, Ph.D Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Evolutionary Biology Program Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Medicine Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada From forens-owner Sat May 20 14:12:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14460 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 14:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14455 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 14:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (h207-21-136-217.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.217]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28711; Sat, 20 May 2000 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000520111018.00cfe950@uclink4.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 11:14:59 -0700 To: Kim Kruglick , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: ABO from hair? In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000519102831.00ab1810@mail.dnai.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id OAA14456 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM 5/19/00 -0700, Kim Kruglick wrote: >Folks, > Got this request this AM via my Web site. Attempted translation > below. Don't get the word "sanguineo" though & thus don't know if it > affects the answer. Anyhow, if anyone has info on ABO from hair could you > post it so I can forward it to this young man? Thanks. >kk He wants to know if he can obtain blood group types (e.g. ABO) from hairs. Traditionally the types refer to variant forms of a protein found in blood. I think the hair root may have no blood, but still have enough cells for a DNA analysis. A few years ago there were quite a number of papers -- e.g. in the proceedings of the 1997 conference of the International Society on Forensic Haemogenetics -- on determining ABO type from DNA. Charles Brenner consulting in forensic mathematics www.dna-view.com > >Hola que tal mi nombre es Javier Moncada, soy estudiante de > Bacteriología último semestre, y hago mis práçticas en el instituto de > Medicina legal de la Ciudad de Medellin Colombia. > > > >Quiero pedirles el favor me brinden información acerca de si hay alguna > metodología existente para determinar grupo sanguineo ABO en pelos, y si > la hay que alguno de ustedes me brinde bibliografia o información. > >Es una gran ayuda que pueden brindarme. > > > >Les quedare eternamente agradecido. > >_________________________________________________________ > >http://www.latinmail.com. Gratuito, latino y en español. > > > Hello that so my name is Javier Moncada, I am student in > my last semester in Bacteriology, and will practice in the > institute of legal Medicine of the City of Medellin, > Colombia. > > I want to request a favor can you provide information to > me about if > there is some existing methodology to determine sanguineo > group ABO in hairs, and if there is some references or > information > to me. It is a great aid if you can provide that to me. > > To you I will be been thankful eternally. From forens-owner Sat May 20 21:06:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18061 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 20 May 2000 21:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f5.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.5]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18056 for ; Sat, 20 May 2000 21:06:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 139 invoked by uid 0); 21 May 2000 01:05:32 -0000 Message-ID: <20000521010532.138.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 63.209.84.162 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 20 May 2000 18:05:32 PDT X-Originating-IP: [63.209.84.162] From: "chris breyer" To: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu, kim@kruglaw.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: ABO from hair? Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:05:32 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I would have supposed the same thing, that sanguineo refers to "blood." I've picked up a bit of el Espanol from my wife. Spanish root word would be "sangre" (blood) which is why sanguineo could have eluded a spanish-english dictionary search. Of course, it crosses into English when coroners refer death by bleeding-out as exsanguination. Chris Breyer ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Sun May 21 21:55:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02887 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 21 May 2000 21:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02882 for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 21:55:56 -0400 (EDT) From: KattC31@aol.com Received: from KattC31@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id y.de.540a855 (2618) for ; Sun, 21 May 2000 21:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 21:55:15 EDT Subject: how do i get off the mailing list To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I was curious as to how I could get removed from the mailing list. Thanks for your information. Katrina Cannon From forens-owner Mon May 22 06:59:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07033 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 06:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gw.odh.state.oh.us (gw.odh.state.oh.us [198.234.136.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA07028 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 06:59:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ODH_REMOTE-Message_Server by gw.odh.state.oh.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 22 May 2000 06:58:54 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 06:58:28 -0400 From: "John Kucmanic" To: , Subject: RE: mushroom analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id GAA07029 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 08:08:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08029 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 08:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08024 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 08:08:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:08:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:57 +0100 (BST) From: forensics@cix.co.uk (Mark Webster) Subject: Re: ABO from hair? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000520111018.00cfe950@uclink4.berkeley.edu> Message-Id: There were some papers published in the 70's and early 80's by (so I remember) mainly japanese scientists. They reportedly obtained ABO results from hairs using serological techniques. I played around with this myself in the early eighties. I tried "loosening up" the hair using thiogycolate (a reducing agent) and using an absorption elution technique to try to detect ABO antigens that might be incorporated into the hair. It didn't work. However, as Charles Brenner points out, there is good reason to suppose that DNA based techniques could determine ABO blood groups by analysing the small amounts of nuclear DNA present in hair roots. Mark Webster From forens-owner Mon May 22 10:04:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09705 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 10:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09700 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 10:04:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v26.7.) id 7.7b.4644a33 (14380); Mon, 22 May 2000 10:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7b.4644a33.265a9842@aol.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:03:46 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Bob Thanks for the clearest explanation I have gotten so far about multi-component complex analysis. Seriously, I appreciate your time and effort in that response. I believe that we have been through this before as a matter of fact. My concern is that triers-of-fact realize that hair analysis and any other analysis of systems with many characteristics not necessarily measured or measureable have just the limitations about which you have spoken. How do we insure that that happens? Do we address the issue before the reports and testimony leave the forensic lab or before it reaches the jurors or after it reaches the jurors? I would opt for the lab audit function to save the system grief later on. any ideas? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Mon May 22 11:09:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11008 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.101.238.2] ([209.101.238.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11003 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 11:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbitproxy01 by [209.101.238.2] via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 15:09:07 UT Received: by HBITMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 08:15:51 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE011B548@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: FW: mushroom analysis Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:10:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The below article is what we follow, & use TLC as part of the protocol to ID psilocyn only. The method uses butyl chloride to get a very rapid and clean extract of the psilocyn from the mushroom material. I will never go back to MeOH extractions. -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 1:36 PM To: 'Aldridge, Michael' Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: RE: mushroom analysis Try this article: Lee, R.E., "A Technique for the Rapid Isolation and Identification of Psilocin from Psilocin/Psilocybin Containing Mushrooms," Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 30, No. 3, July 1985, pp. 931-941. It works great! Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA-USA) -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 12:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 12:46:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12237 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 12:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA12232 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 12:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 16:46:15 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 12:41:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:41:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40C.9B5A170C" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40C.9B5A170C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Fred, The disturbing thing is that anyone feels a need to be asking those questions at all, when the answers should be obvious and undisputed. A forensic scientist has an affirmative obligation and professional responsibility to go beyond the mere reporting of results, to explain the meaning and significance of those results (if there are any) in a way that the lay reader or listener can readily grasp and clearly understand. This is why there is a "Discussion" or "Conclusion" section of a lab report, and that is where the explanation belongs. It is also why expert witnesses have the privilege (at least in the USA) of refusing to give a "yes or no" answer to complex questions and are instead afforded the right to explain their answers. Determining the scientific facts is only the beginning of our jobs; using our professional abilities to interpret the significance of those facts is the lion's share of it. We should not wait to be asked for that explanation - it should be an automatic part of our reports and our testimony, unbidden. To provide any less is irresponsible and unprofessional. 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: Monday, May 22, 2000 10:04 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Bob Thanks for the clearest explanation I have gotten so far about multi-component complex analysis. Seriously, I appreciate your time and effort in that response. I believe that we have been through this before as a matter of fact. My concern is that triers-of-fact realize that hair analysis and any other analysis of systems with many characteristics not necessarily measured or measureable have just the limitations about which you have spoken. How do we insure that that happens? Do we address the issue before the reports and testimony leave the forensic lab or before it reaches the jurors or after it reaches the jurors? I would opt for the lab audit function to save the system grief later on. any ideas? Fred Whitehurst ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40C.9B5A170C Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA

Fred,

The disturbing thing is that anyone feels a need to = be asking those questions at all, when the answers should be obvious = and undisputed.  A forensic scientist has an affirmative = obligation and professional responsibility to go beyond the mere = reporting of results, to explain the meaning and significance of those = results (if there are any) in a way that the lay reader or listener can = readily grasp and clearly understand.  This is why there is a = "Discussion" or "Conclusion" section of a lab = report, and that is where the explanation belongs.  It is also why = expert witnesses have the privilege (at least in the USA) of refusing = to give a "yes or no" answer to complex questions and are = instead afforded the right to explain their answers.  Determining = the scientific facts is only the beginning of our jobs; using our = professional abilities to interpret the significance of those facts is = the lion's share of it.  We should not wait to be asked for that = explanation - it should be an automatic part of our reports and our = testimony, unbidden.  To provide any less is irresponsible and = unprofessional.

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: Monday, May 22, 2000 10:04 AM
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA


Bob
Thanks for the clearest explanation I have gotten so = far about
multi-component complex analysis.  Seriously, I = appreciate your time and
effort in that response.  I believe that we = have been through this before as
a matter of fact.  My concern is that = triers-of-fact realize that hair
analysis and any other analysis of systems with many = characteristics not
necessarily measured or measureable have just the = limitations about which you
have spoken.

How do we insure that that happens?  Do we = address the issue before the
reports and testimony leave the forensic lab or = before it reaches the jurors
or after it reaches the jurors?  I would opt = for the lab audit function to
save the system grief later on. 
any ideas?
Fred Whitehurst

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40C.9B5A170C-- From forens-owner Mon May 22 13:03:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12608 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA12603 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 17:03:35 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 12:59:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'John Kucmanic'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:59:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40F.07686960" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40F.07686960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40F.07686960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: mushroom analysis

I must have missed the debate - I thought we were = just exchanging ideas on methodology ;)

We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it = certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in = sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming.  = And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal = with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have = to dispose of.  That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only = ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and = psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will = spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a = GC.  Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat = time-consuming.  We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, = then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin = (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the = final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain = either psilocin, psilocybin, or both.  Since psilocin and = psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the = Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences = regarding which specific compound is present.  It therefore = becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present = was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that = at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the = law.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state= .oh.us]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: mushroom analysis


to add to the great mushroom debate  the journal = of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on = psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for = psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, = psilocybin or both

>>> Robert Parsons = <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us> 05/17/00 05:12PM >>>
This is probably due to the state of your samples, = not your method.  Soaking
in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should = have no problem
extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the = mushroom, however I do
believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the = caps and mycelium first.
I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH = alone.  I then filter the
extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass = wool.  You can use
filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to = clogging with spores and
mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes = all but the finest of
the particulates.  Alternatively you can use = filter paper with vacuum
filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is = simple, fast, and
effective.  You wind up with a dark yellow to = brown extract.  Then I
evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with = 5 mL MeOH (leaving
behind some of the sugars and other coextracting = junk which adhere to the
bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't = redissolve so long as you don't
use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work = quickly).  Then I add 5 mL
acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans = up the sample a bit
further by precipitating out more of the = coextractants.  Then I filter again
in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should = be colorless or a very
light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 = mL and shoot neat onto the
GC/MS in splitless mode.  No matter what, there = isn't going to be a lot of
psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are = present in the mushrooms in
rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the = need for splitless mode to
maximize sensitivity.  As you say, the existing = psilocybe content varies
very greatly from sample to sample.
 
The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in = between very large
peaks of co-extractants.  If you skip the clean = up, there will be so much
other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin = completely if it is
present.  Obviously it helps to have plenty of = sample to work with - the
more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, = if present to begin
with.  Some say that sonicating in MeOH = increases the recovery, but I
haven't noticed any significant difference myself = .  Plain old soaking
overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a = psilocybe mushroom in the
first place, and IF it was in the right stage of = growth, and IF it was
properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of = "if"s and therein lies the
problems.  First, there are only a few = psilocybe mushroom species extant,
and even fewer native to the US.  Many other = mushroom species resemble
psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no = psilocybe compounds.
Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce = detectable quantities of
psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle = - if picked too early
or too late, you will find nothing.  I don't = know this for a fact, but I
have read it in the literature (which literature I = don't recall at the
moment).  Finally, psilocybe compounds do not = seem to be very robust, and
quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so = if the mushrooms are
not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, = your chances of
detecting the target compounds are diminished = greatly.  Like any botanical
sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and = packaged in paper, never in
plastic.  If they are kept moist in storage, = decomposition is very rapid.  I
have only rarely had successful recovery from = blackened, partially
decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with = well-preserved dried brown
samples.  With well-preserved samples, I find = psilocybes present in about
half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only = half of them actually are
psilocybe mushrooms to begin with).
 
Hope this helps.  Good luck.
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

-----Original Message-----
From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.= ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM
To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: mushroom analysis



What methods have you found to consistently extract = psylocin form mushroom
material.

I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but = the results are
inelegant to say the least.

It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite = variable from item to
item

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC40F.07686960-- From forens-owner Mon May 22 16:51:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15840 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 16:51:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail003.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15835 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 16:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 24431 invoked from network); 22 May 2000 20:50:37 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail003.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 May 2000 20:50:37 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 20:32:46 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon May 22 13:45:46 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 22 May 2000 13:47:13 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:46:29 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: JKUCMANI@GW.ODH.State.OH.US, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 17:27:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16379 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gw.odh.state.oh.us (gw.odh.state.oh.us [198.234.136.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16374 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ODH_REMOTE-Message_Server by gw.odh.state.oh.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:26:56 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:26:48 -0400 From: "John Kucmanic" To: , , Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id RAA16375 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Greg 5000 samples a month and only one gc/ms! Go buy another one before you beat up the one you have >>> "Greg Laskowski" 05/22/00 04:46PM >>> Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 17:30:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16532 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16527 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:30:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 16:29:46 -0500 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB78E@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:29:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For hazardous waste disposal, an alternative to paying somebody bundles of money might be to see if there is a hospital (or similar) lab doing recycling that you could contribute to, or contract for less money. We recycle ethyl alcohol and xylene in house for tissue processing. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:46 PM To: JKUCMANI@GW.ODH.State.OH.US; rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 17:33:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16673 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.101.238.2] ([209.101.238.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16668 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:33:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbitproxy01 by [209.101.238.2] via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 21:33:40 UT Received: by HBITMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:40:27 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE011B549@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'John Kucmanic'" Cc: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: RE: mushroom analysis Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:34:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk John- Being a fellow west-coaster, I have to jump in and point out that Greg does not need another GC/MS, because he handles most of his routine drug ID's with microcrystal tests, like we do. Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:27 PM To: GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us; rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Greg 5000 samples a month and only one gc/ms! Go buy another one before you beat up the one you have >>> "Greg Laskowski" 05/22/00 04:46PM >>> Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 17:36:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16826 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.101.238.2] ([209.101.238.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16821 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbitproxy01 by [209.101.238.2] via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 21:36:55 UT Received: by HBITMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 22 May 2000 14:43:42 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE011B54A@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'Hause, David W LTC GLWACH'" Cc: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:38:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Good point. For those of you in municpal or county labs, we got the person in charge of hazmat disposal at our city corporation yard (the guys that do street sweeping and maintenance, sewer maint, etc.) to do it for us. He does not mind a couple of extra gallons a month at all (he has got to get rid of 55 gallon drum quantities of used solvent on a regular basis). Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:30 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis For hazardous waste disposal, an alternative to paying somebody bundles of money might be to see if there is a hospital (or similar) lab doing recycling that you could contribute to, or contract for less money. We recycle ethyl alcohol and xylene in house for tissue processing. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:46 PM To: JKUCMANI@GW.ODH.State.OH.US; rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Mon May 22 18:37:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17744 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail013.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA17739 for ; Mon, 22 May 2000 18:37:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18089 invoked from network); 22 May 2000 22:36:43 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail013.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 May 2000 22:36:43 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 22 May 2000 22:18:52 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon May 22 15:35:15 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 22 May 2000 15:36:40 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:36:09 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Sorry Gang. Meant 5000 cases /year. There is quite a difference! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "John Kucmanic" 05/22 2:26 PM >>> Greg 5000 samples a month and only one gc/ms! Go buy another one before you beat up the one you have >>> "Greg Laskowski" 05/22/00 04:46PM >>> Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item From forens-owner Tue May 23 00:01:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20787 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA20782 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:01:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id y.39.56d0603 (3702) for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39.56d0603.265b5c72@aol.com> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:00:50 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Thanks to everyone for all the replies; once I sort through them (the public as well as the private), I'll be sure to share a digested synopsis. In a message dated 5/16/00 3:12:02 PM, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us writes: >Are you talking about limiting the number of pubic hairs collected in sexual >assault kits or eliminating their collection all together? I was referring to eliminating their collection altogether. Let the comments begin anew. Arthur Young (a DNA analyst with some hair exam training, just so you know my angle on this) Acadiana Crime Lab From forens-owner Tue May 23 09:05:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26112 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26107 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.201]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08155; Tue, 23 May 2000 08:05:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <392A820D.9E97CB5E@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:05:17 -0500 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: ArtWYoung@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA References: <31.548be59.2656ac4d@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi Fred, I liked Alice Ammen's and Robert Parsons response to your concerns regarding hair exams. I can add little to what they have said but for what it is worth..... *Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote > I recently read a statement that "There is no minimum number of microscopic > characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as to possible origin."* Maybe he means "there is no minimum...." because, who is counting? Either a questioned hair falls in the range of characteristics of the known hairs or it does not. You may have 30 similar characteristics between Q and K but if you have just one significant feature in the questioned hair that you can not find in the known you will not include the known as a possible source of the questioned. You may be giving it too much weight to this quote before finding out if it represents the general thinking of hair examiners. But your concerns about hair exams based upon this quote reminds of Rush Limbaugh who blames "soccer moms" for electing Bill Clinton; ergo, soccer should be banned. > Can someone help me through this one? I think the author of the quote is the one who needs help. You really should have given us the author of this quote so we could blast him/her instead of you. > But triers of fact can see the unlikelihood of such being the case. Can > they, however, determine the weight of hair evidence when an examiner > testifies based upon the comparison of just one characteristic that two hairs > could have originated from the same source. Or can we among us derive > testimony format that will better educate our students? > > If this statement that I have read is really part of a protocol then it seems > that there is no standard. My favorite article on microscopic hair analysis was written by Richard Bisbing in Saferstein's Forensic Science Hanbook Vol I (p 202). He says, "Under no circumstances can an association to a source be established by 1 or 2 characteristics...An association does not rest merely on a similar combination of identifying traits...but also on a COEXISTING LACK of basic divergencies between the questioned and known hairs." (I believe I have sited this source for you in prior communications.) > And I was just wondering. I have read hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds > of FBI laboratory reports spanning the period from the early 1970's until the > middle 1990's. Many of those reports and transcripts from trial that I have > read of FBI hair testimony note a specific number of characteristics that > must be detected before a valid comparison can be made from which an opinion > can be drawn concerning common origin of two hairs. The numbers varied > from about 13 to 21 characteristics. When did the understanding change and > why did it change and was the new understanding peer reviewed in the > scientific literature and can someone point me to the record of that peer > review. At the hair and fiber class I attended at the FBI academy in 1992 there was no mention of a minimum number of characteristcs necessary to include someone as a source of a questioned hair. ( but, maybe I was sleeping). I have done a review of the literature including FBI publications and misc. textbooks we have on hand and the SWGMAT hair guidelines. I find nobody that mentions a minimum criteria. Your question regarding peer reviews is legitimate but based upon a flawed assumption that it is (or was) a generally accepted protocol to base associations of questioned and known hair on a minmum number of similar characteristics. (Maybe you are pulling another "Rushski".) It is strange to me that the FBI instructors did not teach my hair and fiber class to use these criterias, although I am not doubting that they themselves used it. Anyway, we have been through this all before. I am sorry that in all my prior ramblings on hair exams, I could not ease your concerns but I am glad that Robert Parsons and Alice Ammen, more eloquent than myself, has been able to do so. Thanks for your questions. Jenny From forens-owner Tue May 23 12:36:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29400 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA29395 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:36:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 23 May 2000 16:36:22 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:31:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:31:44 -0400 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BFC4D4.623DEE80" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFC4D4.623DEE80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I agree in most cases relatively benign solvents can be used for TLC, but what bench analytical chemists consider "hazardous" and what the EPA and DOT consider "hazardous" are two different things. All the solvents you mention, Greg, still have to be disposed of as hazardous waste. We currently bundle our hazmat waste with the College's (we're tenants on their campus), but naturally they make us pay for it and it's very expensive for a small lab with our budget, so we try to minimize it. The idea of piggy-backing on county or municipal hazmat disposal is a good one though, and I should look into that. If I'm lucky, I might be able to obtain disposal for free, as Jeff mentioned. Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative about solvent usage and we only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of solvent waste annually. We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason why we're not particularly interested in TLC or HPLC. The other reason is we don't see a need for those methods which is not more easily handled by our present methods. I'm not knocking TLC (or HPLC for that matter) - as I said it can be a very effective sample prep and screening method, but it's obviously not definitive so instrumental analysis for confirmation must still follow. With the resolution of modern cap columns I don't need to do much sample prep, which allows increased case output. The more sample prep I have to do the fewer cases I can get done in a day. I can load up the GC/MS with 50 "dilute and shoot" samples at the end of the day, with as many different sample types and analysis programs as needed, then go home and let it run unattended overnight, all without having to worry about timers, progress of the solvent front, visualizing agents, or documentation and disposal of the plate chromatogram, and the only waste in most cases is methanol (occasionally a few mL of CHCL3). We have 3 chemists to handle about 3000 drug cases a year (plus blood alcohol and arson cases), but fortunately have two GC/MS systems; so while we struggle with backlog like everyone else, GC/MS is not the bottleneck. Our instruments have plenty of capacity to spare since we COULD load up to 100 samples on each system, but we can't do the preliminary processing on that many samples in one day. The bottle neck is in opening, marking & recording evidence, and preliminary tests on all those samples. We screen with spot tests and UV - both MUCH faster than TLC, and the only waste is weakly acidic water, which can be safely and lawfully poured down the drain. We never bother with derivitization - 99% of the time our samples are very routine and don't require it, and in the other 1% of the cases we use our old dispersive IR (we don't have an FTIR). I just don't see TLC as offering us any advantages, though of course each lab has its own situation to deal with and the best solutions for each lab will vary. BTW Greg, the only person who ever called me "Rob" before was a childhood acquaintance, and I didn't like him much. ;) No problem, but I prefer "Bob." Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 5:38 PM To: 'Hause, David W LTC GLWACH' Cc: 'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group' Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Good point. For those of you in municpal or county labs, we got the person in charge of hazmat disposal at our city corporation yard (the guys that do street sweeping and maintenance, sewer maint, etc.) to do it for us. He does not mind a couple of extra gallons a month at all (he has got to get rid of 55 gallon drum quantities of used solvent on a regular basis). Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:30 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis For hazardous waste disposal, an alternative to paying somebody bundles of money might be to see if there is a hospital (or similar) lab doing recycling that you could contribute to, or contract for less money. We recycle ethyl alcohol and xylene in house for tissue processing. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:46 PM To: JKUCMANI@GW.ODH.State.OH.US; rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: mushroom analysis Rob, We have used TLC for quite some time in our laboratory, though now we have been focusing much of our efforts on mushroom analysis by way of GC/MS. TLC really isn't that much more time consuming. In fact, we augment most of our standard controlled substance analysis by using TLC in conjunction with microcrystalline tests. We can push through a number of cases very quickly. One TLC run with 25 samples can be run in about the same amount of as one GC/MS run using the standard narcotics GC method. Also, you don't have to derivatize. Some of those agents can be quite nasty. Most of the chemicals used for TLC aren't that noxious. Stnadard solven mixes usually include ethyl acetate, methanol and ammonia. Ocasionally one might use toluene or benzene. Separation is usually good, and when the sample is in the lane next to a known standard the results are quite convincing. I will admit that we have to handle solvent waste, but the mechanism of disposal is spelled out and were talking a couple of 4 liter bottles of Etoac or MeOH per month. We are currently analyzing 5000 controlled substance a month, and TLC certainly comes in handy especially with only one GCMS or FTIR available. Just my two cents. No criticism intended! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Robert Parsons 05/22 9:59 AM >>> I must have missed the debate - I thought we were just exchanging ideas on methodology ;) We don't do TLC on mushrooms (or anything else) - it certainly has its value, especially as a "clean up" step in sample prep, but with our caseload it is just too time consuming. And frankly, as Lab Safety Officer, I'd just as soon not have to deal with the additional hazardous waste it produces which I would then have to dispose of. That said, TLC and HPLC are just about the only ways available in most labs to tell underivitized psilocin and psilocybin apart, since psilocybin is thermally labile and will spontaneously dephosphorylate to psilocin in the injection port of a GC. Derivitization can solve that problem, but is again somewhat time-consuming. We report what we find via GCMS, namely psilocin, then explain the spontaneous conversion of psilocybin to psilocin (which also occurs in the human catabolism of psilocybin), with the final conclusion that the sample was conclusively found to contain either psilocin, psilocybin, or both. Since psilocin and psilocybin appear in the exact same division of Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, there is no difference in the consequences regarding which specific compound is present. It therefore becomes effectively irrelevant whether the original compound present was psilocin, psilocybin, or both - so long as you can establish that at least one of them was present, it satisfies the needs of the law. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Kucmanic [mailto:JKUCMANI@gw.odh.state.oh.us] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:58 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: mushroom analysis to add to the great mushroom debate the journal of forensic sciences that I received this weekend has an article on psylocybe growth and analysis. How many people perform TLC for psilocybin and how do you report positive mushrooms psilocin, psilocybin or both >>> Robert Parsons 05/17/00 05:12PM >>> This is probably due to the state of your samples, not your method. Soaking in MeOH for a few hours (I do it overnight) should have no problem extracting any existing psilocybe compounds from the mushroom, however I do believe recovery is greater if you finely grind the caps and mycelium first. I don't add any acetic acid, and just use the MeOH alone. I then filter the extract through a funnel packed with a wad of glass wool. You can use filter paper, but it will be VERY slow going due to clogging with spores and mycelium - the glass wool is much faster and removes all but the finest of the particulates. Alternatively you can use filter paper with vacuum filtration to speed things up, but the glass wool is simple, fast, and effective. You wind up with a dark yellow to brown extract. Then I evaporate the extract to dryness, reconstitute with 5 mL MeOH (leaving behind some of the sugars and other coextracting junk which adhere to the bottom of the evaporation dish - they won't redissolve so long as you don't use too much MeOH to reconstitute and work quickly). Then I add 5 mL acetone to the reconstituted solution, which cleans up the sample a bit further by precipitating out more of the coextractants. Then I filter again in #1 Whatman paper (after which the extract should be colorless or a very light yellow), evaporate the filtrate down to <1 mL and shoot neat onto the GC/MS in splitless mode. No matter what, there isn't going to be a lot of psilocybe compounds recovered, because they are present in the mushrooms in rather minute quantities to begin with; hence the need for splitless mode to maximize sensitivity. As you say, the existing psilocybe content varies very greatly from sample to sample. The psilocin peak will be a relatively small peak in between very large peaks of co-extractants. If you skip the clean up, there will be so much other junk in the TIC that you may miss the psilocin completely if it is present. Obviously it helps to have plenty of sample to work with - the more sample you extract, the more analyte recovered, if present to begin with. Some say that sonicating in MeOH increases the recovery, but I haven't noticed any significant difference myself . Plain old soaking overnight seems to work fine, IF your sample IS a psilocybe mushroom in the first place, and IF it was in the right stage of growth, and IF it was properly preserved prior to analysis. Lots of "if"s and therein lies the problems. First, there are only a few psilocybe mushroom species extant, and even fewer native to the US. Many other mushroom species resemble psilocybes but aren't psilocybes and so contain no psilocybe compounds. Second, psilocybe mushrooms reportedly only produce detectable quantities of psilocybes during certain stages in their life cycle - if picked too early or too late, you will find nothing. I don't know this for a fact, but I have read it in the literature (which literature I don't recall at the moment). Finally, psilocybe compounds do not seem to be very robust, and quickly disappear from decomposing fungal matter; so if the mushrooms are not properly dried and preserved prior to analysis, your chances of detecting the target compounds are diminished greatly. Like any botanical sample, fresh mushrooms should be air dried and packaged in paper, never in plastic. If they are kept moist in storage, decomposition is very rapid. I have only rarely had successful recovery from blackened, partially decomposed mushrooms, but frequently succeed with well-preserved dried brown samples. With well-preserved samples, I find psilocybes present in about half the samples I analyze (I suspect because only half of them actually are psilocybe mushrooms to begin with). Hope this helps. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael [mailto:maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:34 PM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: mushroom analysis What methods have you found to consistently extract psylocin form mushroom material. I have used MeOH and a 5% acetic acid MeOH soln. but the results are inelegant to say the least. It also seems that the concentration of PSCN is quite variable from item to item ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFC4D4.623DEE80 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ii4QAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcFABcADAAfACwAAgBMAQEggAMADgAAANAHBQAX AAwAHwAtAAIATQEBCYABACEAAAA3NTI5MkJDQzlBMzBENDExODFBRTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQACBwEE gAEAIQAAAFJFOiAoNSBvciA2PykgIG11c2hyb29tIGFuYWx5c2lzAEsKAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAED kAYAgCMAADMAAAADAAlZAQAAAAMA3j+vbwAAAwA2AAAAAAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AABShQAAJ2oBAB4ABIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADkuMAALAA2ACCAG AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAA CwABgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAALAAaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAO hQAAAAAAAAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAAiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4ACYAIIAYAAAAA AMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAqACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3hQAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgALgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAIBCRAB AAAAlh0AAJIdAACfNgAATFpGdecLHQkDAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQEDAff/CoACpAPkBxMC gA/zAFAEVj8IVQeyESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwRMwjvCfe2OxgfDjA1 ESIMYGMAUDMLCQFkMzYWUAumIElUIGEJwiALgCAEYHN5BUBjYRQQBCAYIAtgdERpdh5geSBiCfBp +mcDoHMG8B6wAjAEIB3wkwOgHwAgdRQQZCACEKEFwFRMQywe8HUFQL53E+AFQB8BE9AdAG4HQJ55 HpAd8AMgE9BlbQQATx/SAiAAkASBICIT4HpzCxEIYHMiIjEgoCGTdCEjACBFUEEkw0RPHlQjfySE GCAlUHdvIHpkBpBmBJAfsSVRC4Bn6HMuIBDAbAMgJWIfd255CGAdkB+xaQIgITBH/RggZyEwHcAD EAMgE+AesM8lUCgQIEEoMHNwHbAgkfxvZh0ABCAkJyGAHgAOsHUpMVcdUGMIcCiCHtJ1/STgbB1Q CGEtkgDAIXEuUn0hgGklYCVTCFApcCtgZfInBCAodzIAJ8IJ8ABwNx/RAiAlUmkFwB3wbXDtIHAp ITQiUHQIcAdAHtHXJWEe4ADAayBSIAqwHuC/IMIxICTDMSAyER6wch7gvQ7AcAnwAJAsISDCYR9g dwDAKXELYGIxBDACIVBk/THwdCuBKBAyUCVQN2EsUVcjIAMAIyB6HVF0KTFULyVxJqE4cC1BcB8w Z3n0LWIA0Gso8TMiBaAvoPZ0HuAFsW0voA3gBSAiwZ8wRSy0IsEEADhhZ28EcMszISfRaAhgZ2gh MCTSNRzwc0DxbCCgF7Bva18dYSxRJWAegCkxSS1QScwnbTjgGtBreSEwHPA/IyBBICHCHQACYCwz b2L/AZAdcT93IMIDUAngQUEEIN5KAREqpgmAKTBGF8EvoH8egB7CIMI5ijJUJmIEkHb/HoNEwQhg BUAfdSBhHRBEsask4i/hbh7RcANgZBrQ7yfUBbElYB0yZzThJnEyMOkFsTRMHvBvAkAv0DQQzy0y S3YwtABwbnU04i6TOidCEWk1oSxRNaBlcP82ckLSLjFD8SGQDeAiIEABf0CiGCAeADMxIZAe4DJU bv9PYDXxACAN4EHwCsAe0UKBPyhxLmE20QOgIQE+IkhQ/yEQO8VPYCMABcBUZUABOnH5JHBuJ0tR HUE4cECwIJXvQOEUECqhQOFkLiFTplVy/wRgJ8FUcQMQHuAT4C+yIKB+Yj4RMBFNEAeQKJJbZS7f CqIKhAqAQ3JVcmtVcD00/1diTuJX0lq1IbEwcVahT8D+LS1iQaELcDbSH/Y4cDdE/ShRY0rDP8Az 4C/RXmFSoP8k0gTxCeE9UltkITQ280VQ/nYq8CBwHtFVcgEBOyFlNOcoEAuAHcBydSqyIsEiQ98A kAQgIMImYWkwcjBxKvHfPlEdwSukAhBOgXcukjEm/1bBBvAhYGwiLUEEZR3wUqD/F5FqQAYxHPBZ tFpzLFEkcN8+USIRZYlTdk5ydwQgC4DfZpEeASCgHfIv8XQz8Du2/1yzZYoc8CwGcUElYihgMlD/ M6IeEhzwIAI58VmiHVM4cF5kNhBDEh/zF7BhIKB1Y1KgJWJHQy8F4TETNf0WUCIoMG5xTDRBwU9g JLD/ZYRAESVECfAtIyVieUFJwf8xIi1xA4Ee4Cg4ZYU+ADew/0ARJOFqx00RCcAz0EARXFH/WoEJ gCEwJWF4QSgQQPAHgP8kwy/QZ8IeQC+gIGA0kTKx/4LBLTA3QR8hRHBBQSlxMRL/SzIsAT1SLFEo AC8QHuBLFP8ekAeAFAAhMIHTB5AzEX4U30t2A1ECMCEwaFBzUSE7YP89UkwRH8EhMAWxJHAu8GpT /2wTJNI/d34FC1Ew4RPQA2L/LFCCAkFEJWJMwzC0HXxAAe9bYgBwBvBO0WMd8SrxNOMfOHB3QR2Q TzAtQUNIQ9hMMykulCwDMyLoLFHzXXRLBTMwltAoIGowPXDbHfQ4cHk8UAXAKAtQLhH/AmBAYgdA BaBA8GqigSEUAP89kh4CNCUgwUhXLAQoAXrE7nNrAA6wgjA7OjMo4C/R/zpxahI80J1yMSI9Ehew PXD9UfNlN0JAoh5gFBArIXrTv1xFJWJPVECwPTApMU8wEf9p+C2CLCFlsT3zLVBvgQDQfzEgOsMs 0CeyAJAiAJ2DQ7BPVUxEefgoEDGW4f981jMxPFBxkpyTITUu0QBw/1nhdtVeYVHwOxEKwEzzTWD/ BBA9VWJFf2F81h1xQKJ5RP878k9UWmE9MD/yrMI3sSjx6yEwAMByPUMmHkEFoSgw/z1hn4AmoaWB QUSqCg6wI0L/jOIpc1sifNUulGaEMQQs0eclQbJzJNJVVmMBT1EiIPxNVZQAILAuUmIjV0OPf7+Q g1liNZCTEj6gKDBjLjF/VqFTdiAFP8AoYJMSg/JhfHdmQfBM4ghhIJEkcHf/M0OXAQtxLpRAsDdB tlMSgX8xEwSBHqBpYSRAbBNjEDn8OSV99ohSL/N81yfBN0M/A2BugUCxjRNZwxggcXW/M5A7gkFE HXGP01iTMcDX/x30OnEgcS/zBvCNNIiBN/I8SVIyMlmlLAMDkUZU98iQlFIc8Gpsclm4V2Itcf8t QChhPVIuEX9SeiBKoGpx/zHwiKFA5KQDCGFbMafzOPL/E+BzQTMCvWEAkDSwbARxEv88UIZUuAcf AGyCbmVrNM63HwPwKXFKoDdgX1tCVFf/KzWP18gSVKMoEL6TIrFdsvWDsSIIAGIksB8AIMEw8W8t cThwE9ADEGR8cYEhY//EQAtxAZCxF3BBJqBZ0lHz7yjgQ5BxcikwO0/AB7AoEH9NEUThqJUc8F5h KGEkAEKZRVAuItRbRVAgUJmzwYihRi1BQkNfZEgh2zfCujBDIwRfZFIrYJLD9xIgBRCDsUxLETTQ LFA3YLtfZCGxSSTgBzADoFIeofsFwAhQbT5iPgExpeBlO7FmUAiRsSJGTF9qX2Qt3eiCTwUQ4kDi ck2JIUwRt+iD4GUDYTo74QNwcFSRuyEwRyNbAMADECxQOkDhaesSakCK4HITwKSRLeZo3lAFsGdd X2QGYAIwLerATQIgfnNNNhEyMochMAHQluE1OjM433AKTV9kVOwwICdIYTsgcSEwRIcBIKDVMExU oVeAR0xXQZQAJ19kPENj8OHgxE8wYxBPbuwtTMNC4MdEBAAu8KsRFzMxK0AIYHDypVN1YiZqZRHq wFJF6sAoNfk+IjY/T8BsYY7BA3Bqt/nnbwpHQGIs4EKBKTFIIf9a9S1BKnIdcj5yPsJrYz3j/zjx iKE6cUBQJUTWRF9kHXH/E9JMIS1BPw4hsTACpIMFoXcs4ONRbCJ5CxEyMCViZ/51awBS5CRw6CRq EQngS1H/MlBSkItDJOHr4VaRMtGxIp8UEHdiBYMhMBQgYy5PwN9xFDaBIMIgcCkxSOYVJHD/l5Fc cwuAgSE9smWyLUEOwf800E5XOHBvEP0gIiE2kSlx/iglcc9C/fMoEDnx6CS/wP8tIxpgTlWXAkOQ 2dEq0R6Q/6eSLVAgc0t2jOIeQQMgViH/nqFrEZRQ6CRHI+rm9ibIEd+KwT1S4rLpEuGXUz6gKsJ/ aTC6MORAHrAroU5gbBNVe2lR6CRIPeEo8SxQeQBC3afzUMegVfAdUERSkDuwFxefGKMhMEMlwChV U/xBKfkP6H/pj+qT8R/yJgvrxx+zLh9DQENFTkAuQU1FREQiUFLATVkuTUlM7d/u7/4y8AB7gPBK 2GLhAOzQjKGti5Euc3CK4C6CsHX2L//3P/hPHBv68i2tP2dBQpjh/1ahNJE38tChNgE9UpnQ17D9 4zBk70DdUF2SiUIchAvB/zVSRFak0k4xf6B6csRy2NL/WxE8sGqCTuLhEJVgViHcYJ/PAr1AGDEN tbAweWNR8H+HMgOC+8I9wUIBSkE6oGn/3VF2govjNwPOwAf0T5F/Id8w8pRjNRpc4XtAeWqhmQn+ eDrwodH78kDxWzFaw+GQ/4rgZdKq5l9VH7G5IB9DHI/PHZ/qSNVS4wFza3MhYOAD68fyQEFTS09X U1pAsEAuUnBvUC7XQC6HEFAjTyRfMzo0NvA7BEpLtsBNQU5JQABHVy5PREguU/2MoWVIsEjgG4Cc 8AHg35SeQMRgkoBEcAdAZmxEod47P0QmfyePKJNlKLQpv/cqz+IQaDAsX2qUlhBTV2L/a1LEQY6B L1LBVKzComHPAf/jRc2HYLCTgMbxdlI/RNHw/4Mxa1D1QWbjcYKkEcdiZOH/muGno06PXeLYsKPz esN0sv+30DUWkvPhkHCCYkRxgnUj/8FjOCGK4KpRPiB5gVbhOHH7/aMfUGei8pDkV+QD5pYB/wKS OCPlwmZhKFBg8qWRWZr/VzTLcv8ywGDKgHNwbBN7Iv8whRkwqtGqkEwRswDDQrJj/5RkeCJ0gE6g enHDAc3hl8D+bmpA0fDHgaQixrLCs8RBv57R1Dbz8ctUhJJ7IzIOkP981rslhJJ48ogEiaKPUJZB /zDg/RGkAsuyrkD5xaCDhJP/qyOJk2EGqnGwQMAATKCgYfeRwy+g+sFBoCA3wfvCyQlv0KAIxb+y LlF6SUD60FP/g6LGI/tSi4S7FlMEBeDKoP85gU/6RaBgBMZTlULXQdjQvxBT0uLLc3/hXHaSIHji UL8IU0kABeBhM4nUZWZ4l5H/EFCK8VwSTJCYULDwOralkP9JEq9hkeaZc+UwwGDkcKIi/5KZb1cx RDyi0KCYUDwSN/H90fBudWCuQHWCBOACkNBE/zLRfkb98C+gxMS6wLSh0bH/A+XCA66F0bLPADwh rkAK0PvQkpfAa1Whz+FhBtGytID/hdDsEMJUUwM/RGRhFEBMkP8+CD9E2tDTs6ZwlWBchVXl/5W5 EKa446ik0bLXsP9hryD+c07wMGYAdzLRyAHXY5aC34ajMpJmUa+zCgo0nyG3MvuhhDBIRdCgzsA3 4kCASWDf1jILtL4kpSL1QHLg4aGw67viTzF6qzI177JhiAPl/2JIC7TExMtypZBYkAbBfpH/sEDX sKyjj6LvQMJAyBABcP9b89EjuJNvWXARN/HJ4tjgr80ANCHc8dRLSsqSbbJB/ncHkKWQdsH6wdyR tHC/8c8BcJHxBaOw8GQh+WvVYXlU4SBF+sBCVxOfFK8KfktEQeWh/RP1ETcxOIFB/63wN/AxAeBt FcMZQr/RgdL/P0RA4Ovi6sD94M8AQnND/H1P+j6xAOSg31Cd0d92II48Sd9K47EgMDUv72CRwKA6 NTlzAE0gsQH/jXZZAclF4YEQYr2TL4C6Yf/AgdrQzaSO05RjyoMKwJGi/0AhLzAf4BiwWLIwhXKT x6D8b2fvQNxQUP3DxAexy3L/WNnY0DOyzKHRQC8Sk4AGUP/cYMCQB+GdyM9FP0TNAIOx9wcBn2jY wyI6gWeR9fDYIN0s4XD78ofF3bFw3TSgBP9gdsaSDuB8wP7V3XAy0cqDV9CgB5Bdn0EFUWaFIG7f akGGgdjQ4xF1oGHMAOWBlk/L8BkxcgcASSebpf+4UuO1k0HZcBEwCXKPJtDY/9GyfMAAcNKC/JEs Lgfh3MH/TPA9wT9E1rAZMAwAjdE2s/95gZ7SzFUtMwpyWxIDgi1wzx/gBwB68wVRSFB7BLhD/+O1 baegU1pR2NGiFvvzX/L//WLMcgXADGEv8XTyD8F1YH/6UeEQDuCMweO1BVHZRHn+Ym1islEG8XCR GUHaaTLR/zJy6+CfwqJBjgBispRBjgF/A+UtUP0giOEsgX6RdOBw/zMicrBp0KJAN4PZN4hWbWD/ KHL1ggHxbtRasT422JYCJN9ngn0jNgQ9kaJhbZDkMtJ/CyDDAnXBhuBUwD9ExvIt/13oUVfDseJy 5xK3whYwBVH/qLDi4nAQBwAF4G5QfpHZRv9VElbRCsCH8OaShzjeyDgS32mx9XNpIdpp4Joo0FR6 Id8HkD2wmYGIRj9EaF4gZ5G/ehCd8C+QFSGSAtpZKV8R/80W6iH8kWRhfuHuozYTbfX/h/HP9b/R 9YYQ0H6ROLAv8ffMcjgi5pJlZTGWQeuI2mj/N9OWcZjQROXbmW1i2j6ogP8RwYhlCsA4cm4zkqCt lDBX/xXAhvBM8PcGtTB5VaqAYaf7KEFiZUFe8jJ3gIAtEcnA7zKRYpLsyl3iZQ9wrSIy4P9CEWFB LxLQVJ9jFjKeYS1Q//iyMtHDoXZgRWBecpEjQhD/S6JWVp5kWFHh8vhDSmBCEP+ToHUgkGKG8PnD 1ZNABgh3/wk1LLI/RPof+yq3AfEhuqD/lQIy4DZjZ5EWoaJRFTBn8v9cwVzBwiHUtjDxeUVO8PeC /wk1gBDGAS1wPSEIMGyBeYKviSBM4JbSiIV3jQtCUMDDsaaAEEYtQUJbZaxn/kN50tS2TgBAIM3z qSK4MH/JAVSlyxWxkF6gkqBnkVL/LnGEIKqAgRBusMYAutCqgO+TkUDQrAUJkVCtEEpwkNG8RkxP nz+fQK9Bs0o7UH1tcEtXoPKhrMFC9kgHZ/8YYC+gmNBMEklAO1BEong160VPRlg2tDA4tGFHaLJP /0rkOKJL30zhKAZNh05fT2/f53OJgc2g19PNYWdb0VzS9y+FtqV5c2rEkSMilcEstN2swXOtBNyi 5zZJOef5oO+QQIqS5kG4AGVEMNoxv8LfZ5HbMRsglZJnoXN/cNqivzJSVbCgIYDDMAVecEhVsPdl Zb3hmEFvw2NEQFLBL9D/UobaajgyVbG8YXNy6TXSMf/NwVY2vQgP39rSETawT7FfYytfs3YxNy8p 8bPAOvgxMlC0idLQiDIJElDA/6JR33GDwDH2J0NpEnNxhCD/bDXq8cwBSpNyhigVl5CU4v/FpW1w mANSwsHgyWBVwLdh3fGRKLUwvGHGAW9psZHQ/4MRvrBn4NDjdBMEceV1rfX/iUCFIOIBlQI8IYkw qwFwov/aZl3CCJTmUMhAL8GRQy91/4AQPrEMgJZBNpXOkAqWZoD/VlGK4XHgabPmQTJzlkEIIP8S c+oh60IycOoyeYPbEDiC/3GQo7CkIGaAXiAiJAgwRLD/CZCNdnO0McI8En+iGyH/MP/TQtPCuFOD U81hmAOpgG9R/wmi0SQIMIsw7oDnVYdGUjX9aAlmbrBZ4ZhA/zCvoN3y/zpi1hGTwWkwruLOwYZQ LFD9CbBZEpWDUVvmYUJj8aiBD+XlxCKOEWzxVkVSWf+TULqgPtCGQHCiSVU5ELqw/7kDoAPSIYrx 2ceClVt1twHfMjNlZ+YyL2AHsWbO8r3C/3GQBuCBIJBA5lFoopEVWcJ/eSNhh2PxOOKLICdhpGJB /2dSd9ALxRKGg1JnOmRk1oD/mYBbyGdQhSXMgZ9hN2QHUP96QcPVbV/bcUsCgBBuwoaD/631C4Zl 9aAA09GocGRmimHeaxJwk4E+wcyBYjox7FL/UlPSo9FRNpUMgeJh4FP+4/9ilcyRHZBw0RnhWBKs oNjgrnST8LfhoBI1L1BMl/T+KMIhjJFNRURAviFlAObS/xfGLcAHAVsE+7GWQZVQUjn/uFDIcAd1 XYAD8zIECpWWgf8vwRfVf7buspKhEZK2YdYB/10zBuCSoeTEEdxWtl1BIiT/X2PGwW5zmAPMgYHb 3dMdQO99MAZgGyDIgSl+xzGzgvL/yxVeERTSMgWB2oTCwLDkMv/0cdBjwhN34vZ5fNHa0NTFN2OQ neD50mLrYTcBaXD/xgB2oQdR1VKc0AQRF9WGtz8MoaRikiVhKuZzTVcjMdwgV+Ux8qJ05CjJUFkS 39BUgFpQdVQjxWBySyG5kf9OUlhSIiQTULeSfVT0YX+873ZVu+J+IcyBPJ3wgxHTwv9QccwBFOAy oQJRVyXs9+qw/i/q0MLzPIDGAKFzmhDYgP0JoU6PIR1gnyQdYAPIXUL/aaR9wpdyxWBxCFO/F6FY FfcBAMPh4fBhX2XBkQQRDsb/4VW9B01WNqUdYPnSx5GCYv8GYAyhzcEXAqviIwFkYyyQ/9FBBSEX Nk4jqKwxNjumUzD/x5DZAGtANQILwR9xcqISZP//cCkh/tRTT/kiDwLWgCLg/8/WWFMyc/hiVQLD NXcCSvP/4yUoBX7x4Lj+UYexaJXi4H8MUXM282Bv8sCTPkFo0HTvN+E+UFhT15ByIAbAkhez1Vgw LZr8SVlkc00QlsT/lkN38wPkaIYR0W5yFHX5w/OHg+FVVEk9YBOjWYLdAP8fkBuBFxTgxwhyH+DY EQwRz+LAT5EwVgk4T2LqcN80+0+R+dBsWvHR0VDjPIEokP8fkOKxveiRI2sDbTNAVZoi/73lWYJi dbn0mhMv85Cxrln/WVGwFrQG9yX5sQmhTOAc4f+5wROURMEbIJl0Tbb8YTKB/3RAFxRYFuXkNpVQ 4l1CS3HvGyCVETwSNSBnH2AIMQyitwSpbKB0QGziwAmhUOyj//MwhMJNCU/HuGEbcLPjkSPzWcLq 8ElGSopWkKhQ6pD/rRgvZ5027PdcQ9ChXgFetP/jcWhSFaGwlSLh4gIDMCOw/2UTOjPnrc4GPHDu gEkhsBN+cjdSsBAcUA1BMaE650zr+7AXsyIIICJbBAPjPkHfV7EXE+tXUZKbkkZcUgPG/6/SitBJ IU505L+9wQfyC0L7YoAMoSxrt4oxYPJOoIaB83MkMfZVUwmhKVBd0YZU+/OvCUJtUZGsvW/QaBKv 0f9dQvpJpfNqUQJR4EJRMq0v/5uQKBYGEV6h8w9BIT9klRD/SSHyU1FhagAFITNgkLCbQf9RkbNJ FHWsrm/QagBaQVLA/zWwmGDgQulz6IYrwO+hTpD/ljBbcJdhEbDWkpGRd2KPEf/HUOwBFHXtIhHh M5FLUFmCf2iD4xFlAEtxd6Jgg10ka/9LcH2hN6JONdSD3C2BwWTxf82yykSowURQHWBL0BggKP+H 1A+pXQY3AW/yMqHSuRzg/96gkeLxQDABSSD/elRYT2H/S3LiMqvFvMNRcV8hemmRdf+K8p6gwJFC sL2TM2BUUzUg/2rRY5GdEArAqeQskIzRWVH/sMvyAiIkS3Lrt4FANYA6sv/swuxvL/YKM4aR2TA1 o3Em/wJUq5NaofTQxAFEcFRY8hI/jECy4YsRlRG9FfdxTGnfOBBS00LRx2DZoWxDhOP0/3oBa4HS cEC4oIj9AEKwHdn/ZBEGQQ7hnnVLUVZSsZznUd+6gUXgxhOvhzgQcJnyunH/qGOBEHaQxBBLUBmH irNYof8WtJ6gXpBMZg368lN2kMGB3/KA2TCEwQIQNbFzY5AKwP9YF72TUZBkEpPA/2I40hPy/yE2 GaSVEUC3Z/QnEZFw0NHfwgIywmRGw0B9cC0eeB3T74QVfgImOpuSVzjPhMFK9v+cIh5C+liwGUkA mdHcdt/B/5bob9CScdVyuEFPMYWg9DL/RHCvBvJTQEOFNBlgoEGzYH81Vxx3/5/iZLQ4keC++0jv 69EMlM/T93FHbgBlAJVg+2QgvuxCUYDgEIXRkEE00LBGLUFCysCntEbVIbu4kV5QQ0QBLcKntFK0 QduK0BqBQ1pAhQFMP5F2kX/VIPKAkxXcQfWQNTDC8FL7wdGYoEPM4OVQ2ZDQ8VFAX31wtEAPgEx1 zsFQ9HByXeeCRoMgp7SntC1Uck//6RET0oMxjGAGQVRzTHW9oVY6csEd0WQugk2H8WHNY9FbnlCk kW86wkFW9PxAYztwMGBegFlQ2TChYNeJcWBw2rAudDBdv1X/EPveoFawV5UQgXF9ANvx96BJ8oAx NzTQMjBcoCDQMzozNOAQTb9lWFDPE7BM5iUQcPFFLfegaJAXQeBe0FgCKf61dWJq/3tBVrDlV+12 U7pTup4S5UD/k5CmQK4h0GPLMgzwrgFqM9+QQbpxN9SAltAAecx0DPH/GWDlVreGbvE1MTB2MJXQ VJ90MYYwj5P1gpeQNSVEMb+TkE0xoEAwUIM0jHFu93D/cDb5YXJA7jEcd+MhUhHekn++U9kCD4Ha 4c7BaOv7EWz/jNHiNdkympS1Ed6gdpXE8fBQU0NOeWKRcZCxvAJ/ArO9kw+xZ9W3ZnUCv1V9AXbg AAAeAHAAAQAAAB0AAAAoNSBvciA2PykgIG11c2hyb29tIGFuYWx5c2lzAAAAAAIBcQABAAAAGwAA AAG/xDU5/EdA9Z8v/hHUga4QAJZLhXoAICJ2kAADACYAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAACwACAAEAAAAeAEIQ AQAAADQAAAA8M0Q4QjcyOTI4MDUyRDIxMUIxNzcwMEEwQzlERUVGRTAxMUI1NEFASEJQRE1BSUww MT4AAwD9P+QEAABAADkAkFE0YtTEvwEDAPE/CQQAAB4AMUABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAAMA GkAAAAAAHgAwQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAZQAAAAAADAIAQ/////wsA8hABAAAAAgFH AAEAAAA4AAAAYz1VUzthPSA7cD1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIgQ09NO2w9RVhDSDEtMDAwNTIzMTYzMTQ0 Wi01Njg3MgACAfk/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFO IFJJVkVSIENPTU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD4PwEA AAAPAAAAUm9iZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOEABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAAIB+z8BAAAAWAAA AAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIgQ09NTSBDT0xML09V PUlSQ0MvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1SUEFSU09OUwAeAPo/AQAAAA8AAABSb2JlcnQgUGFyc29u cwAAHgA5QAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAQAAHMGSgL2LUxL8BQAAIMIDuPWLUxL8BHgA9AAEA AAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAAeAB0OAQAAAB0AAAAoNSBvciA2PykgIG11c2hyb29tIGFuYWx5c2lzAAAA AB4ANRABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzExODE5NzEwMDA5NjRCODU3QTM0NzdEREBleGNo MS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAAALACkAAAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGEKQA8DkDAAcQ4ycAAAMAEBAA AAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABJQUdSRUVJTk1PU1RDQVNFU1JFTEFUSVZFTFlCRU5JR05T T0xWRU5UU0NBTkJFVVNFREZPUlRMQyxCVVRXSEFUQkVOQ0hBTkFMWVRJQ0FMQ0hFTUlTVFNDT05T SURFUiJIQVpBAAAAAAIBfwABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzExODE5NzEwMDA5NjRCODU3 QTM0NzdEREBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAABaVQ== ------_=_NextPart_000_01BFC4D4.623DEE80-- From forens-owner Tue May 23 13:03:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29869 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29864 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 13:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 23 May 2000 12:04:27 -0500 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB793@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:02:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Back to disposal: I have apparently still been less than clear in a topic. What I meant was, recycle, don't dispose of it if you don't have to. When we recycle alcohol and xylene, we probably cut our waste volume to about 5% with the alcohol and 10% with xylene (which is mostly paraffin wax.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:32 AM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative about solvent usage and we only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of solvent waste annually. We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason why we're not particularly interested in TLC or HPLC. The other reason is we don't see a need for those methods which is not more easily handled by our present methods. From forens-owner Tue May 23 17:14:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03242 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03237 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 23 May 2000 21:14:05 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:09:27 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:09:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC4FB.2DC83396" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC4FB.2DC83396 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dave, That's easier said than done, as most labs don't have the time, equipment, or staff needed to regenerate their solvents (it's great that you do - good for you, less waste!). It unfortunately would also be a can of worms to use in-house regenerated solvents for chemical analysis. When your drug ID's are open to attack on the stand, it's much safer to use solvents of certified purity, complete with manufacturer's lot analysis. We purchase certified alcohol reference standards for BAC determinations rather than make them in-house for the same reason. It's one less thing for attorneys to try to cast doubt on. Like any outside quality check, it boosts the confidence level attributed to in-house QA/QC protocols. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:03 PM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Back to disposal: I have apparently still been less than clear in a topic. What I meant was, recycle, don't dispose of it if you don't have to. When we recycle alcohol and xylene, we probably cut our waste volume to about 5% with the alcohol and 10% with xylene (which is mostly paraffin wax.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:32 AM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative about solvent usage and we only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of solvent waste annually. We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason why we're not particularly interested in TLC or HPLC. The other reason is we don't see a need for those methods which is not more easily handled by our present methods. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC4FB.2DC83396 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis

Dave,

That's easier said than done, as most labs don't have = the time, equipment, or staff needed to regenerate their solvents (it's = great that you do - good for you, less waste!).  It unfortunately = would also be a can of worms to use in-house regenerated solvents for = chemical analysis.  When your drug ID's are open to attack on the = stand, it's much safer to use solvents of certified purity, complete = with manufacturer's lot analysis.  We purchase certified alcohol = reference standards for BAC determinations rather than make them = in-house for the same reason.  It's one less thing for attorneys = to try to cast doubt on.  Like any outside quality check, it = boosts the confidence level attributed to in-house QA/QC = protocols.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AM= EDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:03 PM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis


Back to disposal:  I have apparently still been = less than clear in a topic.
What I meant was, recycle, don't dispose of it if = you don't have to.  When
we recycle alcohol and xylene, we probably cut our = waste volume to about 5%
with the alcohol and 10% with xylene (which is = mostly paraffin wax.)
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us= ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:32 AM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis


<snip>
 Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative = about solvent usage and we
only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of = solvent waste annually.
We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason = why we're not
particularly interested in TLC or HPLC.  The = other reason is we don't see a
need for those methods which is not more easily = handled by our present
methods.

<snip>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC4FB.2DC83396-- From forens-owner Tue May 23 17:31:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03565 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:31:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03560 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 23 May 2000 16:33:10 -0500 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB794@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:31:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Bob, That makes fine sense for an analytical lab to use only certified reagents and my thoughts are purely solvent dependent: our hospital histology lab uses ethanol and xylene in tissue processing and the only requirement is to get good slides out, so we use recycled mostly. I was specifically thinking of seeking out hospital labs, as they might think of you merely as a supplier of raw materials FOR THEM to recycle, cutting your disposal costs and their new material cost. Hematology labs use methanol, so that might also be recycled by a hospital lab (we don't have the volume to make it worthwhile.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 4:09 PM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Dave, That's easier said than done, as most labs don't have the time, equipment, or staff needed to regenerate their solvents (it's great that you do - good for you, less waste!). It unfortunately would also be a can of worms to use in-house regenerated solvents for chemical analysis. When your drug ID's are open to attack on the stand, it's much safer to use solvents of certified purity, complete with manufacturer's lot analysis. We purchase certified alcohol reference standards for BAC determinations rather than make them in-house for the same reason. It's one less thing for attorneys to try to cast doubt on. Like any outside quality check, it boosts the confidence level attributed to in-house QA/QC protocols. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [ mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL ] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:03 PM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Back to disposal: I have apparently still been less than clear in a topic. What I meant was, recycle, don't dispose of it if you don't have to. When we recycle alcohol and xylene, we probably cut our waste volume to about 5% with the alcohol and 10% with xylene (which is mostly paraffin wax.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [ mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us ] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:32 AM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative about solvent usage and we only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of solvent waste annually. We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason why we're not particularly interested in TLC or HPLC. The other reason is we don't see a need for those methods which is not more easily handled by our present methods. From forens-owner Tue May 23 17:33:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03692 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:33:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fep08-svc.tin.it (pop04-acc.tin.it [212.216.176.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03681 for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 17:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x4e0l5 ([212.216.39.107]) by fep08-svc.tin.it (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20000523213252.KLBH28095.fep08-svc.tin.it@x4e0l5> for ; Tue, 23 May 2000 23:32:52 +0200 X-Sender: mmvefors@box4.tin.it (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Demo Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 23:32:59 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marco Morin Subject: Re: ABO from hair? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <20000523213252.KLBH28095.fep08-svc.tin.it@x4e0l5> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: ABO from hair? At 10.35 19/05/00 -0700, you wrote: >Folks, > Got this request this AM via my Web site. Attempted translation below. Don't get the word "sanguineo" though & thus don't know if it affects the answer. In Latin "sanguis" means blood and "sanguineus" belonging to blood. In English you can find the words "sanguification", "sanguinary", " sanguine" and others that derive from the Latin term. Of course it is clear that the young man wants to know how to find the the ABO blood grouping in hairs. Greetings. Marco Morin. From forens-owner Wed May 24 00:05:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07745 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 00:05:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07740 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 00:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id e.4e.5f2302b (4213); Wed, 24 May 2000 00:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4e.5f2302b.265cae84@aol.com> Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:03:16 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: microfor@sd.amug.org, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 147 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/23/00 10:25:43 PM, microfor@sd.amug.org writes: >The most difficult thing that I've found to teach these days is "personal >judgement". I've read that the "Gen-Xers" prefer to work in committees >and make group judgements. We do not!! Arthur From forens-owner Wed May 24 00:48:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08180 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 00:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail3.mia.bellsouth.net (mail3.mia.bellsouth.net [205.152.144.15]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA08175 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 00:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spicer (host-208-60-254-6.mia.bellsouth.net [208.60.254.6]) by mail3.mia.bellsouth.net (3.3.5alt/0.75.2) with SMTP id AAA01302 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 00:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005101bfc539$64741480$06fe3cd0@spicer> From: "oliver spicer" To: Subject: ASCLD Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:34:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01BFC517.CBDDE5A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BFC517.CBDDE5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For those labs that only use microcrystalline tests and TLC in = combination without any instrumental analysis, to routinely identify = controlled substances, are you ASCLD accredited? Oliver Spicer ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BFC517.CBDDE5A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For those labs that only use = microcrystalline=20 tests and TLC in combination without any instrumental analysis, to = routinely=20 identify controlled substances, are you ASCLD accredited?
 
 
Oliver = Spicer
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BFC517.CBDDE5A0-- From forens-owner Wed May 24 05:05:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10634 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 05:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lin.ltei.lt (lin.ltei.lt [193.219.131.130]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA10514 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 04:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Vilija ([192.168.200.248] (may be forged)) by lin.ltei.lt (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA08554 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:56:31 GMT Message-ID: <004201bfc554$0001b5a0$f8c8a8c0@ltei.lt> From: "Vilija" To: Subject: Fire technical examinations Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:45:04 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003D_01BFC56D.1E5D4780" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BFC56D.1E5D4780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-4" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What methods are used for determination of causational links between = short circuit and fire (for answer to such question): Does short circuit occured before fire and was a reason of fire or = short circuit was the consequence of fire? Does any labs use metallographic or SEM methods for inwestigations = of alloying of short circuit? Lithuanian institute of forensic examinations ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BFC56D.1E5D4780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-4" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    What methods are = used for=20 determination of causational links between short circuit and fire (for = answer to=20 such question):
    Does short = circuit occured=20 before fire and was a reason of fire or short circuit was the consequence of fire?
    Does any labs use = metallographic=20 or SEM methods for inwestigations of alloying of short = circuit?
 
 
Lithuanian institute of forensic=20 examinations
------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BFC56D.1E5D4780-- From forens-owner Wed May 24 08:24:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12465 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12460 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 08:24:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:27:28 -0700 To: Jenny Smith From: Mike and Donna Eyring Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Cc: ArtWYoung@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Hi Fred, >I liked Alice Ammen's and Robert Parsons response to your concerns >regarding hair > >exams. I can add little to what they have said but for what it is worth..... > >*Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote > >> I recently read a statement that "There is no minimum number of microscopic >> characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as to possible origin."* > Dear Friends: I wore this one out a couple of years ago on this site. The basic task of trace materials examiners is to look for "significant difference" between known and questioned samples. Jenny, your post is right on the mark. It's interesting to note that I'm in the midst of training two new hair examiners in our state lab and they're doing a fine job of grasping this idea. We don't want to fall prey to the fault that caused so much grief in a Lockerbie fingerprint exam a year or two ago. (forgive me if I got the name wrong) The most difficult thing that I've found to teach these days is "personal judgement". I've read that the "Gen-Xers" prefer to work in committees and make group judgements. I know it's a broad brush to paint with but it's proved true in my current hair class. The two criminalists are having to develop the will and ability to come to a personal conclusion, based on their documented observations. But, they are doing it with my donations of Rolaids. Judgement rules the world and we're being jokers to insist that trace analysis can be conducted without making them. The trick is to make certain that we give the individuals that are making the judgements all the knowledge, skills, training, good equipment and practice they need to make these calls in an informed and properly qualified manner. I am, like the rest of you, will be happy to have the informed consensus of the SWGMAT hair analysis subcommittee to help me teach in the future. Best wishes, Mike From forens-owner Wed May 24 08:42:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12937 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:42:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from virus_mail1 ([204.62.23.72]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA12932 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:42:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM ci.tulsa.ok.us BY virus_mail1 ; Wed May 24 07:42:05 2000 -0500 Received: from CITY1-Message_Server by ci.tulsa.ok.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 24 May 2000 07:40:22 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:42:17 -0500 From: "Carla Noziglia" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Assistance Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id IAA12933 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We have acquired the booking function and must hire personnel to provide fingerprint and photography services to the Tulsa Metropolitan area. If you have job descriptions and salary schedules for a position similar to those above, would you be so kind as to send them to me. Thank you for your assistance. Carla M. Noziglia, Director Forensic Laboratory Tulsa Police Department 600 Civic Center Tulsa, OK 74103-3822 918-596-9128 918-596-1875 fax cnozilia@ci.tulsa.ok.us From forens-owner Wed May 24 10:27:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15430 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15425 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:27:27 -0400 (EDT) From: GBEDFORDM@aol.com Received: from GBEDFORDM@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id y.b4.5a991fb (15551) for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:26:55 EDT Subject: Re: ASCLD To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The Los Angeles Police Department uses color and crystal tests to identify certain controlled substances. 25% of all substances analyzed by this method are subject to instrumental, quality control confirmation. The laboratory is ASCLD/LAB accredited. Greg Matheson From forens-owner Wed May 24 10:35:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15628 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXCHANGE (firewal.dps.state.nm.us [164.64.163.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15617; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by EXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:31:37 -0600 Message-ID: <40D767715C28D411A86508002BC3197748F86A@EXCHANGE> From: "Aviles, Phil" To: "'Basten'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: forwarded message Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 08:31:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It's not my intention to raise the subject of hair comparisons again from the murky depths, however I am curious since you are training new examiners. What is the minimum number of hairs that you require in a hair standard for a comparison? If that quantity is not submitted, do you request more hairs, or do you refuse to perform the exam? -----Original Message----- From: Basten [SMTP:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 6:24 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:27:28 -0700 To: Jenny Smith From: Mike and Donna Eyring Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Cc: ArtWYoung@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Hi Fred, >I liked Alice Ammen's and Robert Parsons response to your concerns >regarding hair > >exams. I can add little to what they have said but for what it is worth..... > >*Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote > >> I recently read a statement that "There is no minimum number of microscopic >> characteristics necessary to reach a conclusion as to possible origin."* > Dear Friends: I wore this one out a couple of years ago on this site. The basic task of trace materials examiners is to look for "significant difference" between known and questioned samples. Jenny, your post is right on the mark. It's interesting to note that I'm in the midst of training two new hair examiners in our state lab and they're doing a fine job of grasping this idea. We don't want to fall prey to the fault that caused so much grief in a Lockerbie fingerprint exam a year or two ago. (forgive me if I got the name wrong) The most difficult thing that I've found to teach these days is "personal judgement". I've read that the "Gen-Xers" prefer to work in committees and make group judgements. I know it's a broad brush to paint with but it's proved true in my current hair class. The two criminalists are having to develop the will and ability to come to a personal conclusion, based on their documented observations. But, they are doing it with my donations of Rolaids. Judgement rules the world and we're being jokers to insist that trace analysis can be conducted without making them. The trick is to make certain that we give the individuals that are making the judgements all the knowledge, skills, training, good equipment and practice they need to make these calls in an informed and properly qualified manner. I am, like the rest of you, will be happy to have the informed consensus of the SWGMAT hair analysis subcommittee to help me teach in the future. Best wishes, Mike From forens-owner Wed May 24 10:36:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15742 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail021.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA15737 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 10071 invoked from network); 24 May 2000 14:35:31 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail021.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 24 May 2000 14:35:31 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 24 May 2000 14:17:31 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed May 24 07:34:00 2000 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 24 May 2000 07:35:29 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 07:34:42 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: collect4@bellsouth.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: ASCLD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Oliver, At this time our laboratory is not accredited by ASCLD, although our paternity DNA section is accredited by AABB. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "oliver spicer" 05/23 9:34 PM >>> For those labs that only use microcrystalline tests and TLC in combination without any instrumental analysis, to routinely identify controlled substances, are you ASCLD accredited? Oliver Spicer From forens-owner Wed May 24 10:39:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15865 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:39:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA15860 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 24 May 2000 14:39:18 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 24 May 2000 10:34:38 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Hause, David W LTC GLWACH'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:34:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFC58D.3081B732" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC58D.3081B732 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dave, In your situation, doing what you do makes perfect sense to me, and I can certainly see the economic advantages for both a histology lab and for us in their recycling our waste methanol. I'm not sure of the legalities of transferring our waste to a facility like a hospital, which is not licensed as a waste disposal facility, though. They can recycle their own in-house generated waste with no problem, but accepting what is technically a hazmat waste from an outside source without possessing a license to do so is probably a violation of federal and local statutes (because they would then be considered acting as a "waste disposal facility"), and could expose both them and us (as institutions and as individual people) to punitive sanctions. "Cradle-to-grave" tracking requirements for hazmat disposal are very particular about such things. There is also the problem of our waste solvents containing potentially recoverable controlled substances, which involves another whole set of legal controls promulgated by DEA and local authorities. Using a licensed hazmat disposal firm takes care of all these concerns. Thanks for your input though, it's given me some ideas to think about. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 5:31 PM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Bob, That makes fine sense for an analytical lab to use only certified reagents and my thoughts are purely solvent dependent: our hospital histology lab uses ethanol and xylene in tissue processing and the only requirement is to get good slides out, so we use recycled mostly. I was specifically thinking of seeking out hospital labs, as they might think of you merely as a supplier of raw materials FOR THEM to recycle, cutting your disposal costs and their new material cost. Hematology labs use methanol, so that might also be recycled by a hospital lab (we don't have the volume to make it worthwhile.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 4:09 PM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Dave, That's easier said than done, as most labs don't have the time, equipment, or staff needed to regenerate their solvents (it's great that you do - good for you, less waste!). It unfortunately would also be a can of worms to use in-house regenerated solvents for chemical analysis. When your drug ID's are open to attack on the stand, it's much safer to use solvents of certified purity, complete with manufacturer's lot analysis. We purchase certified alcohol reference standards for BAC determinations rather than make them in-house for the same reason. It's one less thing for attorneys to try to cast doubt on. Like any outside quality check, it boosts the confidence level attributed to in-house QA/QC protocols. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [ mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL ] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:03 PM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Back to disposal: I have apparently still been less than clear in a topic. What I meant was, recycle, don't dispose of it if you don't have to. When we recycle alcohol and xylene, we probably cut our waste volume to about 5% with the alcohol and 10% with xylene (which is mostly paraffin wax.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [ mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us ] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:32 AM To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail) Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative about solvent usage and we only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of solvent waste annually. We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason why we're not particularly interested in TLC or HPLC. The other reason is we don't see a need for those methods which is not more easily handled by our present methods. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC58D.3081B732 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis

Dave,

In your situation, doing what you do makes perfect = sense to me, and I can certainly see the economic advantages for both a = histology lab and for us in their recycling our waste methanol.  = I'm not sure of the legalities of transferring our waste to a facility = like a hospital, which is not licensed as a waste disposal facility, = though.  They can recycle their own in-house generated waste with = no problem, but accepting what is technically a hazmat waste from an = outside source without possessing a license to do so is probably a = violation of federal and local statutes (because they would then be = considered acting as a "waste disposal facility"), and could = expose both them and us (as institutions and as individual people) to = punitive sanctions.  "Cradle-to-grave" tracking = requirements for hazmat disposal are very particular about such = things.  There is also the problem of our waste solvents = containing potentially recoverable controlled substances, which = involves another whole set of legal controls promulgated by DEA and = local authorities.  Using a licensed hazmat disposal firm takes = care of all these concerns.  Thanks for your input though, it's = given me some ideas to think about.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AM= EDD.ARMY.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 5:31 PM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis


Bob,
    That makes fine sense for an = analytical lab to use only certified
reagents and my thoughts are purely solvent = dependent:  our hospital
histology lab uses ethanol and xylene in tissue = processing and the only
requirement is to get good slides out, so we use = recycled mostly.  I was
specifically thinking of seeking out hospital labs, = as they might think of
you merely as a supplier of raw materials FOR THEM = to recycle, cutting your
disposal costs and their new material cost.  = Hematology labs use methanol,
so that might also be recycled by a hospital lab (we = don't have the volume
to make it worthwhile.)
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us= ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 4:09 PM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis



Dave,

That's easier said than done, as most labs don't have = the time, equipment,
or staff needed to regenerate their solvents (it's = great that you do - good
for you, less waste!).  It unfortunately would = also be a can of worms to use
in-house regenerated solvents for chemical = analysis.  When your drug ID's
are open to attack on the stand, it's much safer to = use solvents of
certified purity, complete with manufacturer's lot = analysis.  We purchase
certified alcohol reference standards for BAC = determinations rather than
make them in-house for the same reason.  It's = one less thing for attorneys
to try to cast doubt on.  Like any outside = quality check, it boosts the
confidence level attributed to in-house QA/QC = protocols.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH [ mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AM= EDD.ARMY.MIL
<mailto:David.Hause@CEN.AM= EDD.ARMY.MIL> ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:03 PM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis


Back to disposal:  I have apparently still been = less than clear in a topic.
What I meant was, recycle, don't dispose of it if = you don't have to.  When
we recycle alcohol and xylene, we probably cut our = waste volume to about 5%
with the alcohol and 10% with xylene (which is = mostly paraffin wax.)
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [ mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us=
<mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us= > ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 11:32 AM
To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)
Subject: RE: (5 or 6?) mushroom analysis


<snip>
 Fortunately for our budget, we're conservative = about solvent usage and we
only produce two or three gallons (or 4L bottles) of = solvent waste annually.

We'd like to keep it that way, which is one reason = why we're not
particularly interested in TLC or HPLC.  The = other reason is we don't see a
need for those methods which is not more easily = handled by our present
methods.

<snip>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFC58D.3081B732-- From forens-owner Wed May 24 11:23:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16492 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16487 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete (pm4-77.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.77]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id e4OFNeI25580 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200005241523.e4OFNeI25580@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, 24 May 2000 08:16:58 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: forwarded message In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 08:24 AM 5/24/00 -0400, Mike Eyring wrote: >I wore this one out a couple of years ago on this site. The basic task of >trace materials examiners is to look for "significant difference" between >known and questioned samples. Jenny, your post is right on the mark. And in the absence of these "significant differences" what conclusion results? Does the finding of one "significant difference" negate all of the "significant similarities", or, in the face of "significant similarities" do all "differences" automatically become "explainable." While this discussion may seem like semantic nit-picking, it does profoundly affect the way all forensic scientists do their jobs. A concept which I believe is more useful is that of "intra vs. inter-individual variation." There are always differences between two things being compared. These differences are termed "explainable"[or some synonym] when, in the mind of the examiner, the significance of the similarities outweigh the significance of the dissimilarities. Thus, the nature of the differences or similarities (significant or not) are based on the examiners assessment of the final answer. In fact, of course, what the examiner sees does not change - simply the classification of the observation changes. Using the "intra- vs. inter-individual variation" paradigm allows the examiner to evaluate a datum against a previously established criteria. If the datum is what one would expect if the items being compared share a common origin, then there is evidence to reject the hypothesis of lack of common origin. If the datum is not possible for things that share a common origin, then the hypothesis that they share a common origin can be rejected. It seems that both the "significant difference" and "intra- vs. inter-individual variation" paradigms reduce to the same operation - an evaluation of the significance of any observation. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the basis for determining that a difference is significant is the "intra- vs. inter-individual variation", and not the opinion of the examiner that the objects do or do not share a common origin. >I am, like the rest of you, will be happy to have the informed consensus of >the SWGMAT hair analysis subcommittee to help me teach in the future. The TWGMAT (now SGWMAT) "Forensic Human Hair Identification and Comparison Guidelines",(Dec 1999 revision) asserts, "In other words, intrapersonal variation is usually less [change from "much less" in the Apr 1998 edition, pdb] than interpersonal variation." Is there support for such a statement? In the "Criteria for similarity" section, the document states "The ideal situation for the hair examiner is to find one or more hairs in the known sample that correspond in all respects (no significant differences) with the questioned hairs." Thus, "to conclude that a hair is consistent in macroscopic and microscopic characteristics with a known sample from a particular person" (to quote from the "Criteria for Similarity" section - and to beg the question of what "consistent in macroscopic and microscopic characteristics" means with respect to the origin of a hair), the examiner must determine that any differences that are noted are not significant. There are no stated criteria in the document for making that determination. Pete Barnett From forens-owner Wed May 24 11:48:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16931 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f93.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.93]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16926 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 11:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15511 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 15:48:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000524154823.15510.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.245.74.185 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2000 08:48:23 PDT X-Originating-IP: [209.245.74.185] From: "chris breyer" To: ArtWYoung@aol.com, microfor@sd.amug.org, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 08:48:23 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/23/00 10:25:43 PM, microfor@sd.amug.org writes: >The most difficult thing that I've found to teach these days is "personal >judgement". I've read that the "Gen-Xers" prefer to work in committees >and make group judgements. We do not!! Arthur Speak for yourselves Chris Breyer ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Wed May 24 13:46:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18367 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 13:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18362 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 13:46:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Scotsmam@aol.com Received: from Scotsmam@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id y.e4.5562276 (4364) for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 13:45:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:45:35 EDT Subject: Arsenic Poisoning To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 35 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk What are some of the ways that a person could end up with arsenic poisoning, without being aware of it until they were very sick, and had tests done (it was not known until tests came back abnormal, when further tests were then done)? We are talking a 59 yo female, living on an acreage, alone with her husband. The water is being tested, as is the husband. He however is not sick at present. Was it wise to let the husband go to be tested at a later date, or should he have been tested immediately, as a potential suspect? She has a limited social life, and when out is accompanied by the husband. They eat the same food, drink the same water, etc. Thoughts? Fiona L. scotsmam@aol.com "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things" - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) From forens-owner Wed May 24 14:13:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18871 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18866 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 14:13:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 24 May 2000 13:12:32 -0500 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB79D@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, "Forensic-ScienceEGroup (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Arsenic Poisoning Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:12:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Contamination of water or food, non-standard "medicines", inhalation of vapors from metal work using arsenic, and topical applications of an arsenical product come to mind. Unless the husband also has elevated levels, he is the logical suspect if an innocent explanation can't be identified. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Scotsmam@aol.com [mailto:Scotsmam@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 12:46 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Arsenic Poisoning What are some of the ways that a person could end up with arsenic poisoning, without being aware of it until they were very sick, and had tests done (it was not known until tests came back abnormal, when further tests were then done)? We are talking a 59 yo female, living on an acreage, alone with her husband. The water is being tested, as is the husband. He however is not sick at present. Was it wise to let the husband go to be tested at a later date, or should he have been tested immediately, as a potential suspect? She has a limited social life, and when out is accompanied by the husband. They eat the same food, drink the same water, etc. Thoughts? Fiona L. scotsmam@aol.com "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things" - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) From forens-owner Wed May 24 17:52:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22960 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 17:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22955 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 17:52:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id x.c3.5c9d87e (9155); Wed, 24 May 2000 17:51:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:51:33 EDT Subject: Re: forwarded message To: pbarnett@fsalab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/24/00 11:40:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pbarnett@FSALab.com writes: << Thus, "to conclude that a hair is consistent in macroscopic and microscopic characteristics with a known sample from a particular person" (to quote from the "Criteria for Similarity" section - and to beg the question of what "consistent in macroscopic and microscopic characteristics" means with respect to the origin of a hair), the examiner must determine that any differences that are noted are not significant. There are no stated criteria in the document for making that determination. >> Peter I am also left with the uneasiness when I hear a colleague note that there are no "significant" differences but can not determine from that colleague how he determines "significant" differences other than by reference to his "experience." If we are to peer review opinions we need to review the foundation. Where "experience" is the foundation, we can not effectively peer review if that experience is not documented. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed May 24 19:04:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA24059 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 19:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oscar.en.com (oscar.en.com [204.89.181.14]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA24054 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 19:04:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pathr19.en.com ([207.90.92.211]) by oscar.en.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA04699; Wed, 24 May 2000 18:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000524144010.01ef7a90@mail.en.com> X-Sender: pathr19@mail.en.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:48:30 -0400 To: Scotsmam@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Heather N. Raaf, M.D." Subject: Re: Arsenic Poisoning In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk During my residency, I encountered a case where a wife was gradually poisoning her husband with arsenic. They lived in isolated circumstances and mostly ate the same food. I don't recall how she gave it to her husband, but I know she was using some rat poisoning that she had obtained somehow. If these people are out in the country where such pest control apparently is still available, that would be a good possibility. The husband came to medical attention for a painful peripheral neuropathy, and he also had the dusky pigmentation supposedly associated with arsenic poisoning. A very astute neurologist suggested the diagnosis, and it was confirmed on 24 hour urine collection. Heather N. Raaf, M.D. Forensic Pathologist At 01:45 PM 5/24/00 -0400, Scotsmam@aol.com wrote: >What are some of the ways that a person could end up with arsenic poisoning, >without being aware of it until they were very sick, and had tests done (it >was not known until tests came back abnormal, when further tests were then >done)? We are talking a 59 yo female, living on an acreage, alone with her >husband. The water is being tested, as is the husband. He however is not sick >at present. Was it wise to let the husband go to be tested at a later date, >or should he have been tested immediately, as a potential suspect? She has a >limited social life, and when out is accompanied by the husband. They eat the >same food, drink the same water, etc. Thoughts? > >Fiona L. >scotsmam@aol.com > >"If you would be a real seeker after truth, > it is necessary that at least once in your life > you doubt, as far as possible, all things" > - Rene Descartes > (1596-1650) From forens-owner Wed May 24 19:06:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA24163 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 24 May 2000 19:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA24158 for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 19:06:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Razzskull@aol.com Received: from Razzskull@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id y.b9.35a1230 (8479) for ; Wed, 24 May 2000 19:05:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:05:23 EDT Subject: Primate tissue culture and DNA To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 100 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk If anyone is interested in taking the time off-list to help me out with opinion or input on a research project I am working on. I'd greatly appreciate it. I have a degree in forensic science but currently work at a zoo. One of my research projects is collecting tissue samples from primates and cloning the cells to save genetic material. Recently we had a monkey die and we took skin biopsies 8 hours, 12 hours, 16 hours and 24 hours after death. (We cut off the arm and left it at room temp the entire time) What are your thoughts on the chances of the cells being viable enough to grow, and how long will the cells live before the body decays and bacteria takes over? I don't want to get too involved here but would be more than happy to if anyone out there is interested. Thanks Clare From forens-owner Thu May 25 18:51:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13813 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 25 May 2000 18:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from postoffice.uts.edu.au (mail1.itd.uts.edu.au [138.25.22.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13808 for ; Thu, 25 May 2000 18:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from home ([138.25.16.169]) by postoffice.uts.edu.au (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id FV50TS01.306 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 08:51:28 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000526085044.008e73c0@mailbox.uts.edu.au> X-Sender: croux@mailbox.uts.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 08:50:44 +1000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Claude Roux Subject: Microspectrophotometer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear list member, We have secured some funding for microspectrophotometry facilities. We are looking at purchasing a flexible system able to work in an extended spectral range, both in transmission and in reflexion, with fluorescence abilities as well. Two options seem viable: J&M/Zeiss (diode-array systems) and SEE (monochromator + CCD detection) systems. We would welcome any comment from people who have some expericence with these systems (regular users or individuals who have tested them). Please reply off-list if you wish. Thanks for your help. Regards Claude ================================================================ Dr Claude Roux Forensic Science Course Co-ordinator Dept. of Chemistry, Materials and Forensic Science University of Technology Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, AUSTRALIA, 2007 Tel: +61 2 9514 17 18 Fax: +61 2 9514 14 60 Email: Claude.Roux@uts.edu.au http://www.science.uts.edu.au/depts/cmf/index.html From forens-owner Fri May 26 09:22:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22131 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22126 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 09:22:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id v.c4.42f4071 (1770); Fri, 26 May 2000 09:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:21:46 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us CC: ArtWYoung@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Jenny I am reading Lawrence Kobilinsky's piece on hair analysis, "Hair Today, Behind Bars Tomorrow", in The Science of Crime which came off the web. Kobilinsky is apparently a professor of forensic science and associate provost at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. He writes: "If the hair specimen from the crime scene was too small or fragmented, or displayed too few microscopic identifying features, the analyst would render an inconclusive report." This statement seems to be different from the statement that we have discussed here that there is no minimum number of characteristics needed to render an opinion. Have I missed something? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri May 26 11:02:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23999 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA23994 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 11:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20891 invoked from network); 26 May 2000 15:02:22 -0000 Received: from access-5-43.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.161) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 26 May 2000 15:02:22 -0000 Message-ID: <00e401bfc723$7518b700$140d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:02:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Yes, Fred, you've missed something. Analysts of anything, not just hairs, should start off by deciding whether they have enough material to compare/diagnose. I wouldn't call this an "inconclusive" report, but a conclusive report stating inability to analyze. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Jenny I am reading Lawrence Kobilinsky's piece on hair analysis, "Hair Today, Behind Bars Tomorrow", in The Science of Crime which came off the web. Kobilinsky is apparently a professor of forensic science and associate provost at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. He writes: "If the hair specimen from the crime scene was too small or fragmented, or displayed too few microscopic identifying features, the analyst would render an inconclusive report." This statement seems to be different from the statement that we have discussed here that there is no minimum number of characteristics needed to render an opinion. Have I missed something? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri May 26 14:24:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26839 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 14:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26834 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 14:24:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id w.33.5a11ec7 (3962); Fri, 26 May 2000 14:23:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <33.5a11ec7.26601b1e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:23:26 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/26/00 11:09:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: << Yes, Fred, you've missed something. Analysts of anything, not just hairs, should start off by deciding whether they have enough material to compare/diagnose. I wouldn't call this an "inconclusive" report, but a conclusive report stating inability to analyze. Dave Hause >> But Dave, he is saying "or displayed too few micros......" while mentioning other limiting factors such as size. He is not saying that too few because too small but simply too few or too small. Fred From forens-owner Fri May 26 15:31:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA27856 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 15:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27851 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 15:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:31:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded announcement Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:05:22 -0700 From: "Michael Grubb" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Eugene Wolberg MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 153061B3165798-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id OAA26633 I am sad to relay to all of you that Gene Wolberg passed away in his sleep last night. Gene was a remarkable firearms examiner, willing to share his vast knowledge for the benefit of all. Needless to say we're in shock. I will post details of funeral date when available. Mike Grubb San Diego Police Dept. From forens-owner Fri May 26 15:48:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28100 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 15:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from EXCHANGE (firewal.dps.state.nm.us [164.64.163.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28095 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 15:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by EXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 26 May 2000 13:45:07 -0600 Message-ID: <40D767715C28D411A86508002BC3197748F86E@EXCHANGE> From: "Aviles, Phil" To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" , dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:45:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fred, I appreciate your curiosity. Your questions are valid and deserve to be answered. The only problem is that there are no hard and fast answers when it comes to hair exams. I definitely agree with Dave's point that any examiner must determine the quality of the material and suitability for comparison, but in hair exams the only reference material is the known standard of hair. Each sample being unique and displaying a certain number of characteristics. Therefore, I repeat my question. How many hairs should be required in a known standard? If I get a sample of 20 hairs from one person, and 100 from another, what are the odds that the larger sample will show more characteristics? Should I refuse to examine the smaller sample? Request more hairs? What if additional hairs are not available? The point is that everyone has their own protocol and requirements for hair standards. In many cases, the quantity of hairs submitted is simply not acceptable. I've seen standards with 2 or 5 or 10 hairs. This is the extreme, but where should the cutoff point be? If you want more significant results with hair comparisons, you must insist on better standards as reference material. We spend a lot of time discussing microscopic characteristics and the minimum number that must be present for a valid comparison, but not enough time discussing what an acceptable reference standard should be. Maybe that's because some of us have more hair than others? Phil -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [SMTP:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 12:23 PM To: dwhause@rollanet.org; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA In a message dated 5/26/00 11:09:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: << Yes, Fred, you've missed something. Analysts of anything, not just hairs, should start off by deciding whether they have enough material to compare/diagnose. I wouldn't call this an "inconclusive" report, but a conclusive report stating inability to analyze. Dave Hause >> But Dave, he is saying "or displayed too few micros......" while mentioning other limiting factors such as size. He is not saying that too few because too small but simply too few or too small. Fred From forens-owner Fri May 26 19:31:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00277 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 26 May 2000 19:31:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.220.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00272 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 19:31:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id QAA10375 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 16:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id QAA10370 for ; Fri, 26 May 2000 16:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.5); Fri, 26 May 2000 16:30:07 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 26 May 2000 16:29:39 -0700 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:29:22 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Eugene Wolberg MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1531D775254393-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id TAA00273 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Many in the Forensic Science community knew Eugene Wolberg, Firearm and Toolmark examiner at the San Diego (CA). Police Lab. I therefore thought that some on the list would appreciate knowing that Gene passed away over night in his sleep. I do not at this time know a cause, nor do I know other details. Gene was well know and highly respected in the Firearm and Toolmark field. Quit active in AFTE, IWBA and other organizations. He will be greatly missed by those of us who knew or worked with him. James Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner From forens-owner Sun May 28 09:38:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA21519 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 May 2000 09:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21514 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 09:38:19 -0400 (EDT) From: MechaelJ@aol.com Received: from MechaelJ@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id y.6f.588aae9 (6621) for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 09:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6f.588aae9.26627b25@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 09:37:41 EDT Subject: Eugene Wolberg funeral To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Gene Wolberg's funeral will be held at 1 pm Friday, June 2 at Horizon Christian Fellowship, 5331 Mt. Alifan Dr., San Diego. There will be a viewing Thursday, June 1, 4-8 pm, at Eternal Hills Mortuary, 1999 El Camino Real, in Oceanside. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Eugene J. Wolberg Memorial Fund at the San Diego County Credit Union. Mike Grubb San Diego PD (619) 531-2579 From forens-owner Sun May 28 18:52:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26853 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 28 May 2000 18:52:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from akasya.istanbul.edu.tr (akasya.istanbul.edu.tr [194.27.128.101]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26848 for ; Sun, 28 May 2000 18:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from atasoy (NAS-213-43-73-17.ixir.com [213.43.73.17] (may be forged)) by akasya.istanbul.edu.tr (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA07717 for ; Mon, 29 May 2000 01:55:33 +0300 (EET DST) Reply-To: From: "Prof. Dr. Sevil Atasoy" To: Subject: Tbilisi Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 02:01:16 +0300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <6f.588aae9.26627b25@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Friends: Does a member of this list have any contact in Tbilisi, Georgia. I would greatly appreciate any info. Thank you in forward Prof. Dr. Sevil Atasoy Istanbul, Turkey From forens-owner Tue May 30 07:51:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA16703 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 07:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16698 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 07:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:51:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Emma Rolph" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Subscribe Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:19:25 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Hi, I am a fourth year forensic science student studying at the University of Technology at Sydney. Next semester I am doing my Honours project on Gasoline on Hands. basically, I am examining the best method for detection, sampling, setting up standards for testing, and the kinds of results expected for different time rates, etc. I was wondering if anyone has done this kind of study before, or if there was any literature out there that anyone could refer me to? Any help is appreciated. Thanks, Emma Rolph (ekrolph@hotmail.com.au) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue May 30 09:06:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17908 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 09:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17903 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 09:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:06:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:58:26 -0400 From: "Wienker, Curtis" To: "'forens-owner@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Dear Mr. Basten, Would you please be so kind as to post this to your forensic science list. Curtis Wienker has information brochures about an international forensic science congress to be held October 9-14 at Varadero Beach, Cuba. The site is a renown beach resort community, reputedly one of the finest in the Americas. Permission to travel to Cuba for the purpose of attending such conferences is easy to obtain for U. S. citizens who are bona fide forensic scientists. There are the usual preconvention courses on the first two days. The Scientific sessions begin on Thurs, Oct 12, in the AM and the closing ceremony is on Saturday afternoon the 14th. Interested people may send a postal address to Curtis and he will mail a copy of the brochure until he has no more. He would be more than happy to provide advice about going, in the event that one is seriously pondering attending. Curtis W. Wienker Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies SVC 2002 University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-4051 From forens-owner Tue May 30 16:19:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24464 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 16:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24459 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 16:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.204]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08972; Tue, 30 May 2000 15:19:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <39341CE6.12B77568@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:56:22 -0500 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: ArtWYoung@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fred Many of the same rules apply to hair evidence that apply to any evidence we get. If the Q hair is a fragment or is damaged you would not use it because its integrity is compromised. This rule would apply to all sorts of evidence, would it not? As for the statement concerning "too few microscopic identifying features" for a conclusive report...... This happens some times. Gray hairs and natural blond hairs can fall into this category. You would qualify your report out the wahzoo on these types of "generic" hairs. Would it not be somewhat like trying to make an association between questioned and known white cotton fibers or odorless, colorless candle wax?? This is common sense, is it not?? Some things are just too generic to use for evidence or say much about. What you have missed is that every case must be dealt with individually and exceptions to "the rules" are almost the norm. A person without a little common sense at their disposal has no business in this business. I share Phil's remarks and agree that the number of hairs in a known standard is a very important consideration. Common sense and conservatism must dictate in some of these gray areas too. I have testified 20 times on hair exams. I have always discussed the limitations of the exams. I have never had these questions you ask arise! Your questions are good but if the hair expert is fair to both sides and neutral in their testimony the cross is usually easier. thanks for your quesitons. Jenny Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > Jenny > I am reading Lawrence Kobilinsky's piece on hair analysis, "Hair Today, > Behind Bars Tomorrow", in The Science of Crime which came off the web. > Kobilinsky is apparently a professor of forensic science and associate > provost at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. He writes: > "If the hair specimen from the crime scene was too small or fragmented, > or displayed too few microscopic identifying features, the analyst would > render an inconclusive report." > > This statement seems to be different from the statement that we have > discussed here that there is no minimum number of characteristics needed to > render an opinion. Have I missed something? > Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue May 30 18:04:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26278 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26273 for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:04:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id v.97.60b6215 (3982); Tue, 30 May 2000 18:02:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <97.60b6215.26659474@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:02:28 EDT Subject: Re: Ref. pubic hairs and mtDNA To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/30/00 4:20:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us writes: << What you have missed is that every case must be dealt with individually and exceptions to "the rules" are almost the norm. A person without a little common sense at their disposal has no business in this business. ****************************************************************************** *** Jenny I have heard of this thing called "common sense" in the past. Is there common sense in any of this. Common sense is that held commonly and yet who in our world analyzes hairs. Just very few. So there is no common sense. Common sense arises from our senses and yet we know now that there are characteristics in hairs the detection of which go way beyond common sense, the mitochondrial DNA. I find that as cases involving miscarriages of justice are exposed by DNA analysis, the common sense of yesterday gives way to realization that the earth is not flat, nor the moon made of green cheese, nor is the earth at the center of the universe, and that hair analysis has failed tragically too many times. While at the FBI I questioned this thing called common sense and finally, as we all know now, found that the FBI's common sense was nonsensical. Remember the meetings we had where you all from state crime labs came to "learn" from FBI training courses and in the board room we spoke of our concerns about the problems with FBI common sense? So many of you spoke to me from the time I met you about these problems. I was to be your teacher and yet your concerns gave support to mine and I learned from you more than I taught. We all knew that the dictated common sense was nonsensical. Some of you scoffed openly at what we were teaching you. I remember your disdain. Some of you met me even in my room at the FBI Academy at night to speak of your concerns. We had to have those conversations behind closed doors, in whispers, because the true common sense was that, detected, such spoken concerns could result in shortened careers. And so what is the error rate of this hair analysis or any multi-component mixture analysis when we can not detect all components and have no data to prove that these nondetected components are not important to our opinions. I have looked for that error rate described and not found it anywhere. What I have found is the LEAA study back in the 70's and the recent study, what in the 90's, concerning the error rate. It is high. It seems that the data from our analyses is good for excluding suspects but our laboratories' budgets depend too strongly on our effectiveness in proving guilt, and exclusions too often do too little to prove guilt. ****************************************************************************** ******** I share Phil's remarks and agree that the number of hairs in a known standard is a very important consideration. Common sense and conservatism must dictate in some of these gray areas too. ****************************************************************************** ********* So what is the common sense that you apply. Can you articulate it? Can you put parameters on it? Is it science or magic that you apply to your logic? What exactly is it that makes it common sense? If almost all cases are different than those before them, how does this effect hair analysis. Surely all cases are different. But is the practice of forensic hair analysis different in every case? Do you do something different in every case to analyze hair? No, you do not. You have a protocol. You validate that protocol. You record what you see for review by peers. Those peers can review. They are allowed to review. You don't conveniently lose the evidence. Your laboratory managers do not refuse to allow fellow citizens to review the evidence against them. You may call two hairs the same color and then you allow peers to compare those colors. You may see characteristics that appear to you to be the same in two hairs and you record your observations and then you encourage peers to check your work, your notes, your data. If you disagree with your peers, you record that disagreement. If you dare. At some forensic labs that is not allowed. I, for instance, was taught by some older examiners during my forensic training and career that such recordings would help the defense case. Do nothing to help the defense. Or his client. A fellow citizen. Hair is a system which can be described by its characteristics. Tell me how to apply common sense to that description. ****************************************************************************** **************** I have testified 20 times on hair exams. I have always discussed the limitations of the exams. I have never had these questions you ask arise! Your questions are good but if the hair expert is fair to both sides and neutral in their testimony the cross is usually easier. thanks for your quesitons. ****************************************************************************** ********** We have heard from members of this list of some few hair examiners who chose not to be fair. I know about your fairness and commend it. I know of others however who have chosen not to be fair. How do we detect that unfairness before citizens are falsely accused and imprisoned? You have not seen the questions I ask arise because counsel have been unprepared in the past. We will attempt to correct that. There is a movement within the legal community born of recent revelations, Fred Zain coming to mind, to question forensic scientists with as much rigor as any other witness. It is possible. It will happen. And common sense will again be determined to have been dictated, not discovered. Jenny >> From forens-owner Wed May 31 06:14:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA03253 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 06:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from romani.iua (romani.iua.urv.es [193.144.21.52]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA03237 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 06:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ubppp (44-BARC-X30.libre.retevision.es [62.82.8.44]) by romani.iua (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA17008 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 12:04:10 +0200 Message-ID: <006701bfcae8$794435c0$6418523e@ub.es> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Policarp_Hortol=E0?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Policarp_Hortol=E0?= To: Subject: Searching bibliography. Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 12:08:04 +0200 Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C0rea_de_Prehist=F2ria_-_URV?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0064_01BFCAF8.E13AF1E0" 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 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01BFCAF8.E13AF1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings to all: I am searching papers and other stuff on bloodstain microscopy. Does anyone know any bibliography on such a subject, and where to find = it? Thank you in advance. Policarp Hortol=E0 __________________________________________ Area of Prehistory - CSIC Associate Research Unit Rovira i Virgili University - Pla=E7a Imperial T=E0rraco 1 E-43005 Tarragona - CATALONIA-SPAIN Tel. +34-977.559.734 - Fax +34-977.559.597 Atapuerca Research Team http://prehistoria.urv.es __________________________________________ ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01BFCAF8.E13AF1E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings to all:
 
I am searching papers and other stuff on bloodstain=20 microscopy.

Does anyone know any bibliography on such a subject, = and=20 where to find it?
Thank you in advance.

Policarp Hortol=E0
__________________________________________
 
Area of Prehistory - CSIC Associate Research = Unit
Rovira i=20 Virgili University - Pla=E7a Imperial T=E0rraco = 1
     =20 E-43005 Tarragona - CATALONIA-SPAIN
  Tel. +34-977.559.734 - Fax = +34-977.559.597
 
          =20 Atapuerca Research=20 Team
           = ; =20 http://prehistoria.urv.es
_____= _____________________________________
------=_NextPart_000_0064_01BFCAF8.E13AF1E0-- From forens-owner Wed May 31 10:47:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06768 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06763 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:47:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:47:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bobrov N." To: "FORENS-L" Subject: Diatomaceae Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:26:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Hello, List! I need any information on medico-legal aspects of diatom laboratory investigation and its reliability. I would appreciate references to thick books and good articles as well as methodological tips. Thanks in advance. P.S. Are there problems on server? No messages from FORENS-L last three days... Nikita Bobrov, MD., PhD Department of Forensic Medicine Medical Faculty P.J.Safarik University Kosice, Slovak Republic E-mail: From forens-owner Wed May 31 11:15:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07598 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07593 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 11:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 31 May 2000 10:14:52 -0500 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB7A5@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, "'bobrov@central.medic.upjs.sk'" Subject: RE: Diatomaceae Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:14:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Forensic Pathology by Bernard Knight, 1991 edition but I think there is a more recent one, pp 371-374, gives about 16 literature references and notes the technique is controversial in diagnosis of drowning; Medicolegal Investigation of Death (2nd ed., 1980) by Spitz & Fisher also mention the controversy on p. 360 and give 6 references; Howard Reidbord (p 206 et seq.), writing in Perper's Microscopic Diagnosis in Forensic Pathology, 1980, claims it is the best laboratory test for drowning. A current search of the US National Library of Medicine, via http://igm.nlm.nih.gov/ gives the citations below (1966 to present are supposed to be indexed.) David W. Hause, LTC MC Pathology Division General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473 ph. 573-596-1509 David.Hause@amedd.army.mil TITLE: Diatom test with Soluene-350 to diagnose drowning in sea water. AUTHORS: Sidari L, Di Nunno N, Costantinides F, Melato M SOURCE: Forensic Sci Int. 1999 Jul 12;103(1):61-5. CIT. IDS: PMID: 10464937 UI: 99394203 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Diatom analysis in victim's tissues as an indicator of the site of drowning. AUTHORS: Ludes B, Coste M, North N, Doray S, Tracqui A, Kintz P SOURCE: Int J Legal Med. 1999;112(3):163-6. CIT. IDS: PMID: 10335878 UI: 99266909 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Scanning and transmission electron microscopical evidence of the capacity of diatoms to penetrate the alveolo-capillary barrier in drowning. AUTHORS: Lunetta P, Penttila A, Hallfors G SOURCE: Int J Legal Med. 1998;111(5):229-37. CIT. IDS: PMID: 9728748 UI: 98396949 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Study of the diagnostic value of strontium, chloride, haemoglobin and diatoms in immersion cases. AUTHORS: Azparren JE, Vallejo G, Reyes E, Herranz A, Sancho M SOURCE: Forensic Sci Int. 1998 Jan 30;91(2):123-32. CIT. IDS: PMID: 9549902 UI: 98211071 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Diatoms and homicide. AUTHORS: Pollanen MS SOURCE: Forensic Sci Int. 1998 Jan 9;91(1):29-34. CIT. IDS: PMID: 9493342 UI: 98154393 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: The diagnostic value of the diatom test for drowning, II. Validity: analysis of diatoms in bone marrow and drowning medium. AUTHORS: Pollanen MS SOURCE: J Forensic Sci. 1997 Mar;42(2):286-90. CIT. IDS: PMID: 9068188 UI: 97221077 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: The diagnostic value of the diatom test for drowning, I. Utility: a retrospective analysis of 771 cases of drowning in Ontario, Canada. AUTHORS: Pollanen MS, Cheung C, Chiasson DA SOURCE: J Forensic Sci. 1997 Mar;42(2):281-5. CIT. IDS: PMID: 9068187 UI: 97221076 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Continuous river monitoring of the diatoms in the diagnosis of drowning. AUTHORS: Ludes B, Coste M, Tracqui A, Mangin P SOURCE: J Forensic Sci. 1996 May;41(3):425-8. CIT. IDS: PMID: 8656181 UI: 96236225 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Diatoms and drowning--a cautionary case note. AUTHORS: Taylor JJ SOURCE: Med Sci Law. 1994 Jan;34(1):78-9. CIT. IDS: PMID: 8159078 UI: 94211112 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Application of a simple enzymatic digestion method for diatom detection in the diagnosis of drowning in putrified corpses by diatom analysis. AUTHORS: Ludes B, Quantin S, Coste M, Mangin P SOURCE: Int J Legal Med. 1994;107(1):37-41. CIT. IDS: PMID: 7999644 UI: 95092626 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: The diagnosis of drowning by quantitative and qualitative diatom analysis. AUTHORS: Pachar JV, Cameron JM SOURCE: Med Sci Law. 1993 Oct;33(4):291-9. CIT. IDS: PMID: 8264360 UI: 94088235 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: A simple method for diatom detection in drowning. AUTHORS: Matsumoto H, Fukui Y SOURCE: Forensic Sci Int. 1993 Jun;60(1-2):91-5. CIT. IDS: PMID: 8340042 UI: 93339700 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Characterization of drowning by diatom test. AUTHORS: Giri BS, Tripathi CB, Chowdary YB SOURCE: Indian J Med Res. 1993 Feb;98:40-3. CIT. IDS: PMID: 8495990 UI: 93266316 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Late-onset miliary pneumonitis after near drowning. AUTHORS: Mangge H, Plecko B, Grubbauer HM, Popper H, Smolle-Juttner F, Zach M SOURCE: Pediatr Pulmonol. 1993 Feb;15(2):122-4. CIT. IDS: PMID: 8474784 UI: 93234140 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TITLE: Drowning. AUTHORS: Sarvesvaran R SOURCE: Malays J Pathol. 1992 Dec;14(2):77-83. Review. CIT. IDS: PMID: 1304628 UI: 93280883 -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 9:47 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bobrov N." To: "FORENS-L" Subject: Diatomaceae Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:26:20 +0200 Hello, List! I need any information on medico-legal aspects of diatom laboratory investigation and its reliability. I would appreciate references to thick books and good articles as well as methodological tips. Thanks in advance. P.S. Are there problems on server? No messages from FORENS-L last three days... Nikita Bobrov, MD., PhD Department of Forensic Medicine Medical Faculty P.J.Safarik University Kosice, Slovak Republic E-mail: From forens-owner Wed May 31 14:40:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11120 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 14:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11115 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 14:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from metsys.demon.co.uk ([158.152.36.125]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12xDPw-0009uZ-0V for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 31 May 2000 19:40:37 +0100 Message-ID: <39355C41.4BD502ED@metsys.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:38:57 +0100 From: John Standen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Individuation of human remains Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Can anyone suggest any journal articles on the individuation of human remains, using biomolecular and chemical analysis of collagen and keratin. Data is required for MSc essay. Many thanks in advance John From forens-owner Wed May 31 15:16:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21254 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail_server.phytera.com ([216.216.159.75]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA21249 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bioserv [10.1.2.28] by mail_server.phytera.com (SMTPD32-4.07) id A60F234C012C; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:20:47 EDT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:12:50 -0400 Message-ID: <01BFCB12.AFD22D20.bchandler@phytera.com> From: Brandy Chandler Reply-To: "bchandler@phytera.com" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: FW: Crime Scene Investigation Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:12:50 -0400 Organization: Phytera, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hello All - I have been a fairly silent observer of this list up until now . I am interested in crime scene investigation primarily and am looking for information regarding any possible training classes, seminars, comprehensive books etc. regarding such. I have a BS in Biology and Natural Science as well as Criminal Justice. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Responses can be sent to me on or off list. Brandy Chandler blc_13@yahoo.com From forens-owner Wed May 31 15:20:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22957 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:20:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail_server.phytera.com ([216.216.159.75]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22952 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:20:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bioserv [10.1.2.28] by mail_server.phytera.com (SMTPD32-4.07) id A6B2121A00E2; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:23:30 EDT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:15:34 -0400 Message-ID: <01BFCB13.112640C0.bchandler@phytera.com> From: Brandy Chandler Reply-To: "bchandler@phytera.com" To: "'Forens-L'" , "'Forensic science'" Subject: FW: Crime Scene Investigation Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:15:33 -0400 Organization: Phytera, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Greetings all - I have been a fairly silent observer of this list up until now . I am interested in crime scene investigation primarily and am looking for information regarding any possible training classes, seminars, comprehensive books etc. regarding such. I have a BS in Biology and Natural Science as well as Criminal Justice. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Responses can be sent to me on or off list. Brandy Chandler blc_13@yahoo.com From forens-owner Wed May 31 15:21:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA23091 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail_server.phytera.com ([216.216.159.75]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA23086 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:21:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bioserv [10.1.2.28] by mail_server.phytera.com (SMTPD32-4.07) id A73E11B80146; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:25:50 EDT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 31 May 2000 15:17:54 -0400 Message-ID: <01BFCB13.64B27F60.bchandler@phytera.com> From: Brandy Chandler Reply-To: "bchandler@phytera.com" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: FW: Crime Scene Investigation Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 15:17:53 -0400 Organization: Phytera, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Greetings all - I have been a fairly silent observer of this list up until now . I am interested in crime scene investigation primarily and am looking for information regarding any possible training classes, seminars, comprehensive books etc. regarding such. I have a BS in Biology and Natural Science as well as Criminal Justice. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Responses can be sent to me on or off list. Brandy Chandler blc_13@yahoo.com From forens-owner Wed May 31 17:32:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24812 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 17:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhub3.tc.umn.edu (IDENT:0@mhub3.tc.umn.edu [128.101.131.43]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24807 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 17:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amethyst.tc.umn.edu by mhub3.tc.umn.edu with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 31 May 2000 16:32:55 -0500 Received: from [128.101.160.167] by amethyst.tc.umn.edu for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 31 May 2000 16:32:54 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "mcdo0272" Subject: Footprints Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 16:32:24 X-Tick-Nemesis: Chairface Chippendale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hello... Could anyone please send me references on recovering footprints, especially from the snow? Thank you! -Kristin McDonald mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu From forens-owner Wed May 31 18:11:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25207 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 18:11:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25200 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 18:11:27 -0400 (EDT) From: msegroup@mindspring.com Received: from pavilion (user-2ivfiej.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.201.211]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA30726; Wed, 31 May 2000 18:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: To: "mcdo0272" Cc: Subject: RE: Footprints Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:11:22 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Kristin: There is an organization that has much material on this. Contact the National Bureau of Investigation in Finland. Heikki Majamaa is a friend and forensic associate of mine. His Email address is Heikki.Majamaa@krp.poliisi.fi This organization publishes a "Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners." There have been numerous studies done on the recovery of shoeprints in sand, dirt, snow, etc. You can obtain information on making casts, photography, etc. I highly recommend them to you. There is also the International Association of Identification which has files on shoeprint identification and preservation. I believe their website is http://wwww.iai.com but don't hold me to it. If you cannot find them, let me know and I will get the right address. Tell Heikki that I sent you to him. He will be more than glad to assist you. Lee Griggs Protection Technology, Inc. PTI Investigations "Charter member-Investigators of America" Providing full investigation services in SC plus professional process service in SC & NC. Forensic lock analysis nationwide. Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Website: http://www.msegroup.com Join PayPal and have the advantage of credit card payments without the hassle and costs. https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=lgriggs%40msegroup.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of mcdo0272 Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:32 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Footprints Hello... Could anyone please send me references on recovering footprints, especially from the snow? Thank you! -Kristin McDonald mcdo0272@tc.umn.edu From forens-owner Wed May 31 18:25:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25432 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 18:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25427 for ; Wed, 31 May 2000 18:25:53 -0400 (EDT) From: msegroup@mindspring.com Received: from pavilion (user-2ivfiej.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.201.211]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01165; Wed, 31 May 2000 18:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: To: "mcdo0272" Cc: Subject: RE: Footprints Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:25:48 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I was wrong. The IAI website is http://www.TheIAI.org One of the forensic disciplines in the organization is Footwear and tire track Examinations. You can contact Joseph Polski, Executive Secretary, at iaisecty@aol.com and he can direct you to the proper member for assistance. Lee Griggs Protection Technology, Inc. PTI Investigations "Charter member-Investigators of America" Providing full investigation services in SC plus professional process service in SC & NC. Forensic lock analysis nationwide. Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Website: http://www.msegroup.com Join PayPal and have the advantage of credit card payments without the hassle and costs. https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=lgriggs%40msegroup.com