From forens-owner Tue May 1 13:07:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19535 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 13:07:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19530 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 13:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:07:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chandler" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Joan Chandler" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Training Op: Sex Crimes Seminar Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 09:32:45 -0700 Mr.. Wheeler, I don't know either you or the Turvey's or Eoghan Casey, but I have surmised over the last year that you have a grudge against them. You imply in your postings that their not answering your "charges" is conclusive evidence that they're guilty. There IS another reason they might ignore your attacks: why bother responding to the accusations of an idiot? I don't know if you're an idiot, of course, but your posts make me question your credibility. I fail to see how your posts add to the edification of anyone who subscribes to this service, since they are utterly devoid of any sort of forensic information whatsoever. Instead, your posts are slanderous rantings that leave the reader with the impression that you have the emotional maturity of a 13-year-old boy. Sarcasm is the acknowledged weapon of the weak, and "flaming" members of an online community really ought to be left to those communities that cater to a less sophisticated audience. This is a professional community, after all, and the service was instituted for the sharing of forensic knowledge, not the sort of juvenile temper tantrums that you regularly display. If you have issues with the credibility of other members, and if you MUST air them before the group, why don't you post in a more credible manner? Here's a suggestion: "My experience with these individuals leads me to question their credibility. Members who are considering attending their seminars would be wise to research their professional qualifications. Please email me at shawn_wheeler@hotmail.com for further explanation." If you truly have a genuine and LEGITIMATE reason to distrust these people, and you truly believe that you have a duty to educate the uninformed about their shortcomings, the above suggested post would further your objectives in a more credible and dignified manner. But if you continue to post using your present style, it is guaranteed that you will never be taken seriously, because each post demonstrates a PERSONAL animosity rather than a professional one. I suspect that this post will fall on deaf ears, but I'd love to be proven wrong in this instance. Give it a rest, Shawn. You're only hurting yourself. Sincerely, J. Chandler _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Tue May 1 15:45:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21997 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:45:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from out3.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (out3.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.3.79]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21992 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 15:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop5.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (pop5.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.3.83]) by out3.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f41Jj9636916 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 14:45:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from acer (d175.as6.nwbl0.wi.voyager.net [169.207.130.49]) by pop5.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f41Jj7B46234 for ; Tue, 1 May 2001 14:45:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "Helix Biotech" To: Subject: DNA from concrete substrate Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 14:40:32 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D24C.AC93F8E0" 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 V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D24C.AC93F8E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Are there any problems or issues involving the extraction of DNA from semen samples on concrete? Are there any published references or validation studies involving concrete substrate? Thanks for your suggestions… Alan Friedman Helix Biotech, Inc. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D24C.AC93F8E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Are there any problems or issues involving the extraction = of DNA from semen samples on concrete? Are there any published references or validation studies involving concrete substrate?

Thanks for your suggestions…

 

Alan Friedman

Helix Biotech, Inc.

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C0D24C.AC93F8E0-- From forens-owner Tue May 1 16:04:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22431 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 May 2001 16:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22415; Tue, 1 May 2001 16:04:03 -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 ESMTP id QAA08619; Tue, 1 May 2001 16:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Basten cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chandler" ] (fwd) 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 Tue, 1 May 2001, Basten wrote: > From: Basten > > > Sarcasm is the acknowledged weapon of the weak, and "flaming" members of an > online community really ought to be left to those communities that cater to > a less sophisticated audience. This is a professional community, after all, > and the service was instituted for the sharing of forensic knowledge, not > the sort of juvenile temper tantrums that you regularly display. Au contraire. First, let's consider your first assertion -- that sarcasm is the weapon of the weak. I gather then that you believe that literary lightweights such as Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, Swift, Shakespeare, et al. are all "weak?" Perhaps you would care to back up your assertion by listing the 10 most important literary figures of western civilization and show that none of them used sarcasm. Sarcasm is difficult to do *well,* but then, our reach should exceed our grasp, no? That something is difficult is not a reason not to try. In fact, sarcasm and her sister irony are important tools in the armamentarium of any ambitious writer. They have been used since time immemorial to great effect, and will continue to be used to great effect. That's because they are both very effective. It's a little like so-called "negative ads" in politics. Yes, everybody "hates" them. But everybody watches them, and they work. They work very, very well. You may look down your nose at that guy sawing you off at the knees, but pretty soon you'll be having to look up to see his ankles. Second, let's look at the second assertion that "flaming" should be left to a less sophisticated audience. Now, I am a *big* fan of intellectual pretension, and I can hold my own in professional snobbery, but the fact is that flaming has nothing to do with "professionalism." It is appropriate when it is appropriate -- in any medium and in front of any audience. And it's appropriate because of the very definition of "flaming." To the faint at heart, flaming is *any* criticism whatsoever. Flaming means being insufficiently *supportive.* You have, no doubt, your own idiosyncratic definition -- we all do. But the bottom line is that flaming, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you like, don't think of it as "flaming." Think of it as a polemic. Think of Luther pounding his anger on the door of a church. What a pantywaist. Think of Patrick Henry stoking the fires of liberty. What a goofball. Think of Jefferson writing to Madison, and Madison writing to Jefferson. What intellectual midgets. Think of Christ calling his opponents a "generation of vipers." What an ass. Think of Joe Queenan reviewing a Madonna movie. Oh I know, we are *better* than they. You are right in your claim that a person who engages in empty personal attack hurts herself more than she hurts her target, but that's a function of the person -- not a function of flaming. There's a big difference. > > If you have issues with the credibility of other members, and if you MUST > air them before the group, why don't you post in a more credible manner? > Here's a suggestion: "My experience with these individuals leads me to > question their credibility. Members who are considering attending their > seminars would be wise to research their professional qualifications. Please > email me at shawn_wheeler@hotmail.com for further explanation." Oh, please. When an emperor has no clothes, it it should be pointed out. "Professional" does not mean kowtowing and obsequious. Professional does not mean being a sheep. And this is most true in forensic science. Forensic science is full of bullshit. It should be pointed at and called bullshit -- because anybody who defends it and objects to criticism in the name of "professionalism" is spitting on the very concept by pretending to uphold it. It's this kind of "Oh, we don't dare call anybody on anything" stuff that perpetuates the worst of the worst in forensic "science." It's that kind of thing that allows people to defend screening polygraphy. It's that kind of thing that allows people to make silly statements and hide behind common wisdom. It's that kind of thing that allows DREs to discard scientific fact in favor of groupthink, and do so protected from scrutiny or criticism. That's what you call "professional." Professional does not mean nonconfrontational. It never has. Any medical student who has gotten drilled at morning rounds knows this. It means being confrontational with a purpose. You can challenge Shawn on the basis of his purpose and the substance of his attacks, but you are not defending "professionalism" by claiming that challenging folk is "unprofessional." Real professionals neither fear nor faint at challenge. Challenge is how good ideas and good data prove themselves. A professional answers challenges, defends results, and holds his or her own in a competitive intellectual environment. Professional does *not* mean protected from scrutiny, protected from challenge, and free from the necessity of answering criticism. billo From forens-owner Wed May 2 15:03:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09212 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 15:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09207 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 15:03:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:03:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chandler" ] (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, 2 May 2001 02:19:38 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chandler" ] >From forens-owner Wed May 2 02:19:37 2001 Received: from hotmail.com (f53.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.53]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA29445 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 02:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 1 May 2001 23:19:06 -0700 Received: from 38.144.151.137 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 May 2001 06:19:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [38.144.151.137] From: "Joan Chandler" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 23:19:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 May 2001 06:19:06.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAC0A560:01C0D2CF] Billo, Well, I'm game enough to respond to your email. You neglected to mention a very important fact about all of the world-class authors and statesmen you mentioned. Certainly they employed sarcasm, but they used it sparingly and for effect. Anyone familiar with their works can attest to the fact that their works are not composed of NOTHING BUT sarcasm. If you are implying that Mr. Wheeler or yourself should be counted as members in the group you listed simply because you employ sarcasm in your writings, you need to be corrected. You two wield sarcasm like a ham-handed oaf, not with the delicate and deadly grace employed by the vituosos to whom you would compare yourself. And, by the way, the empassioned speeches of men like Patrick Henry or Martin Luther have stood the test of time because they contained reason and sense and were created by men who respected their audiences. Mr. Wheeler's posts will NEVER be immortalized for obvious reasons. You can't even begin to compare the writings of these men with that of Mr. Wheeler - they are not in the same ballpark: your argument is flawed because it is based on a fallacy. Mr. Wheeler does not support his criticisms, and there is nothing but sarcasm in his tone. Any fool can spout abuse, as we all well know. And anybody who wishes to be taken seriously at this site is required to back up his statements with some sort of evidence. (How many times have people gnashed their teeth at another's post because a comment was made with no evidence to support it?) I don't object to people offering public criticism. But let's actually have something to SAY, shall we? I would think Mr. Wheeler would want his audience to believe his accusations; if he does NOT wish for them to be believed, then he's just throwing a tantrum, now isn't he? And if he wants to be believed, then he needs to present his criticisms in a manner that bears some resemblence to reason. Tell me, Billo, who are you more likely to believe - the person who makes charges in a juvenile fashion, or the person who calmly lays out his arguments with supporting evidence? (Be careful here - I've read YOUR posts as well, you know, and you've made it very clear which kind of person you would believe. Say it's the former, and you'll be laughed off the site.) I have no problem with anyone challenging another - I just prefer it to be a legitimate challenge, not some whining, half-assed, name-calling. The fact that Mr. Wheeler has not presented anything solid makes me wonder if there isn't a reason for this omission - say, perhaps, that he has no evidence to support his attacks? [To everyone who emailed their support directly to my email address, please accept my thanks here. I appreciate your comments and wish I had the time to thank each of you individually.] J. Chandler _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed May 2 16:13:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10517 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10506 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:13:17 -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 ESMTP id QAA27190 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:13:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Request for journal article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a recent exchange, a respondent claimed that humans can lose up to 50% of testicular weight due to marijuana smoking. When pressed for some citation for this, I was referred to an article by Wenger et al., in a 1992 article in a journal called "Neurobiology and Neuropharmacology." After some searching, I now find that there is no such journal. There was, however, a book published by CRC called "Neurobiology and Neuropharmacology" in 1992. I do not have access to this book. While I will put in a request through interlibrary load tomorrow, the history of my library is that this takes at least a week. If any of you tox types out there have a copy of this book, can find within it an article by Wenger on the effects of marijuana on testicular atrophy, and can fax it to me, I would greatly appreciate it. Send me email and I will f/u with a working fax number (the one in our main office is down). Thanks! billo From forens-owner Wed May 2 16:34:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11046 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:34:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11041 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f42KYBH25693; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:34:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: Subject: Re: Request for journal article 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 Wed, 2 May 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > In a recent exchange, a respondent claimed that humans can > lose up to 50% of testicular weight due to marijuana smoking. billo.... The quote said....'Bill....If there is a decrease in testicular weight and a 50% decrease in testosterone...' Please, being professionals, let's not sink to the level of misquoting. If you need it spelled out to you simply, marijuana is NOT good for your health...irregardless of what part of your body you are most anxious about. From forens-owner Wed May 2 16:41:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11219 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11214 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f42KfLb27642; Wed, 2 May 2001 16:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 16:41:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: Subject: Re: Request for journal article 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 Wed, 2 May 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > In a recent exchange, a respondent claimed that humans can > lose up to 50% of testicular weight due to marijuana smoking. Billo......second quote: It has been reported that THC (marijuana) has an inhibitory effect on serum testosterone levels, and it has been shown to reduce testiclar weight (7), and it has also been shown that a single marijuana cigarette significantly reduces luteinizing hormone in human males (8) and females (9). In males luteinizing hormone stimulates the interstitial endocrinocytes in the testes for production and secretion of testosterone. From forens-owner Wed May 2 17:24:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12014 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12005 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:24:39 -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 ESMTP id RAA09490; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:24:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Request for journal article 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 Wed, 2 May 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > On Wed, 2 May 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > > > > In a recent exchange, a respondent claimed that humans can > > lose up to 50% of testicular weight due to marijuana smoking. > > billo.... > > The quote said....'Bill....If there is a decrease in testicular weight and > a 50% decrease in testosterone...' > > Please, being professionals, let's not sink to the level of misquoting. > If you need it spelled out to you simply, marijuana is NOT good for your > health...irregardless of what part of your body you are most anxious > about. > Ah, mea culpa. I misremembered the 50% as applying to weight, not testosterone. I apologize. While I am sympathetic with your belief that I cannot make a mistake (it's a common misperception), your assertion that I knowingly misquoted you is wrong. No, you don't need to put it any more "simply." You made a specific claim, which you are sticking by, and I am looking for some scientific basis for it. Do you have that article at hand? If so, can you fax it to me? billo From forens-owner Wed May 2 17:26:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12072 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:26:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12067 for ; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:26:27 -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 ESMTP id RAA09742; Wed, 2 May 2001 17:26:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:26:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Request for journal article 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 Wed, 2 May 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > Billo......second quote: > > It has been reported that THC (marijuana) has an inhibitory > effect on serum testosterone levels, and it has been shown to reduce > testiclar weight (7), and it has also been shown that a single marijuana > cigarette significantly reduces luteinizing hormone in human males (8) and > females (9). In males luteinizing hormone stimulates the interstitial > endocrinocytes in the testes for production and secretion of testosterone. > Um, it may be a second quote, but it's to the same reference. Let's see if we can find it. You *did* read it, didn't you? :-) billo From forens-owner Thu May 3 09:44:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22491 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA22480; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:44:07 -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 ESMTP id JAA05267; Thu, 3 May 2001 09:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 09:44:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Basten cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chandler" ] (fwd) 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 Wed, 2 May 2001, Basten wrote: > From: Basten > > Billo, > > Well, I'm game enough to respond to your email. > > You neglected to mention a very important fact about all of the world-class > authors and statesmen you mentioned. Certainly they employed sarcasm, but > they used it sparingly and for effect. Anyone familiar with their works can > attest to the fact that their works are not composed of NOTHING BUT sarcasm. > If you are implying that Mr. Wheeler or yourself should be counted as > members in the group you listed simply because you employ sarcasm in your > writings, you need to be corrected. You two wield sarcasm like a ham-handed > oaf, not with the delicate and deadly grace employed by the vituosos to whom > you would compare yourself. Sigh. Let me remind you of your claim: "Sarcasm is the acknowledged weapon of the weak, and "flaming" members of an online community really ought to be left to those communities that cater to a less sophisticated audience." The implication here is clearly that it is not the acknowledged weapon of the strong. Your reply is a *different* claim, and is frankly irrelevant to the one to which I responded. It is a common pattern in net discussions: 1) "Only ham-handed oafs do A" 2) "Well, actually, Abe Lincoln did A" 3) "Yeah, well you're no Abe Lincoln. You're a ham-handed oaf." The classic example, of course, was its use by Lloyd Benson against Dan Quayle -- " I knew JFK. I worked with JFK. And let me tell you, you're no JFK," or words to that effect. It was so effective that the fact that the claim of association turned out to be a lie was unimportant. OK, I'm no Abe Lincoln. However, whether or not I, or anybody, *is* Abe Lincoln doesn't really change the fact that the first assertion is wrong. So. We now agree that sarcasm is the acknowledged weapon of the strong, not just the weak. The implication that the use of sarcasm itself implies "weakness" is wrong. Good. We can move on to the real substance of your posts -- your declamation against personal attacks as a way of making personal attacks. I will address your specific attacks wrt style and oeuvre later. But first let's address your main points. That's what important, after all. Your claims are simple: 1) Sarcasm is unprofessional and should not be used on a professional mailing list. 2) Personal attacks are unprofessional and should not be done on a professional mailing list. We have already pretty much dealt with #1, so I'll save final comments on sarcasm until later. Let's deal with #2. You claim that personal attacks are unprofessional and should be taken to email rather than posted publicly. However, it is clear that you do not believe this when it comes to your own writing. Were you to apply your rules to yourself, your posting attacking Shawn would have been sent by email, not posted generally. Were you to apply your rules to yourself, your reply, which is a much more direct personalized attack, would never have made it to the list. And you can't claim it was in response to a personal attack -- there was *nothing* in my post which could be considered a personal attack. Thus, while your words say one thing, your actions say another. Oh, certainly, you manage to drape a few wiggle words around your invective. There's nothing like a little plausible deniability. Let's see what you say: 1) You call him an "idiot." 2) You claim he has the "emotional maturity of a 13-year-old boy." 3) You claim his posts are "utterly devoid of any sort of forensic information." 4) You accuse him of "juvenile temper tantrums." 5) You accuse him (and me) of being "a ham-handed oaf." 6) You accuse him of "whiny, half-assed name calling." Oh, sure, you throw in wiggle words. You can come back with "I didn't call him an idiot, I said people probably *think* he's an idiot." Be honest. It's there. Now, all of this may be true. I don't know Shawn. I don't know Turvey. I don't know Casey. I don't tend to read any of their posts often. That's not why I responded. But it doesn't matter; your complaint is about form. Let's see what your solution is: "If you have issues with the credibility of other members, and if you MUST air them before the group, why don't you post in a more credible manner? Here's a suggestion: 'My experience with these individuals leads me to question their credibility. Members who are considering attending their seminars would be wise to research their professional qualifications. Please email me at shawn_wheeler@hotmail.com for further explanation.' " Good advice. Why didn't you apply it to yourself? And this is my Usenet Peeve #125, and why I bothered to respond in the first place. You didn't apply it to yourself because you don't believe it. You think that when *Shawn* writes personal attacks, he should be restrained and/or take it to email. When *you* write personal attacks, however, it is on right and fitting that you post it to the world and bask in the supporting email that comes back from people who agree with you. It never ceases to amaze me how self-determined arbiters of propriety in nettiquete decline to apply their rules to themselves. If you don't like personal attacks in public forums, then stop doing it. Now back to your first point. We have now agreed that, in fact, sarcasm can be powerful, with "deadly grace." Then, unfortunately, you stray into frank untruth. You claim that I compare myself and/or Shawn favorably to Shakespeare et al. This simply untrue. And you know it. Where do I make that claim? I do not. The only self-reference is one in which I explicitly deny the claim you pretend I make. I compare myself *unfavorably* with these writers: "Sarcasm is difficult to do *well,* but then, our reach should exceed our grasp, no? That something is difficult is not a reason not to try. " If you are going to attack someone, attack them for what they write, not what they do not write. If you are going to engage in personal attacks, particularly if you are going to claim that folk are acting above themselves, please pay a *little* attention to the truth. Your further criticism that we *only* write sarcasm and that we do it badly is false in the first case and simply mean in the second. Have you *really* studied my oeuvre that closely? Have you studied Shawn's? Can you reply without making the kind of personal attack you claim to despise? OK, we do not meet your high, "professional" standards for wit. We will try to do better. But at least we *do* try. What you call "sarcasm" is for the most part *not* sarcasm, if you look at the actual definition. It is merely attempt at wit. And, OK, we fail. So sue me. I'm a work in progress. Your solution seems to be to engage in personal attack without even attempting wit or humor. There I will not accuse you of hypocrisy. > > [To everyone who emailed their support directly to my email address, please > accept my thanks here. I appreciate your comments and wish I had the time > to thank each of you individually.] > And, finally, USENET cliche #12, the appeal to all the unposted support. Yes, of course. Me too. Thanks to the many of you who wrote to support me. Next time send money. billo From forens-owner Thu May 3 10:01:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA22837 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (mail.webster.k12.mo.us [204.184.92.241]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22832 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.webster.k12.mo.us (204.184.92.1) by mail.webster.k12.mo.us with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.0); Thu, 3 May 2001 09:02:53 -0500 Message-ID: <3AF1637C.B0630EA2@mail.webster.k12.mo.us> Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 08:56:12 -0500 From: Jeanette Hencken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Oliver CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Request for journal article References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I would really appreciate getting to see this also. You can fax it to me or attach to email. Fax: 314-963-6483 Jeanette Hencken Bill Oliver wrote: > In a recent exchange, a respondent claimed that humans can > lose up to 50% of testicular weight due to marijuana smoking. > > When pressed for some citation for this, I was referred > to an article by Wenger et al., in a 1992 article in a > journal called "Neurobiology and Neuropharmacology." > > After some searching, I now find that there is no such > journal. There was, however, a book published by CRC > called "Neurobiology and Neuropharmacology" in 1992. > > I do not have access to this book. While I will put in > a request through interlibrary load tomorrow, the history > of my library is that this takes at least a week. > > If any of you tox types out there have a copy of this > book, can find within it an article by Wenger on > the effects of marijuana on testicular atrophy, and > can fax it to me, I would greatly appreciate it. > > Send me email and I will f/u with a working fax number > (the one in our main office is down). > > Thanks! > > billo From forens-owner Thu May 3 10:58:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23651 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA23641; Thu, 3 May 2001 10:58:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Puffy0495@aol.com Received: from Puffy0495@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id o.80.a868dec (25107); Thu, 3 May 2001 10:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <80.a868dec.2822cbf5@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:57:57 EDT Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chan... To: billo@radix.net, cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu 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 Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Don't you people have work to do....or do you always sit around and argue over the stupidest crap???? Scott C. Milne From forens-owner Thu May 3 11:28:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA24209 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24194 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 11:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-93.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.93]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.3/8.11.3/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id f43FS6L20154 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 08:28:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010503082602.00aadbb0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 08:27:11 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chan... In-Reply-To: <80.a868dec.2822cbf5@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 5/3/01 -0400, Puffy0495@aol.com wrote: >Don't you people have work to do....or do you always sit around and argue >over the stupidest crap???? > >Scott C. Milne It's proof of the adage that "all work and no play make Jack a dull boy." Pete Barnett From forens-owner Thu May 3 19:38:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00551 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00546 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 3 May 2001 23:38:08 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:28:47 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 19:28:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D428.CCBB9640" 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_01C0D428.CCBB9640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" WARNING - ANOTHER TEDIOUS DEBATE BETWEEN BOB AND BILL (but perhaps useful, or at least entertaining, to some). Billo wrote: >No, you missed my point. Let me be more succinct (gasp). >Leave aside the rather special cases of board exams, bar exams, etc., >and concentrate on the kind that the original respondent complained >was proliferating. That kind of certification denotes specific >training in limited, practical skill sets. They represent "final >exams" for limited course sets. That's the essence of my first >response. OK, all well and good IMHO - that's what they _should_ do. >However, they do *not* represent any yardstick of "mastery." There >is nothing inherent in a MS in Computer Science that will guarantee >that an applicant has had training in coding in C++. Certification >in C++ programming demonstrates that someone has spent some time >learning C++ syntax. It does *not* demonstrate they can write a >decent piece of code -- any more than a multiple choice grammar >exam can can demonstrate that someone can write a novel. >Reliance on certification is like saying Stephen King can't >write a bestseller because he doesn't have a degree in >creative writing. And that's the essence of my response >to you. In your examples, I agree, but then they are not of the type I am addressing. You apparently indicate that the certification exams you refer to are simply tests of "book knowledge" that have no practical interpretive component. However, there are ways to address that. One is with hands-on proficiency/competency testing as a supplement to the written exam. Another is an oral exam which asks the candidate to interpret a set of conditions to solve a practical problem. Yet another is to use more sophisticated written questions that address practical competency issues rather than simple facts and figures (e.g., essay questions, as in "Write a program loop that will accomplish the following..." or "Examine the following code and de-bug it:"; or interpretive questions, as in "Examine the following code. Which of the below choices indicates a fatal error in the code:" or "This code is inefficient for which one of the following reasons:" or "Which of the following choices would provide superior performance over that as currently written:"). The point is that even written exams can probe the APPLICATION of knowledge and so provide indicators of functional competency, provided they are skillfully written. Examination writing is both a skill and an art - competency examination writing is particularly so. Being an expert in a field doesn't mean you can write a good exam for that field. Perhaps the certification programs you have experience with simply lack subject matter experts who are also good test writers, or perhaps the programs simply have the "wrong" goals when compared to what you or I would have them be. >So, who do you hire to write code? The guy with the MS or the >guy with C++ certification? That depends on the complexity >of the task and the time frame. A person trained in the >formalisms of software quality control and software engineering >will be more likely to produce "good" code even if he or she >doesn't have a great command of C++; the process discipline >will force him to learn in. A person who knows C++ but doesn't >know software design will whip out some code in a weekend, but >it may be trash in the long run -- it may not be maintainable, >it may not be reusable, etc. So, if you are writing integrated >code for an air traffic control system which will involve >multiple teams of programmers writing encapuslated modules >you go with the formalist. If you have $2000 and need someone >to write a device driver next week, you don't care if it is >spagetti code as long as something is ready for the demo. ...and so long as the code works properly, otherwise you've wasted the two grand. In that case, references and a proven track record might be the better indicator for a hiring decision, but that illustrates a deficiency in the certification program, not in the concept of certification. Then again, maybe the function you're addressing (writing "good" code) wasn't the goal of that particular certification program (i.e., perhaps C++ certification is intended to indicate mastery of the structure of the programming language, not mastery of the ability to use the language well when writing entire programs). If the latter, then C++ certification is functioning as designed but in a fashion different than the function for which forensic certification is designed, and so is not analogous. >But C++ certification *doesn't* mean you can write good code. >And that's the problem. People make certification mean >something it's not. Agreed, but you may be doing the same. Perhaps computer certification is not an appropriate model for what we're discussing (i.e., forensic certification programs). There are all kinds of certification programs, with different aims, different content, and different applications for usefulness. In your examples, you compare someone who knows the proper methods by which to make any kind of code robust and reliable, but may not know how to actually write code with a specific language (the degree holder), to someone who knows the mechanics of using a particular programming language but is unskilled in the "tricks of the trade" that mold raw code into robust and reliable software (the certified programmer). I'm talking about a form of certification which would do both - demonstrate knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the language AND skill in structuring that use in the most efficient and effective way. Maybe that doesn't exist in computer programming, but it does in other fields. >Yes, but that's the point. The "minimum standard" indicated by >the board has no proven translation into competence to >practice medicine. It doesn't show that you are a minimally >competent physician; it shows you are minimally competent at taking >board exams. C'mon Bill, that's ridiculous. There are certain skills which help one do better in written exams, but you still have to master the subject matter. You either know it or you don't. If you don't, you can't possibly be competent in that subject, functionally or theoretically. If you do, you may or may not be functionally competent, but at least you have the foundation needed to achieve functional competency. It's an indicator. The strength of that indicator depends on the quality of the certification process, including the written exam (but not limited to it - the written exam should only be part of the certification process, not its sole component). >Most certification exams I know of cannot show a direct translation >from certification exam performance to professional competency. What would you consider to be a "direct translation?" How would you go about demonstrating this? >> Where one ranks among others taking the same >> board is of little relevance to professional competency in the real world, >> but if one can't achieve the minimum standard, that's quite relevant. >Why? You have not establishd that achieving the minimal >standards in exam performance constitute minimal professional >competency in any other than a tautological sense. Your statement >is a statment of faith. Why wouldn't it be? You have not established that it has no value in indicating competence. My statement was one of logic, not faith. Even with a poorly written exam that tests only facts and figures, if one does not know the basic terminology, precepts, and theory upon which the field is based, one cannot practice it competently. How far less so if one cannot apply that knowledge to make correct deductions when presented with a practical problem to solve in a more demanding written, oral, or hands-on exam that effectively probes more advanced applied concepts and skills? >And you would be wrong. Multiple studies have shown that the primary >determinant of treatment success is experience, not certification. You >want to get your cardiac meds tuned? If your choice is between an >internist at a big-city hospital with a huge cardiac care unit who >deals with a zillion heart patients a year or a rural cardiologist who >has a small practice and fills his time with primary care, choose the >internist -- even if the cardiologist has subspecialty boards and the >internist doesn't. Do you maintain that studies have shown board certification has NO relevance to treatment success? If so, please provide citations as I find that difficult to believe. More importantly though, did I say that certification was the primary determinant of treatment success in medicine? I did not, and you are now doing what you crucify so many others for allegedly doing - arguing against an argument I never made instead of the one I did make. What I said was (in words to the effect) that certification is an indicator that a _basic_, _threshold_ level of competence had been reached, not some ultimate pinnacle of competency. It doesn't rank relative competence of one practitioner against another, but rather compares each examiner individually to a set, predetermined and stable standard of minimum competence (it's a pass/fail test, not an "A through F" grade). That basic level can be attained with or without certification, but only certification provides a tangible demonstration that it has in fact been attained. Without certification, it's you who are acting on faith - faith that basic entry-level specialty competence was ever reached at the outset of a medical career, and that competence continued to grow with experience - where would the proof be, other than a physician's patient mortality statistics? (That would be a pretty costly way to wait and see if competence is demonstrated - thanks, I think I'll pass.) Experience alone is worthless if the experience is in doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons, or if it consists of the same rote procedures, never growing, maturing, or evolving. Just because someone has been practicing a long time doesn't mean they have been doing it properly all that time, and certainly it doesn't mean they did it to the highest standard. "Dr. Quack" had more years of experience than you and I put together, but he was a lousy physician. If he had been required to maintain a certification which forced him to demonstrate that he was continually maintaining and upgrading his knowledge, abilities, and skills, he would have been a better doctor (not necessarily among the best, but better than he was). If all members of a profession had to do that, some would succeed and some would fail - and the public would have an additional basis upon which to choose between them. I know who I'd choose, all other things being equal; I don't know about you. In your example, I too would choose the internist - but it's an inappropriate example because I wouldn't seek cardiac care for a serious problem in a rural area to begin with, if I had a choice. I'd go to a large institution specializing in cardiac care, one with a good reputation. If then presented with two internists of similar reputation and experience, one certified in cardiology and the other not, I'd choose the certified one. It would be illogical to do otherwise. Bill, certification is simply an objective and useful credential. It is not a panacea or guarantee, nor is it intended to be, nor did I ever insinuate it was. It is an indicator to be considered along with other indicators in determining professional competency. As I said before, it doesn't guarantee competence but it does indicate one has demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are prerequisite to professional competence. Having the indicator simply tells you more than having no indicator at all. Some data is better than no data, and a little high-quality data is _far_ better than none. >Quite the opposite. For a medical degree, course scores represent >evaluation of how the student deals with patients over time, and >has a large practical component. The national boards do not >have that. I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of the medical field, since I'm not a medical doctor and never went through med school or med boards. I wasn't aware that med school students were allowed to treat patients as I've never been treated in a teaching hospital. I thought that didn't happen until residency, that interns merely followed doctors around and observed (if so, then they would not have demonstrated how they "deal with patients over time"). But we're getting far afield now. I'm not "competent" to argue the merits or lack thereof of medical certification boards. This discussion was originally related to forensic certification programs. If medical boards are as you describe, then we are talking about two very different animals. May I ask, are you a certified forensic pathologist, and do you have the same low opinion of forensic pathology boards? My impression is that the residency and other board requirements for forensic pathology are quite rigorous, and that they in fact indicate a great deal about competence in that specialty. I'd also like to ask the pathologists on this list what they think. How about it, docs? >> I'm impressed, and would be flabbergasted if you claimed to retain much of >> it, but having not retained it, do you really think you obtained no benefit >> from even temporarily learning it? > >None. > >> It didn't discipline your mind, teach >> you how to think, study, and do research (where and how to look in the >> literature to find answers to your questions)? > >No. Well, I must respectfully disagree with you. It may be presumptuous of me (sorry about that), but I think you benefited whether you realize it or not. In any event, I know I did. >>You didn't retain any of it >> at all, not even for the drugs you commonly see in your work? > >No. The experience and repetition of dealing with the drugs I >commonsly see in my work makes me remember them, not a delerium >of cramming 10 years ago. Well then, you at least retained the ones you continued to encounter, even if you lost the ones you didn't. You had to learn the ones you have continued to need, and it's better you knew them to begin with than to have had to learn them "on the job." >In fact, the very techniques necessary for such prodigious >feats of memory make it useless. If you have studied memory >skills, you may know that the techniques used -- whether >formal associational methods like memory theaters or >more informal associational mnemonic triggers -- isolate >the data from any practical context. For a memory theater, the >next time you use it, you clean it out. For a mnemonic >stack, the stack itself degrades quickly. I challenge those assertions. What research citations can you offer that it is so? For myself, nope, I never studied memory tricks except for a few simple mnemonics like "King Phillip Came Over From Greece Spying." Those mnemonics never interfered with my application of the knowledge they helped me retain, and they apparently don't degrade as quickly as you surmise because I still remember them and continue to employ them 20-25 years later. I have found them useful and effective in non-professional life as well - y'know, things like the "30 days has September, April, June, and November...." rhyme we all learned in third grade. >Let's say I want to remember the biochemical reactions >of C. botulinum: Acid in milk, + glucose, +maltose, -lactose, >+salicin, +/- sucrose, and I have a board exam in a week. I >build an assocational stack of "memorable" bizarre imagery. >Botulinum -- "bottle" sitting on a table. Everything above >the table is +, everything below the table is -, +/- is >on the table. Sucrose is +/-, sounds like "suck" to >imagine a tiny elf with a straw sucking cola from the >bottle. Maltose -- mole. Salacin -- salad bowl. Glucose-- >Elmer's glue. Lactose -- breast (lactate). >So, imagine a table in a kitchen with an elf sitting on the >table sucking a cola from a bottle through a straw. On >top of the elf's head is a salad bowl glued on with >Elmer's glue. Inside the salid bowl is a perplexed >little mole. Sitting under the table is Pamela >Lee Anderson topless. >I can remember that scene for five days with minimal >mental review for refresher. That scene provides >the mnemonic triggers to tell me the biochemical >tests for C. botulinum. Well, I think I'm going to remember that image (and even what it represents) a lot longer than 5 days, whether I want to or not! ;) >That is how you ace the boards. It shouldn't be, as it defeats the purpose. Ideally, you shouldn't study to pass exams, you should study to gain and retain knowledge for continued use long after the exams are over with, with passing the exams a beneficial consequence. Yes, I'm aware of the gap between that ideal and reality. It's a shame, and a disservice to academic pursuits. >It's not how you practice medicine. Suppose a patient's life depended on you remembering a laundry list of drugs in order to choose an emergency treatment - no time to visit the hospital library or office to look it up, now, you're in the ER and need to make a decision STAT (e.g., "I need a drug antagonist to counteract this OD based on the vial content label. I've never personally encountered this particular kind of OD before, but I recall learning about it in med school - now what was that mnemonic for keeping the different antagonists straight?"). That may not be a realistic scenario, I don't know, but I'm sure if you wanted to you could come up with an appropriate one to make the same point. In such a case, a mnemonic you learned 20 years ago might not be so useless after all. >I consider the time I spent learning to understand those things >useful. Memorizing all that stuff for a three-day board exam >was not. Again, that shouldn't be the goal for learning them in the first place, and if the content inevitably leads the majority of students to that end, then the exam is poorly written and emphasizes the wrong things. As a course exam or final, it might be appropriate in some cases, but not as a board certification exam. Students who pass exams by cramming, instead of through steady, routine, nightly study, are cheating themselves and are on the wrong track. They are wasting their time (and their instructor's time) in those classes and have the wrong motivations. The fault may lie with them, or with the instructors and their lesson plans, but in either event the class winds up being of little value, except possibly in the development of mental discipline as I mentioned in my last post. Yes, I too was guilty of cramming for subjects I didn't care about learning and wasn't interested in (i.e., invertebrate zoology), but I never did that for the subjects I valued - which is why I retained little of the former subjects and much more of the latter ones. >Exactly my point. National board exams don't test whether or >not you can do an autopsy. Perhaps they should, at least if they are pathology board exams. They could, you know, if properly designed. >That's a matter of experience, not national board format exams. It's neither - it's a matter of knowledge, and knowledge is gained both through academic study and on-the-job experience. They go hand in hand. The board exams, as I said, are entrance exams for the profession. They test whether you have the minimum competency attributes needed to begin practice, not how much additional competence you gain over time through experience, unless you are periodically required to take updated exams. Absent that, then the certification program should have another on-going component (like continuing education requirements and credits, and proficiency testing) to ensure you are staying current and retaining (and hopefully bettering) your original level of basic competence. If you had not achieved basic competence at the outset of a medical career, you would not be allowed to practice, so you would never gain the experience that improves that competence. You have to start somewhere. If you maintain that only experience provides competence, then no doctors would ever become competent unless we were willing to let them kill scores of people while they gained experience and became competent. "Oh, we expect you to routinely screw up and kill patients a more experienced doctor would easily save, but only until you have three years experience - then you'd better measure up." Absurd, of course. You have to measure up from the start. You have to meet a minimum level of competence to begin with, which then hopefully improves over time. Certification is a way to measure that beginning. >Your description of the "perfect" certification exam is beautiful. >It makes me weepy. Unfortately, it doesn't exist. Well get out the tissues then, because fortunately, you're mistaken. It's not perfect (that was your characterization, not mine), but ABC certification at the Fellow level, for example, does all the things I described. If you doubt it, just ask those who have successfully been certified as ABC Fellows. They'll tell you it's no trivial accomplishment. The credentials review determines whether you've had the basic training needed. The written exams ask not only simple fact-based questions, but also complex, multi-level, interpretive, problem-solving questions which require the application of knowledge, not just its recitation; this indicates the level of intellectual competency in the subject matter. The proficiency tests constitute the "hands-on" practical component, which indicates the level of performance competency, testing physical as well as mental dexterity in the specialty. The recertification requirement requires demonstration that your knowledge, skills, and abilities continue to develop rather than stagnate. Most of the forensic certification programs (the legitimate ones, that is) meet a similar standard, and so they say a GREAT deal about whether or not one can competently perform the basic requirements of the field. One may choose not to participate in these programs, and so one's level of competency remains unknown to most others - in that case the lack of certification says nothing one way or another. You may be competent or not, there is no "yardstick" by which the layman can tell. If you choose to participate and do so successfully, it is a strong indication you have achieved at least basic competency at whatever level the program is designed to test (the ABC program targets testing at the level of two years' experience). How far above that basic level you may be is not specifically demonstrated (absent continued testing), but maintenance of certification indicates you continue to perform at no less than that level and that you continue to develop professionally in some way. If you choose to participate and repeatedly fail, that indicates incompetence in the subject matter tested, no ifs, ands, of buts. >> No, he/she's supposed to stay current with the advancement of important >> knowledge (as opposed to trivia) in his/her field, something she/he should >> be doing continually and perpetually, not once every five years. > >Unfortunately, certification exams, in my experience, simply >don't measure that. Instead, they measure the wrong things in >the wrong way, and we pretend they have some meaning. Then you've experienced poorly designed programs. Don't project their faults onto other programs you haven't experienced which may do a far better job. Again, it's the entire program, not just the initial exam, which does those things. >> Your peers can judge you by >> their own knowledge of progress in the field, but non-professionals don't >> have that ability and need some external means to by which to take your >> measure. > >So we make up bullshit "certification" exams and *pretend* they >mean something they don't. What a solution. In fact, it's a great start at a solution (if not a complete one). Unless you've personally examined all such programs, you are criticizing something of which you know little. Any indicator, even a less than perfect one, is better than no indicator at all. Properly designed and administered certification programs can be excellent indicators indeed, so long as people understand what they are designed to do, and at what level. If they are misunderstood or misrepresented, that does not negate their intrinsic value (nor even their extrinsic value, though it may be lessened). There are more things in certification programs (whether of Heaven or merely of Earth), Billo, than are dreamt of in your experience or philosophy. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D428.CCBB9640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Employment

WARNING - ANOTHER TEDIOUS DEBATE BETWEEN BOB AND = BILL
(but perhaps useful, or at least entertaining, to = some).

Billo wrote:

>No, you missed my point.  Let me be more = succinct (gasp).
>Leave aside the rather special cases of board = exams, bar exams, etc.,
>and concentrate on the kind that the original = respondent complained
>was proliferating.  That kind of = certification denotes specific
>training in limited, practical skill sets.  = They represent "final
>exams" for limited course sets.  = That's the essence of my first
>response.

OK, all well and good IMHO - that's what they = _should_ do.

>However, they do *not* represent any yardstick of = "mastery."  There
>is nothing inherent in a MS in Computer Science = that will guarantee
>that an applicant has had training in coding in = C++.  Certification
>in C++ programming demonstrates that someone has = spent some time
>learning C++ syntax.  It does *not* = demonstrate they can write a
>decent piece of code -- any more than a multiple = choice grammar
>exam can can demonstrate that someone can write = a novel.
>Reliance on certification is like saying Stephen = King can't
>write a bestseller because he doesn't have a = degree in
>creative writing.  And that's the essence = of my response
>to you.

In your examples, I agree, but then they are not of = the type I am addressing.  You apparently indicate that the = certification exams you refer to are simply tests of "book = knowledge" that have no practical interpretive component.  = However, there are ways to address that.  One is with hands-on = proficiency/competency testing as a supplement to the written exam. = Another is an oral exam which asks the candidate to interpret a set of = conditions to solve a practical problem.  Yet another is to use = more sophisticated written questions that address practical competency = issues rather than simple facts and figures (e.g., essay questions, as = in "Write a program loop that will accomplish the = following..." or "Examine the following code and de-bug = it:"; or interpretive questions, as in "Examine the following = code.  Which of the below choices indicates a fatal error in the = code:" or "This code is inefficient for which one of the = following reasons:" or "Which of the following choices would = provide superior performance over that as currently = written:").  The point is that even written exams can probe = the APPLICATION of knowledge and so provide indicators of functional = competency, provided they are skillfully written.  Examination = writing is both a skill and an art - competency examination writing is = particularly so.  Being an expert in a field doesn't mean you can = write a good exam for that field.  Perhaps the certification = programs you have experience with simply lack subject matter experts = who are also good test writers, or perhaps the programs simply have the = "wrong" goals when compared to what you or I would have them = be.

>So, who do you hire to write code?  The guy = with the MS or the
>guy with C++ certification?  That depends = on the complexity
>of the task and the time frame.  A person = trained in the
>formalisms of software quality control and = software engineering
>will be more likely to produce "good" = code even if he or she
>doesn't have a great command of C++; the process = discipline
>will force him to learn in.  A person who = knows C++ but doesn't
>know software design will whip out some code in = a weekend, but
>it may be trash in the long run -- it may not be = maintainable,
>it may not be reusable, etc.  So, if you = are writing integrated
>code for an air traffic control system which = will involve
>multiple teams of programmers writing = encapuslated modules
>you go with the formalist.  If you have = $2000 and need someone
>to write a device driver next week, you don't = care if it is
>spagetti code as long as something is ready for = the demo.

...and so long as the code works properly, otherwise = you've wasted the two grand.  In that case, references and a = proven track record might be the better indicator for a hiring = decision, but that illustrates a deficiency in the certification = program, not in the concept of certification.  Then again, maybe = the function you're addressing (writing "good" code) wasn't = the goal of that particular certification program (i.e., perhaps C++ = certification is intended to indicate mastery of the structure of the = programming language, not mastery of the ability to use the language = well when writing entire programs).  If the latter, then C++ = certification is functioning as designed but in a fashion different = than the function for which forensic certification is designed, and so = is not analogous.

>But C++ certification *doesn't* mean you can = write good code.
>And that's the problem.  People make = certification mean
>something it's not.

Agreed, but you may be doing the same.  Perhaps = computer certification is not an appropriate model for what we're = discussing (i.e., forensic certification programs).  There are all = kinds of certification programs, with different aims, different = content, and different applications for usefulness.  In your = examples, you compare someone who knows the proper methods by which to = make any kind of code robust and reliable, but may not know how to = actually write code with a specific language (the degree holder), to = someone who knows the mechanics of using a particular programming = language but is unskilled in the "tricks of the trade" that = mold raw code into robust and reliable software (the certified = programmer).  I'm talking about a form of certification which = would do both - demonstrate knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the = language AND skill in structuring that use in the most efficient and = effective way.  Maybe that doesn't exist in computer programming, = but it does in other fields.

 
>Yes, but that's the point.  The = "minimum standard" indicated by
>the board has no proven translation into = competence to
>practice medicine.  It doesn't show that = you are a minimally
>competent physician; it shows you are minimally = competent at taking
>board exams.

C'mon Bill, that's ridiculous.  There are = certain skills which help one do better in written exams, but you still = have to master the subject matter.  You either know it or you = don't.  If you  don't, you can't possibly be competent in = that subject, functionally or theoretically.  If you do, you may = or may not be functionally competent, but at least you have the = foundation needed to achieve functional competency.  It's an = indicator.  The strength of that indicator depends on the quality = of the certification process, including the written exam (but not = limited to it - the written exam should only be part of the = certification process, not its sole component).

>Most certification exams I know of cannot show a = direct translation
>from certification exam performance to = professional competency.

What would you consider to be a "direct = translation?"  How would you go about demonstrating = this?

>> Where one ranks among others taking the = same
>> board is of little relevance to = professional competency in the real world,
>> but if one can't achieve the minimum = standard, that's quite relevant. 

>Why?  You have not establishd that achieving = the minimal
>standards in exam performance constitute minimal = professional
>competency in any other than a tautological = sense.  Your statement
>is a statment of faith.

Why wouldn't it be?  You have not established = that it has no value in indicating competence.  My statement was = one of logic, not faith.  Even with a poorly written exam that = tests only facts and figures, if one does not know the basic = terminology, precepts, and theory upon which the field is based, one = cannot practice it competently.  How far less so if one cannot = apply that knowledge to make correct deductions when presented with a = practical problem to solve in a more demanding written, oral, or = hands-on exam that effectively probes more advanced applied concepts = and skills?

>And you would be wrong.  Multiple studies = have shown that the primary
>determinant of treatment success is experience, = not certification.  You
>want to get your cardiac meds tuned?  If = your choice is between an
>internist at a big-city hospital with a huge = cardiac care unit who
>deals with a zillion heart patients a year or a = rural cardiologist who
>has a small practice and fills his time with = primary care, choose the
>internist -- even if the cardiologist has = subspecialty boards and the
>internist doesn't.

Do you maintain that studies have shown board = certification has NO relevance to treatment success?  If so, = please provide citations as I find that difficult to believe.  = More importantly though, did I say that certification was the primary = determinant of treatment success in medicine?  I did not, and you = are now doing what you crucify so many others for allegedly doing - = arguing against an argument I never made instead of the one I did = make.  What I said was (in words to the effect) that certification = is an indicator that a _basic_, _threshold_ level of competence had = been reached, not some ultimate pinnacle of competency.  It = doesn't rank relative competence of one practitioner against another, = but rather compares each examiner individually to a set, predetermined = and stable standard of minimum competence (it's a pass/fail test, not = an "A through F" grade). 

That basic level can be attained with or without = certification, but only certification provides a tangible demonstration = that it has in fact been attained.  Without certification, it's = you who are acting on faith - faith that basic entry-level specialty = competence was ever reached at the outset of a medical career, and that = competence continued to grow with experience - where would the proof = be, other than a physician's patient mortality statistics?  (That = would be a pretty costly way to wait and see if competence is = demonstrated - thanks, I think I'll pass.)  Experience alone is = worthless if the experience is in doing the wrong things for the wrong = reasons, or if it consists of the same rote procedures, never growing, = maturing, or evolving.  Just because someone has been practicing a = long time doesn't mean they have been doing it properly all that time, = and certainly it doesn't mean they did it to the highest = standard.  "Dr. Quack" had more years of experience than = you and I put together, but he was a lousy physician.  If he had = been required to maintain a certification which forced him to = demonstrate that he was continually maintaining and upgrading his = knowledge, abilities, and skills, he would have been a better doctor = (not necessarily among the best, but better than he was).  If all = members of a profession had to do that, some would succeed and some = would fail - and the public would have an additional basis upon which = to choose between them.  I know who I'd choose, all other things = being equal; I don't know about you.  In your example, I too would = choose the internist - but it's an inappropriate example because I = wouldn't seek cardiac care for a serious problem in a rural area to = begin with, if I had a choice.  I'd go to a large institution = specializing in cardiac care, one with a good reputation.  If then = presented with two internists of similar reputation and experience, one = certified in cardiology and the other not, I'd choose the certified = one.  It would be illogical to do otherwise.

Bill, certification is simply an objective and useful = credential.  It is not a panacea or guarantee, nor is it intended = to be, nor did I ever insinuate it was.  It is an indicator to be = considered along with other indicators in determining professional = competency.  As I said before, it doesn't guarantee competence but = it does indicate one has demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and = abilities that are prerequisite to professional competence.  = Having the indicator simply tells you more than having no indicator at = all.  Some data is better than no data, and a little high-quality = data is _far_ better than none.

>Quite the opposite.  For a medical degree, = course scores represent
>evaluation of how the student deals with = patients over time, and
>has a large practical component.  The = national boards do not
>have that.

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of the = medical field, since I'm not a medical doctor and never went through = med school or med boards.  I wasn't aware that med school students = were allowed to treat patients as I've never been treated in a teaching = hospital.  I thought that didn't happen until residency, that = interns merely followed doctors around and observed (if so, then they = would not have demonstrated how they "deal with patients over = time").  But we're getting far afield now.  I'm not = "competent" to argue the merits or lack thereof of medical = certification boards.  This discussion was originally related to = forensic certification programs.  If medical boards are as you = describe, then we are talking about two very different animals.  = May I ask, are you a certified forensic pathologist, and do you have = the same low opinion of forensic pathology boards?  My impression = is that the residency and other board requirements for forensic = pathology are quite rigorous, and that they in fact indicate a great = deal about competence in that specialty.  I'd also like to ask the = pathologists on this list what they think.  How about it, = docs? 

>> I'm impressed, and would be flabbergasted if = you claimed to retain much of
>> it, but having not retained it, do you = really think you obtained no benefit
>> from even temporarily learning it?  =
>
>None.
>
>> It didn't discipline your mind, = teach
>> you how to think, study, and do research = (where and how to look in the
>> literature to find answers to your = questions)? 
>
>No.

Well, I must respectfully disagree with you.  It = may be presumptuous of me (sorry about that), but I think you benefited = whether you realize it or not.  In any event, I know I = did.

>>You didn't retain any of it
>> at all, not even for the drugs you commonly = see in your work? 
>
>No.  The experience and repetition of = dealing with the drugs I
>commonsly see in my work makes me remember = them,  not a delerium
>of cramming 10 years ago.

Well then, you at least retained the ones you = continued to encounter, even if you lost the ones you didn't.  You = had to learn the ones you have continued to need, and it's better you = knew them to begin with than to have had to learn them "on the = job."

>In fact, the very techniques necessary for such = prodigious
>feats of memory make it useless.  If you = have studied memory
>skills, you may know that the techniques used -- = whether
>formal associational methods like memory = theaters or
>more informal associational mnemonic triggers -- = isolate
>the data from any practical context.  For a = memory theater, the
>next time you use it, you clean it out.  = For a mnemonic
>stack, the stack itself degrades quickly.

I challenge those assertions.  What research = citations can you offer that it is so?  For myself, nope, I never = studied memory tricks except for a few simple mnemonics like "King = Phillip Came Over From Greece Spying." Those mnemonics never = interfered with my application of the knowledge they helped me retain, = and they apparently don't degrade as quickly as you surmise because I = still remember them and continue to employ them 20-25 years = later.  I have found them useful and effective in non-professional = life as well - y'know, things like the "30 days has September, = April, June, and November...." rhyme we all learned in third = grade.

>Let's say I want to remember the biochemical = reactions
>of C. botulinum: Acid in milk, + glucose, = +maltose, -lactose,
>+salicin, +/- sucrose, and I have a board exam = in a week.  I
>build an assocational stack of = "memorable" bizarre imagery.
>Botulinum -- "bottle" sitting on a = table.  Everything above
>the table is +, everything below the table is -, = +/- is
>on the table.  Sucrose is +/-, sounds like = "suck" to
>imagine a tiny elf with a straw sucking cola = from the
>bottle.  Maltose -- mole.  Salacin -- = salad bowl.  Glucose--
>Elmer's glue.  Lactose -- breast = (lactate).
>So, imagine a table in a kitchen with an elf = sitting on the
>table sucking a cola from a bottle through a = straw.  On
>top of the elf's head is a salad bowl glued on = with
>Elmer's glue.  Inside the salid bowl is a = perplexed
>little mole.  Sitting under the table is = Pamela
>Lee Anderson topless.
>I can remember that scene for five days with = minimal
>mental review for refresher.  That scene = provides
>the mnemonic triggers to tell me the = biochemical
>tests for C. botulinum.

Well, I think I'm going to remember that image (and = even what it represents) a lot longer than 5 days, whether I want to or = not!  ;)

>That is how you ace the boards.

It shouldn't be, as it defeats the purpose.  = Ideally, you shouldn't study to pass exams, you should study to gain = and retain knowledge for continued use long after the exams are over = with, with passing the exams a beneficial consequence.  Yes, I'm = aware of the gap between that ideal and reality.  It's a shame, = and a disservice to academic pursuits.

>It's not how you practice medicine.

Suppose a patient's life depended on you remembering = a laundry list of drugs in order to choose an emergency treatment - no = time to visit the hospital library or office to look it up, now, you're = in the ER and need to make a decision STAT (e.g., "I need a drug = antagonist to counteract this OD based on the vial content label.  = I've never personally encountered this particular kind of OD before, = but I recall learning about it in med school - now what was that = mnemonic for keeping the different antagonists straight?"). That = may not be a realistic scenario, I don't know, but I'm sure if you = wanted to you could come up with an appropriate one to make the same = point.  In such a case, a mnemonic you learned 20 years ago might = not be so useless after all.

>I consider the time I spent learning to = understand those things
>useful.  Memorizing all that stuff for a = three-day board exam
>was not.

Again, that shouldn't be the goal for learning them = in the first place, and if the content inevitably leads the majority of = students to that end, then the exam is poorly written and emphasizes = the wrong things.  As a course exam or final, it might be = appropriate in some cases, but not as a board certification exam.  = Students who pass exams by cramming, instead of through steady, = routine, nightly study, are cheating themselves and are on the wrong = track.  They are wasting their time (and their instructor's time) = in those classes and have the wrong motivations.  The fault may = lie with them, or with the instructors and their lesson plans, but in = either event the class winds up being of little value, except possibly = in the development of mental discipline as I mentioned in my last = post.  Yes, I too was guilty of cramming for subjects I didn't = care about learning and wasn't interested in (i.e., invertebrate = zoology), but I never did that for the subjects I valued - which is why = I retained little of the former subjects and much more of the latter = ones.

>Exactly my point.  National board exams = don't test whether or
>not you can do an autopsy. 

Perhaps they should, at least if they are pathology = board exams.  They could, you know, if properly designed.

>That's a matter of experience, not national board = format exams.

It's neither - it's a matter of knowledge, and = knowledge is gained both through academic study and on-the-job = experience.  They go hand in hand.  The board exams, as I = said, are entrance exams for the profession.  They test whether = you have the minimum competency attributes needed to begin practice, = not how much additional competence you gain over time through = experience, unless you are periodically required to take updated = exams.  Absent that, then the certification program should have = another on-going component (like continuing education requirements and = credits, and proficiency testing) to ensure you are staying current and = retaining (and hopefully bettering) your original level of basic = competence.  If you had not achieved basic competence at the = outset of a medical career, you would not be allowed to practice, so = you would never gain the experience that improves that = competence.  You have to start somewhere.  If you maintain = that only experience provides competence, then no doctors would ever = become competent unless we were willing to let them kill scores of = people while they gained experience and became competent.  = "Oh, we expect you to routinely screw up and kill patients a more = experienced doctor would easily save, but only until you have three = years experience - then you'd better measure up."  Absurd, of = course.  You have to measure up from the start.  You have to = meet a minimum level of competence to begin with, which then hopefully = improves over time.  Certification is a way to measure that = beginning.

>Your description of the "perfect" = certification exam is beautiful.
>It makes me weepy.  Unfortately, it doesn't = exist.

Well get out the tissues then, because fortunately, = you're mistaken.  It's not perfect (that was your = characterization, not mine), but ABC certification at the Fellow level, = for example, does all the things I described.  If you doubt it, = just ask those who have successfully been certified as ABC = Fellows.  They'll tell you it's no trivial accomplishment.  = The credentials review determines whether you've had the basic training = needed.  The written exams ask not only simple fact-based = questions, but also complex, multi-level, interpretive, problem-solving = questions which require the application of knowledge, not just its = recitation; this indicates the level of intellectual competency in the = subject matter.  The proficiency tests constitute the = "hands-on" practical component, which indicates the level of = performance competency, testing physical as well as mental dexterity in = the specialty.  The recertification requirement requires = demonstration that your knowledge, skills, and abilities continue to = develop rather than stagnate.

Most of the forensic certification programs (the = legitimate ones, that is) meet a similar standard, and so they say a = GREAT deal about whether or not one can competently perform the basic = requirements of the field.  One may choose not to participate in = these programs, and so one's level of competency remains unknown to = most others - in that case the lack of certification says nothing one = way or another.  You may be competent or not, there is no = "yardstick" by which the layman can tell.  If you choose = to participate and do so successfully, it is a strong indication you = have achieved at least basic competency at whatever level the program = is designed to test (the ABC program targets testing at the level of = two years' experience).  How far above that basic level you may be = is not specifically demonstrated (absent continued testing), but = maintenance of certification indicates you continue to perform at no = less than that level and that you continue to develop professionally in = some way.  If you choose to participate and repeatedly fail, that = indicates incompetence in the subject matter tested, no ifs, ands, of = buts.

>> No, he/she's supposed to stay current with = the advancement of important
>> knowledge (as opposed to trivia) in his/her = field, something she/he should
>> be doing continually and perpetually, not = once every five years.
>
>Unfortunately, certification exams, in my = experience, simply
>don't measure that.  Instead, they measure = the wrong things in
>the wrong way, and we pretend they have some = meaning.

Then you've experienced poorly designed = programs.  Don't project their faults onto other programs you = haven't experienced which may do a far better job.  Again, it's = the entire program, not just the initial exam, which does those = things.

>> Your peers can judge you by
>> their own knowledge of progress in the = field, but non-professionals don't
>> have that ability and need some external = means to by which to take your
>> measure. 
>
>So we make up bullshit "certification" = exams and *pretend* they
>mean something they don't.  What a = solution.

In fact, it's a great start at a solution (if not a = complete one).  Unless you've personally examined all such = programs, you are criticizing something of which you know little.  = Any indicator, even a less than perfect one, is better than no = indicator at all.  Properly designed and administered = certification programs can be excellent indicators indeed, so long as = people understand what they are designed to do, and at what = level.  If they are misunderstood or misrepresented, that does not = negate their intrinsic value (nor even their extrinsic value, though it = may be lessened).  There are more things in certification programs = (whether of Heaven or merely of Earth), Billo, than are dreamt of in = your experience or philosophy.

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D428.CCBB9640-- From forens-owner Thu May 3 19:39:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00625 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00620 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 3 May 2001 23:39:26 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:30:06 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 19:30:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D428.FC041440" 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_01C0D428.FC041440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" True, but "reasonableness" is in the mind of the adjudicator. The Supreme Curt majority felt this instance of warrantless arrest was reasonable, while the minority felt it was unreasonable. Majority rules and determines the Law of the Land, whether the rest of us agree or not. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Amflaw@aol.com [mailto:Amflaw@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:09 To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In a message dated 4/27/01 5:17:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: << In any event, what's reasonable and what's legal (constitutional) isn't always the same thing, unfortunately. >> In many cases that is true. And, admittedly, it's been a while since I read that part of the Constitution, but isn't the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure? If so, then reasonableness IS the test. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D428.FC041440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Job Announcement re. smoking

True, but "reasonableness" is in the mind = of the adjudicator.  The Supreme Curt majority felt this instance = of warrantless arrest was reasonable, while the minority felt it was = unreasonable. Majority rules and determines the Law of the Land, = whether the rest of us agree or not.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Amflaw@aol.com [mailto:Amflaw@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:09
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; = Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking


In a message dated 4/27/01 5:17:37 PM Eastern = Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:

<< In any
 event, what's reasonable and what's legal = (constitutional) isn't always the
 same thing, unfortunately. >>

In many cases that is true. And, admittedly, it's = been a while since I read
that part of the Constitution, but isn't the = prohibition against unreasonable
search and seizure? If so, then reasonableness IS = the test.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D428.FC041440-- From forens-owner Thu May 3 19:44:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00836 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00831 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 3 May 2001 23:44:41 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 19:35:21 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compound s under FTI... Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 19:35:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D429.B7578DD0" 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_01C0D429.B7578DD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Greg, I agree completely that the microscope is a valuable, powerful, and underutilized tool in drug analysis, but one uses the tools one has and is most comfortable with, in the manner which is most efficient for one's own laboratory set-up. Microcrystal tests are an excellent discriminating tool, provided one has the background and training to use them properly. I wouldn't be surprised if MDA and MDMA do in fact have distinguishable crystals with the right microcrystal reagents. I don't know because we don't use microcrystal tests here and I've never had any in-depth training regarding them. I could learn, of course, but it would be difficult to justify the time and resources needed to learn and validate the technique when I already have tools I know how to use that can do the same job. It's a lot more expensive than microcrystal reagents, true, but every forensic drug lab has a GC/MS, and every forensic chemist knows how to use one. Not so for microcrystal tests (that may be regrettable, but it's how things are). It's also just as fast to simply add the suspected MDA/MDMA sample to the other 50 in the autosampler, let it run by itself while you get on to another case or other duties, and later examine the results along with the other cases in that batch, as it is to sit down at the microscope for that one case to do a microcrystal test. On the other hand, if your lab routinely does microcrystal tests to screen all drug samples, followed by IR or MS, then there's no need to spend the time doing a second instrumental exam; one will suffice. Both approaches are effective and efficient. As for accreditation and certification, I respectfully DISagree with your attitude. "Meeting your customers' needs" has too often in the past meant a distinct lack of "good science" in some places, substituting slipshod, inappropriate, inadequate, incompetent, and/or biased analyses, all in the name of expediency, "being a team player," or budgetary concerns. If we're honest, we all have to admit we've seen and continue to see examples of that in our profession. A small minority, yes, but with devastating impact regardless. Our profession's impact on people's lives and the public good is perhaps greater than any other in the criminal justice field and greater than that of most other fields - much too great to tolerate anything but the very best possible. No profession (or agency) is so noble, so perfectly expert, and so completely trustworthy that it is above the need for oversight by an independent, impartial external body. Most crime labs and most forensic analysts do very good work, but some don't, and all can do better than they currently do. The "quality triangle" of lab accreditation, personal certification, and method standardization encourages becoming better than we are, helps to weed out those not committed to unbiased scientific quality, and provides a standard that our lay "customers" can refer to (something more than our own self-serving pronouncements, which may or may not be reliable). It requires a substantial initial investment by the forensic practitioner and his employer, yes, but once established takes much less time and effort to maintain. A lower case output of _demonstrably_ higher quality is a good trade-off in any event. Such programs can't guarantee quality (only the professional commitment of the individual and his organization can do that), but they strongly promote quality in a uniform, objective, and publicly demonstrable way. If everyone in this field were thoroughly competent, unbiased, and professional, concerned not with personal or partisan motivations and interests but only with doing "good science," we wouldn't need such programs and safeguards. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, not Fantasyland. Most professional fields have long embraced these concepts, including some forensic fields (e.g., pathology, toxicology). They have long recognized both the necessity for and the advantages of instituting the components of the "quality triangle." The time has come for all of forensics to do so as well. Accreditation, certification, and standardization are here to stay, whether we like it or not, and IMO at least, that's a very good thing. Since we cannot escape them, I suggest we embrace them and add our own professional expertise to make them better than they are. I think we'll find that the rewards (for ourselves, our profession, and the public) will far exceed the costs. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 11:12 To: PPDLabManager@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compound s under FTI... Hey, I'll bet the microcrystals of MDMA and MDA are also different. Gee, a simple straight forward test that discriminates between two compounds in a matter of seconds, and all you need is a few chemicals and a decent microscope! But of course, we must forgo classical chemistry and instead rely on expensive instrumentation with marginal spectral libraries, that might cause even a "certified" criminalist/chemist working in a fully "accredited" laboratory anxiety because because it always looks good to have those plaques on the wall it the lab' entry foyer. Forget about just doing good science and meeting your customers' needs instead of some lofty orginaztional body that proposes guidelines and regulations so extreme that once the analysit complets the paperwork and meets all the QA/QC requirements, his or her results don't mean a damn thing. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D429.B7578DD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar = compound s under FTI...

Greg,

I agree completely that the microscope is a valuable, = powerful, and underutilized tool in drug analysis, but one uses the = tools one has and is most comfortable with, in the manner which is most = efficient for one's own laboratory set-up.  Microcrystal tests are = an excellent discriminating tool, provided one has the background and = training to use them properly.  I wouldn't be surprised if MDA and = MDMA do in fact have distinguishable crystals with the right = microcrystal reagents.  I don't know because we don't use = microcrystal tests here and I've never had any in-depth training = regarding them.  I could learn, of course, but it would be = difficult to justify the time and resources needed to learn and = validate the technique when I already have tools I know how to use that = can do the same job.

It's a lot more expensive than microcrystal reagents, = true, but every forensic drug lab has a GC/MS, and every forensic = chemist knows how to use one.  Not so for microcrystal tests (that = may be regrettable, but it's how things are).  It's also just as = fast to simply add the suspected MDA/MDMA sample to the other 50 in the = autosampler, let it run by itself while you get on to another case or = other duties, and later examine the results along with the other cases = in that batch, as it is to sit down at the microscope for that one case = to do a microcrystal test.  On the other hand, if your lab = routinely does microcrystal tests to screen all drug samples, followed = by IR or MS, then there's no need to spend the time doing a second = instrumental exam; one will suffice.  Both approaches are = effective and efficient.

As for accreditation and certification, I = respectfully DISagree with your attitude.  "Meeting your = customers' needs" has too often in the past meant a distinct lack = of "good science" in some places, substituting slipshod, = inappropriate, inadequate, incompetent, and/or biased analyses, all in = the name of expediency, "being a team player," or budgetary = concerns.  If we're honest, we all have to admit we've seen and = continue to see examples of that in our profession.  A small = minority, yes, but with devastating impact regardless.  Our = profession's impact on people's lives and the public good is perhaps = greater than any other in the criminal justice field and greater than = that of most other fields - much too great to tolerate anything but the = very best possible.  No profession (or agency) is so noble, so = perfectly expert, and so completely trustworthy that it is above the = need for oversight by an independent, impartial external body.  = Most crime labs and most forensic analysts do very good work, but some = don't, and all can do better than they currently do. 

The "quality triangle" of lab = accreditation, personal certification, and method standardization = encourages becoming better than we are, helps to weed out those not = committed to unbiased scientific quality, and provides a standard that = our lay "customers" can refer to (something more than our own = self-serving pronouncements, which may or may not be reliable).  = It requires a substantial initial investment by the forensic = practitioner and his employer, yes, but once established takes much = less time and effort to maintain.  A lower case output of = _demonstrably_ higher quality is a good trade-off in any event.  = Such programs can't guarantee quality (only the professional commitment = of the individual and his organization can do that), but they strongly = promote quality in a uniform, objective, and publicly demonstrable = way.  If everyone in this field were thoroughly competent, = unbiased, and professional, concerned not with personal or partisan = motivations and interests but only with doing "good science," = we wouldn't need such programs and safeguards.  Unfortunately, we = live in the real world, not Fantasyland.

Most professional fields have long embraced these = concepts, including some forensic fields (e.g., pathology, = toxicology).  They have long recognized both the necessity for and = the advantages of instituting the components of the "quality = triangle."  The time has come for all of forensics to do so = as well.  Accreditation, certification, and standardization are = here to stay, whether we like it or not, and IMO at least, that's a = very good thing.  Since we cannot escape them, I suggest we = embrace them and add our own professional expertise to make them better = than they are.  I think we'll find that the rewards (for = ourselves, our profession, and the public) will far exceed the = costs.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us= ]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 11:12
To: PPDLabManager@aol.com; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Suggestions needed to help in = distinguishing similar
compound s under FTI...


Hey,

I'll bet the microcrystals of MDMA and MDA are also = different.  Gee, a
simple straight forward test that discriminates = between two compounds in a
matter of seconds, and all you need is a few = chemicals and a decent
microscope!  But of course, we must forgo = classical chemistry and instead
rely on expensive instrumentation with marginal = spectral libraries, that
might cause even a "certified" = criminalist/chemist working in a fully
"accredited" laboratory anxiety because = because it always looks good to have
those plaques on the wall it the lab' entry = foyer.

Forget about just doing good science and meeting your = customers' needs
instead of some lofty orginaztional body that = proposes guidelines and
regulations so extreme that once the analysit = complets the paperwork and
meets all the QA/QC requirements, his or her results = don't mean a damn
thing.

Gregory E. Laskowski
Supervising Criminalist
Kern County District Attorney
Forensic Science Division
e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us
office phone: (661) 868-5659

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D429.B7578DD0-- From forens-owner Thu May 3 20:36:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01401 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01396 for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 20:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 4 May 2001 00:34:12 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 3 May 2001 17:37:12 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE047F270@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail)" Subject: Microcrystal tests Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:37:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Bob wrote: "On the other hand, if your lab routinely does microcrystal tests to screen all drug samples, followed by IR or MS, then there's no need to spend the time doing a second instrumental exam; one will suffice. Both approaches are effective and efficient." I agree with virtually everything you said, and as we move our facility towards accreditation, I definitely see the benefits, and they will outweigh the hassle if we do not go overboard, but... There are some labs (primarily west coast) that do not even use instrumentation at all. A prime example is LAPD, which does two unrelated crystal tests for 6 commonly encountered drugs. When they got accredited, the inspector(s) forced them to institute an instrumental review of 25% of their crystal-test-only-confirmed drugs. In order to do this, LAPD had to hire one full-time criminalist and purchase two GC/MS's for her use. All she does every day is confirm other criminalists identifications. The best part? Of the 3,720 times where crystal tests identified a controlled substance, the identification was confirmed 3,719 times. The one instance where it was not confirmed turned out to be a sample handling error, NOT a crystal test deficiency. In this instance, it seems to me that it would have been efficient for the inspector to educate him or herself about the usefulness of microcrystal tests, instead of allowing his lack of knowledge and personal biases to force a lab to spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and hire additional personnel to duplicate the work of others. Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA) From forens-owner Fri May 4 00:44:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03867 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 00:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f98.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.98]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03862 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 00:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 3 May 2001 21:44:08 -0700 Received: from 24.4.254.161 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 04 May 2001 04:44:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.4.254.161] From: "John Lyons" To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Supreme Court ruling Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:44:08 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2001 04:44:08.0703 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB3EA0F0:01C0D454] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Apparently there are some members of the Texas legislature who disagree with the Supremes. There is a bill in our legislature (as we speak) that will prevent the police from making a fine only penalty traffic arrest. John B. Lyons Criminal Investigator SFST/DRE Instructor County Attorney's Office Johnson County, TX johnblyons@hotmail.com >True, but "reasonableness" is in the mind of the adjudicator. The Supreme >Curt majority felt this instance of warrantless arrest was reasonable, >while >the minority felt it was unreasonable. Majority rules and determines the >Law >of the Land, whether the rest of us agree or not. > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Regional Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Amflaw@aol.com [mailto:Amflaw@aol.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:09 >To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >In a message dated 4/27/01 5:17:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > ><< In any > event, what's reasonable and what's legal (constitutional) isn't always >the > same thing, unfortunately. >> > >In many cases that is true. And, admittedly, it's been a while since I read >that part of the Constitution, but isn't the prohibition against >unreasonable >search and seizure? If so, then reasonableness IS the test. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Fri May 4 08:16:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08502 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 08:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08497 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 08:16:40 -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 ESMTP id IAA03827; Fri, 4 May 2001 08:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:16:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Robert Parsons cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment 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, 3 May 2001, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > >[big snip] > > >Most certification exams I know of cannot show a direct translation > >from certification exam performance to professional competency. > > What would you consider to be a "direct translation?" How would you go > about demonstrating this? That's the crux of our disagreement. Our argument boils down pretty much to the following: Me: Certification is bad as a measure of competency. At best it is certification of *training.* You: That's because the certifications you point to were done wrong. The *perfect* certification done *right* will demonstrate competency. All we have to do is create the perfect certification exams. Me: There ain't no such thing. It's a little like the old Communism argument: "Communism is the perfect social system." "Every communist society created has failed miserably or currently is bad." "That's because they didn't implement *real* Communism. *Real* Communism is wonderful -- it just never has been done." And guess what. It never *will* be done. However, we will continue to have dead kulaks, killing fields, etc. in the name of that perfect communist system. To me, that's what all this talk about the perfect certification exam is like. We *don't* have perfect certification, but that's OK, as long as we pretend it's perfect that's OK. > >> Where one ranks among others taking the same > >> board is of little relevance to professional competency in the real > world, > >> but if one can't achieve the minimum standard, that's quite relevant. > > >Why? You have not establishd that achieving the minimal > >standards in exam performance constitute minimal professional > >competency in any other than a tautological sense. Your statement > >is a statment of faith. > > Why wouldn't it be? You have not established that it has no value in > indicating competence. Well, I have given examples, such as medical board exams, computer certification exams, etc. How many examples do you want? > >And you would be wrong. Multiple studies have shown that the primary > >determinant of treatment success is experience, not certification. You > >want to get your cardiac meds tuned? If your choice is between an > >internist at a big-city hospital with a huge cardiac care unit who > >deals with a zillion heart patients a year or a rural cardiologist who > >has a small practice and fills his time with primary care, choose the > >internist -- even if the cardiologist has subspecialty boards and the > >internist doesn't. > > Do you maintain that studies have shown board certification has NO relevance > to treatment success? That is self-referential and circular. Without certification you cannot practice. Without practicing it, you cannot get experience. There is a self-selection bias -- since the system is set up de jure to require it for success, it is not surprising that sucessful practitioners get certified. It is virtually impossible to do the study you ask for. Can I provide examples of certification and assessment exams which don't predict clinical outcome? Sure. See Scott et al. "Evaluating surgical competency with the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination, skill testing, and intraoperative assessment." Surgery 2000 128:613-22. > If so, please provide citations as I find that > difficult to believe. More importantly though, did I say that certification > was the primary determinant of treatment success in medicine? Ah. Well, then, there's the rub. You do not claim that certification has any relationship to actual outcomes. In other words, it is meaningless in actually determining who will and will not make better decisions and be better at treating a patient. It doesn't even determine who is competent, except when you define competence as "having passed the exam." > > Bill, certification is simply an objective and useful credential. It's a bill of goods. It's "useful" because we all agree to pretend it means something it doesn't. What's the use of being "objective" if the "objective" measure doesn't measure what you pretend it does? > > >Quite the opposite. For a medical degree, course scores represent > >evaluation of how the student deals with patients over time, and > >has a large practical component. The national boards do not > >have that. > > I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of the medical field, since I'm > not a medical doctor and never went through med school or med boards. I > wasn't aware that med school students were allowed to treat patients as I've > never been treated in a teaching hospital. I thought that didn't happen > until residency, that interns merely followed doctors around and observed > (if so, then they would not have demonstrated how they "deal with patients > over time"). Of course they treat patients. How does one learn a craft without *doing* it? The difference is that they treat patients while under close supervision. In a teaching hospital, instead of having one physician treat you, you have a student, resident, fellow, and team of attendings, all of whom are questioning, teaching, and challenging each other. > May I ask, are you a certified forensic pathologist, and > do you have the same low opinion of forensic pathology boards? Yes, I have passed the National Boards for medicine, the Pathology specialty boards for Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, and the special competency exam for Forensic Pathology. No, I do not think that board status is a measure of competency other than in the self-referential manner. > > >> I'm impressed, and would be flabbergasted if you claimed to retain much > of > >> it, but having not retained it, do you really think you obtained no > benefit > >> from even temporarily learning it? > > > >None. > > > >> It didn't discipline your mind, teach > >> you how to think, study, and do research (where and how to look in the > >> literature to find answers to your questions)? > > > >No. > > Well, I must respectfully disagree with you. It may be presumptuous of me > (sorry about that), but I think you benefited whether you realize it or not. > In any event, I know I did. Now, *that* is arrogant. Since you are so "measure" oriented, what "measure" are you using to gainsay me about my own experience? > > >>You didn't retain any of it > >> at all, not even for the drugs you commonly see in your work? > > > >No. The experience and repetition of dealing with the drugs I > >commonsly see in my work makes me remember them, not a delerium > >of cramming 10 years ago. > > Well then, you at least retained the ones you continued to encounter, even > if you lost the ones you didn't. You had to learn the ones you have > continued to need, and it's better you knew them to begin with than to have > had to learn them "on the job." Yes --- I learned them through practice and experience, *not* because I memorized them for a test. The test was irrelevant. > > >That is how you ace the boards. > > It shouldn't be, as it defeats the purpose. Ideally, you shouldn't study to > pass exams, you should study to gain and retain knowledge for continued use > long after the exams are over with, with passing the exams a beneficial > consequence. Yes, I'm aware of the gap between that ideal and reality. > It's a shame, and a disservice to academic pursuits. Once again: "Communism is the perfect social system." "It has never worked well." "It has never been done perfectly." Guess what. Communism will never be done perfectly. Your certification exams are like the perfect communist state -- they are wonderful in abstract, but deadly in the so-called accomplishment. > > >It's not how you practice medicine. > > Suppose a patient's life depended on you remembering a laundry list of drugs > in order to choose an emergency treatment... > ...That may not be a realistic scenario, I don't know, but I'm > sure if you wanted to you could come up with an appropriate one to make the > same point. In such a case, a mnemonic you learned 20 years ago might not > be so useless after all. There you have it. No, it is not a realistic scenario. And that's the problem -- people who are certification-crazy mistake simulation for real practice. billo From forens-owner Fri May 4 17:59:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17593 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:59:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17588 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:59:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 4 May 2001 21:59:25 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 May 2001 17:50:00 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Billo vs. Bob on certification (was: Employment) - disregard if n ot interested Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:49:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D4E4.292163E0" 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_01C0D4E4.292163E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >That's the crux of our disagreement. Our argument boils down >pretty much to the following: >Me: Certification is bad as a measure of competency. At best >it is certification of *training.* >You: That's because the certifications you point to were done >wrong. The *perfect* certification done *right* will demonstrate >competency. All we have to do is create the perfect certification >exams. >Me: There ain't no such thing. Actually, it's more like this: You: I think the certification programs I've had experience with are worthless, therefore all certification programs (including those I know nothing about and have no experience with) are worthless. [An illogical and non sequitur argument unworthy of you] Me: You're wrong. I have experience with certification programs which are quite valuable and which do a good job of indicating basic competence as opposed to gross incompetence You: There is no perfect certification program, therefore all certification programs are worthless. Certification has no value unless it is an absolute determinator of competence and a perfect predictor of successful practice Me: A program doesn't have to be "perfect" to be useful. There are many useful programs which provide a strong indicator of basic mastery of the subject specialty, which can be used in conjunction with other indicators to allow lay persons to judge professional competence. I argue certification is AN indicator that correlates to potential for success, and you respond that it's not a perfect indicator and does not provide the BEST correlation to success (experience does, you say, at least for medicine), so you are responding again to arguments I am not making. You also are comparing apples to oranges - successful patient outcome in medical treatment with the ability to successfully perform forensic drug analysis (for example). Medical boards may do a poor job of predicting the former (according to you, anyway), but the ABC Fellow and technical Specialist certification programs in Forensic Drug Analysis do an excellent job predicting the latter. Why? Perhaps because in ABC exams there are no "laundry lists" to memorize and no amount of "cramming" your head with simple facts or figures will do much to help you pass. You have to know the field, understand it's processes, methods, and interactions. The study guides don't provide lists or tables to memorize, they provide chapters or entire books to read, digest, and understand; but even then you will still need practical experience (hands-on training), and you will have to demonstrate all this to pass. Once certified, you will also have to demonstrate that you continue to learn and develop, in order to keep that certification. >To me, that's what all this talk about the perfect certification >exam is like. We *don't* have perfect certification, but that's >OK, as long as we pretend it's perfect that's OK. You are the only one talking about "perfect certification" - I never used the term "perfect" to describe existing programs. I used terms like "useful," "indicative," and "valuable." I speak of providing data to consider in making a judgment, and you maintain that unless that data is inclusive of all possibilities and is "perfect," it is of no use. That's where we really disagree. You are generalizing your opinion of a few programs you have experience with to apply to programs you haven't investigated, know nothing about, and have no basis for evaluating. You know that's wrong as well as I do, and if I or someone else made that kind of invalid argument you'd let us have it with both barrels. Those of us involved in legitimate forensic certification programs don't pretend they are "perfect,", and we continually reevaluate and modify them to improve their utility to the profession. That utility exists now, and it grows greater as the certification movement grows and improves, and as more and more of our colleagues become participants. When certification status (from a legitimate, proven program) becomes the normal and expected status for an "expert" in this field, it will go far to separate the technically competent from the incompetent. Of course, what it can never do is separate the honest from the dishonest, but at least there will be effective sanctions (revocation of certification) to use against the dishonest when they inevitably reveal themselves. Such sanctions aren't effective for forensics now because certification remains voluntary and the exception rather than the rule, but if certification becomes a mandatory requirement, then revocation will become a very powerful and effective sanction indeed. The same applies to lab accreditation. Right now, accreditation and certification are only feathers in one's cap, stating "here is a lab or person which/who has voluntarily submitted to evaluation by an external, unbiased body, and demonstrated that they meet the minimum standards for the field as set by their peers, in comparison to those that have not made such a voluntary demonstration." Hopefully, one day it will be a minimum requirement for practice in the field, eliminating those who don't measure up to professional standards from practice. Will it solve all problems and provide a system of error-free forensics? Of course not. Will it provide a more uniformly reliable system, and improve overall quality of service? It certainly will, so long as we remain vigilant and insist on setting high standards. >> Why wouldn't it be? You have not established that it has no value in >> indicating competence. >Well, I have given examples, such as medical board exams, computer >certification exams, etc. How many examples do you want? The provision of any number of examples from among a larger set of units does not form a valid basis for a blanket statement applied to the entire set - it only proves the statement applies to those examples. Examples can support statistical probability statements applicable to the entire set, but not generalized statements of certainty, and in this instance you can't even do that because you haven't determined the breadth of the set. You give two examples out of how many different certification programs that exist today - dozens? Hundreds? Yet you generalize all certification programs based on those two examples. Your examples, if accurate, prove nothing other than the deficiency (by your standard) of those two programs - and I can't even be certain you've done that, as I'm only taking your word for it with regard to the content of computer certification and medical boards, and trusting your assessment of their alleged inadequacies. I'm not doubting your veracity or the accuracy of your assessment for those two examples, I'm willing to take your word for it and trust your judgment based on first-hand knowledge. I am NOT willing to accept your generalization extending that judgment to programs you haven't examined (and neither would you if our positions were reversed), especially because I have extensive personal experience with one of the largest of those other programs, and I know your judgment of it, at least, is in error. I also have limited experience with several other certification programs that the ABC has evaluated - some don't measure up, but some do. I'm sorry Bill, but as a "general" principle you're wrong to generalize, and your generalization itself is incorrect regarding specific cases I have personal knowledge of. >> Do you maintain that studies have shown board certification has NO relevance >> to treatment success? >That is self-referential and circular. Without certification you >cannot practice. Without practicing it, you cannot get experience. >There is a self-selection bias -- since the system is set up de jure >to require it for success, it is not surprising that sucessful >practitioners get certified. It is virtually impossible to do >the study you ask for. Then you have no basis and no justification for the position that there is no relevance. To use your own phrase, "you are acting on faith," i.e., your opinion, without any proof. I'm not asking for such a study, I'm only asking you to not promote generalizations there is no evidence for. The fact is, you don't know whether there is any relevance to certification and patient outcome or not - you only know that experience has demonstrated relevance as the best predictor of overall success (or so you say). It may have the best correlation to success of any indicator compared to date, but that doesn't mean that experience is the ONLY indicator of value. You must also agree experience is not a guarantor of success, because there can be no such guarantor, only indicators. How then is the patient to judge the abilities of someone just starting out, who doesn't HAVE experience? Certification, if properly designed and carried out, offers a way to do that - an indicator, not a guarantor; of basic competence, not of ultimate expertise. It offers SOMETHING to go on when there is nothing else to go on, and it offers something _additional_ to go on when there are other things also. >Can I provide examples of certification and assessment exams which >don't predict clinical outcome? Sure. See Scott et al. "Evaluating >surgical competency with the American Board of Surgery In-Training >Examination, skill testing, and intraoperative assessment." Surgery >2000 128:613-22. For anyone interested, here's a link to the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui ds=11015095&dopt=Abstract OK, that's a very limited study, with a limited conclusion that actually supports what I've been saying. It compares the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (a periodic in-service written exam for residents, not a certification exam) with hands-on tests of abilities to perform laparoscopy. 2nd and 3rd year residents were tested. Assuming this study was properly designed and conducted (are there others to support it?), then for that single skill, it can be said that there is not a good correlation between performance on the ABSITE exam and hands-on skill assessments in laparoscopy. That may demonstrate a weakness in the ABSITE exam with regard to laparoscopy alone, or to surgical skill in general, but only evidence with regard to the one specific skill has been demonstrated. In either event, this was not a test of a certification program but only of one written exam that may or may not be a component in a larger certification program (the abstract is unclear as to how the ABSITE is ultimately used; it only states that the exam is used in evaluation of competency during residency, not that it is used as an ultimate determinator for licensing to practice). The solution is to improve the exam, or if that's not enough (and it probably isn't), then do exactly what the authors recommend: "CONCLUSIONS: The ABSITE measures knowledge but does not correlate with technical skill or operative performance. Residency programs should use multiple assessment instruments to evaluate competency. There may be a role for both skill testing and intraoperative assessment in the evaluation of surgical competency." I.e., "don't rely on a written exam alone to evaluate competency, use practical criteria as well, in conjunction with the written exam." That's exactly what many other certification programs already do, Bill (the ABC, for example). Everyone should know that the primary efficacy of a written exam is in measuring knowledge, not necessarily technical skill. If well written, it can provide measurement of whether the examinee knows HOW to apply knowledge in a practical/technical way, but not whether or not he/she can actually successfully apply it in a real instance. The latter involves physical skills and abilities as well as mental acuity, and can only be demonstrated through practical "hands-on" examinations (which should be part of any certification process). Yet even if you only have the results of a written exam, that information is still useful. You may not know whether or not someone who passes the ABSITE will do well on the practical exam (or in examining a real patient), but if the ABSITE exam focuses on the technical skills needed to carry out the practical skills, then you have a strong indication that someone who _fails_ the ABSITE exam will likewise NOT do well on the practical exam or with a real patient. That's useful information, especially if you're evaluating someone who hasn't taken the practical exam. The knowledge must be possessed before it can be applied, successfully or not, so it's an indicator. >Ah. Well, then, there's the rub. You do not claim that >certification has any relationship to actual outcomes. In >other words, it is meaningless in actually determining who >will and will not make better decisions and be better at >treating a patient. It doesn't even determine who is competent, >except when you define competence as "having passed the exam." Again you misrepresent my statements. You say medical certification is not the best predictor of patient outcomes. I reply that I never said it was the "best predictor," just a relevant one, and ask if you maintain it has no relationship to outcome whatsoever. You then misinterpret that as if I had said I agreed there was no relationship. Au contraire. I did not say certification has no relationship to outcomes (in fact, I maintain it most certainly does), I merely challenged _your_ assertion that it had no relation. What I conceded was that for medicine at least, your assertion that experience was the best indicator might well be true, and if so, then certification was not the best indicator for success in actual medical outcomes. But "not the best" doesn't mean "not good" or "not useful." I never said it had no relationship - you said that, and I continue to challenge your statement because you haven't proven it. In fact, you've just conceded that it's impossible to prove it, so how can you still insist it must be true? It's your opinion (and that's fine, you're certainly entitled to it), but nothing more. >It's a bill of goods. It's "useful" because we all agree to >pretend it means something it doesn't. What's the use >of being "objective" if the "objective" measure doesn't measure >what you pretend it does? That's just it - I'm not "pretending" anything. The programs I'm talking about DO measure exactly what I say they do, and so certification by those programs means exactly what I say it does - demonstration of minimum standards of professional competence in both knowledge and actual work product, as determined by the relevant peer professional community. Maybe the medical boards don't achieve the goals they intend or claim to. Maybe computer certification goals and meanings are misunderstood or misrepresented. I don't know, because I have neither personal experience with those programs nor expertise in their fields of endeavor, and so would not presume to be qualified to judge them. I _do_ know, however, that you either misunderstand or are ignorant of the content and worth of the forensic certification programs I have personal experience with. They do just what they are designed and advertised to do with reasonable efficacy, and they are getting better all the time. >Yes, I have passed the National Boards for medicine, the Pathology >specialty boards for Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, and the >special competency exam for Forensic Pathology. No, I do not >think that board status is a measure of competency other than >in the self-referential manner. Then you have a justified basis upon which to form an opinion for those boards. I would still be interested in knowing how many other pathologists agree with you, as that data might be illuminating for me. In any event, you have no such basis to justify your generalized opinions of programs you have no personal knowledge or experience regarding. >> Well, I must respectfully disagree with you. It may be presumptuous of me >> (sorry about that), but I think you benefited whether you realize it or not. >> In any event, I know I did. > >Now, *that* is arrogant. Since you are so "measure" oriented, >what "measure" are you using to gainsay me about my own experience? Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, old buddy, and one arrogance deserves another. I don't gainsay your experience, just your valuation of it. The measure I use is my own experience under similar circumstances. Perhaps you did learn nothing from the experience. That would be a shame because it would be wasted time and effort. But I believe you to be too talented not to have derived some benefit from any academic exercise, particularly one that I myself WOULD have derived benefit from (because I derived benefit from a similar one). My own pigheaded self-confidence (we all have some conceits) has occasionally kept me from seeing truths readily apparent to others. Perhaps your own is doing the same to you now. >Yes --- I learned them through practice and experience, *not* because >I memorized them for a test. The test was irrelevant. I disagree. It was relevant if you learned them for the test, and then retained them through practice and experience (regardless of the reason your learned them in the first place). You didn't have to learn them on-the-job because you already had them committed to memory; all you had to do was not forget them. Even if a memory fades, any memory researcher can tell you it is easier to refresh that memory when it is needed again, even years later, than it is to learn it for the first time. Faded memories always leave residues behind, and so things learned and forgotten come back to us more easily than they were first gained. Anyone who once learned a foreign language, did not use it for many years and consciously recalled little of it, and then suddenly had need of it again, can verify that they weren't back at square one - as they continued to try to communicate, more and more of it came out of "deep storage" and back into conscious memory. I've experienced that myself. Immediately before being deployed to Miami in the aftermath of hurricane Andrew, I had not spoken a word of Spanish for over 15 years and could not have put together a single sentence of any reasonable length or complexity; but after a few weeks working closely among the Hispanic populace, I was easily carrying on simple conversations. Today, 9 years later, I've lost that conscious ability once again but have retained more than before (I can still put together simple sentences). >Guess what. Communism will never be done perfectly. Your certification >exams are like the perfect communist state -- they are wonderful in >abstract, but deadly in the so-called accomplishment. You're right about communism, and totally wrong about certification. You simply know not of which you speak. You know nothing of "my" exams, only of the ones you have experience with. Talk about arrogance (but that's OK, I can tolerate one of my own qualities in another). >There you have it. No, it is not a realistic scenario. And that's >the problem -- people who are certification-crazy mistake simulation >for real practice. Perhaps it was not, but as a non-doctor I'm not well equipped to make the point using a medical scenario. You insisted in discussing medical boards, which by your description seem nothing like the forensic boards I've been referring to, so I tried to put it in that context. I'm sure you got the point, and I know if you wanted to you could envision a medical scenario in which a memorized list of data could come in handy. In fact, I'm sure you've experienced one. To say there is no useful purpose for rote memorization is to say that there is no use in memorizing multiplication tables, something else that seems to have survived the ravages of long-term memory loss, at least for me, at least so far. ;) I maintain that certification is not a panacea, but that it serves a useful purpose and that we are demonstrably better off with it than without it. After what seemed like support for that position in your original post, you now seem to take the opposite position, perhaps for real, or perhaps just for the joy of debate. Ultimately, we may just have to agree to disagree. You "know" in your mind that certification serves no useful purpose in determining competency, at least for the fields you have experience with (notwithstanding your unjustified extension of that "knowledge" to fields you have no experience with). You "know" that because of your personal experience in that regard. I "know" in my own mind that certification DOES have a useful and relevant purpose in determining competency, if properly carried out, at least for the fields _I_ have experience with. I "know" that because I have personal experience in that regard. There you have it, and there it must lay, as both our positions seem intractable. Nice discussion. I did enjoy the sparring. A mental workout, like a physical one, is always welcome. Time to call it quits though, and on to other things. Regards, Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D4E4.292163E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Billo vs. Bob on certification (was: Employment) - disregard if = not interested

>That's the crux of our disagreement.  Our = argument boils down
>pretty much to the following:
>Me: Certification is bad as a measure of = competency.  At best
>it is certification of *training.*
>You:  That's because the certifications you = point to were done
>wrong.  The *perfect* certification done = *right* will demonstrate
>competency.  All we have to do is create = the perfect certification
>exams.
>Me: There ain't no such thing.

Actually, it's more like this:

You:  I think the certification programs I've = had experience with are worthless, therefore all certification programs = (including those I know nothing about and have no experience with) are = worthless. [An illogical and non sequitur argument unworthy of = you]

Me:  You're wrong.  I have experience with = certification programs which are quite valuable and which do a good job = of indicating basic competence as opposed to gross = incompetence

You:  There is no perfect certification program, = therefore all certification programs are worthless.  Certification = has no value unless it is an absolute determinator of competence and a = perfect predictor of successful practice

Me:  A program doesn't have to be = "perfect" to be useful.  There are many useful programs = which provide a strong indicator of basic mastery of the subject = specialty, which can be used in conjunction with other indicators to = allow lay persons to judge professional competence.

I argue certification is AN indicator that correlates = to potential for success, and you respond that it's not a perfect = indicator and does not provide the BEST correlation to success = (experience does, you say, at least for medicine), so you are = responding again to arguments I am not making.  You also are = comparing apples to oranges - successful patient outcome in medical = treatment with the ability to successfully perform forensic drug = analysis (for example).  Medical boards may do a poor job of = predicting the former (according to you, anyway), but the ABC Fellow = and technical Specialist certification programs in Forensic Drug = Analysis do an excellent job predicting the latter.  Why?  = Perhaps because in ABC exams there are no "laundry lists" to = memorize and no amount of "cramming" your head with simple = facts or figures will do much to help you pass.  You have to know = the field, understand it's processes, methods, and interactions.  = The study guides don't provide lists or tables to memorize, they = provide chapters or entire books to read, digest, and understand; but = even then you will still need practical experience (hands-on training), = and you will have to demonstrate all this to pass.  Once = certified, you will also have to demonstrate that you continue to learn = and develop, in order to keep that certification.

<snip>
>To me, that's what all this talk about the = perfect certification
>exam is like.  We *don't* have perfect = certification, but that's
>OK, as long as we pretend it's perfect that's = OK.

You are the only one talking about "perfect = certification" - I never used the term "perfect" to = describe existing programs.  I used terms like "useful," = "indicative," and "valuable."  I speak of = providing data to consider in making a judgment, and you maintain that = unless that data is inclusive of all possibilities and is = "perfect," it is of no use.  That's where we really = disagree.  You are generalizing your opinion of a few programs you = have experience with to apply to programs you haven't investigated, = know nothing about, and have no basis for evaluating.  You know = that's wrong as well as I do, and if I or someone else made that kind = of invalid argument you'd let us have it with both barrels.  Those = of us involved in legitimate forensic certification programs don't = pretend they are "perfect,", and we continually reevaluate = and modify them to improve their utility to the profession.  That = utility exists now, and it grows greater as the certification movement = grows and improves, and as more and more of our colleagues become = participants.  When certification status (from a legitimate, = proven program) becomes the normal and expected status for an = "expert" in this field, it will go far to separate the = technically competent from the incompetent.  Of course, what it = can never do is separate the honest from the dishonest, but at least = there will be effective sanctions (revocation of certification) to use = against the dishonest when they inevitably reveal themselves.  = Such sanctions aren't effective for forensics now because certification = remains voluntary and the exception rather than the rule, but if = certification becomes a mandatory requirement, then revocation will = become a very powerful and effective sanction indeed.  The same = applies to lab accreditation.  Right now, accreditation and = certification are only feathers in one's cap, stating "here is a = lab or person which/who has voluntarily submitted to evaluation by an = external, unbiased body, and demonstrated that they meet the minimum = standards for the field as set by their peers, in comparison to those = that have not made such a voluntary demonstration."  = Hopefully, one day it will be a minimum requirement for practice in the = field, eliminating those who don't measure up to professional standards = from practice.  Will it solve all problems and provide a system of = error-free forensics?  Of course not.  Will it provide a more = uniformly reliable system, and improve overall quality of service? It = certainly will, so long as we remain vigilant and insist on setting = high standards.

>> Why wouldn't it be?  You have not = established that it has no value in
>> indicating competence. 

>Well, I have given examples, such as medical = board exams, computer
>certification exams, etc.  How many = examples do you want?

The provision of any number of examples from among a = larger set of units does not form a valid basis for a blanket statement = applied to the entire set - it only proves the statement applies to = those examples.  Examples can support statistical probability = statements applicable to the entire set, but not generalized statements = of certainty, and in this instance you can't even do that because you = haven't determined the breadth of the set.  You give two examples = out of how many different certification programs that exist today - = dozens? Hundreds?  Yet you generalize all certification programs = based on those two examples.  Your examples, if accurate, prove = nothing other than the deficiency (by your standard) of those two = programs - and I can't even be certain you've done that, as I'm only = taking your word for it with regard to the content of computer = certification and medical boards, and trusting your assessment of their = alleged inadequacies.  I'm not doubting your veracity or the = accuracy of your assessment for those two examples, I'm willing to take = your word for it and trust your judgment based on first-hand = knowledge.  I am NOT willing to accept your generalization = extending that judgment to programs you haven't examined (and neither = would you if our positions were reversed), especially because I have = extensive personal experience with one of the largest of those other = programs, and I know your judgment of it, at least, is in error.  = I also have limited experience with several other certification = programs that the ABC has evaluated - some don't measure up, but some = do.  I'm sorry Bill, but as a "general" principle you're = wrong to generalize, and your generalization itself is incorrect = regarding specific cases I have personal knowledge of.

>> Do you maintain that studies have shown = board certification has NO relevance
>> to treatment success? 

>That is self-referential and circular.  = Without certification you
>cannot practice.  Without practicing it, = you cannot get experience.
>There is a self-selection bias -- since the = system is set up de jure
>to require it for success, it is not surprising = that sucessful
>practitioners get certified.  It is = virtually impossible to do
>the study you ask for.

Then you have no basis and no justification for the = position that there is no relevance.  To use your own phrase, = "you are acting on faith," i.e., your opinion, without any = proof.  I'm not asking for such a study, I'm only asking you to = not promote generalizations there is no evidence for.  The fact = is, you don't know whether there is any relevance to certification and = patient outcome or not - you only know that experience has demonstrated = relevance as the best predictor of overall success (or so you = say).  It may have the best correlation to success of any = indicator compared to date, but that doesn't mean that experience is = the ONLY indicator of value.  You must also agree experience is = not a guarantor of success, because there can be no such guarantor, = only indicators.  How then is the patient to judge the abilities = of someone just starting out, who doesn't HAVE experience?  = Certification, if properly designed and carried out, offers a way to do = that - an indicator, not a guarantor; of basic competence, not of = ultimate expertise.  It offers SOMETHING to go on when there is = nothing else to go on, and it offers something _additional_ to go on = when there are other things also.

>Can I provide examples of certification and = assessment exams which
>don't predict clinical outcome?  = Sure.  See Scott et al. "Evaluating
>surgical competency with the American Board of = Surgery In-Training
>Examination, skill testing, and intraoperative = assessment." Surgery
>2000 128:613-22.

For anyone interested, here's a link to the = abstract:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=3DRe= trieve&db=3DPubMed&list_uids=3D11015095&dopt=3DAbstract

OK, that's a very limited study, with a limited = conclusion that actually supports what I've been saying.  It = compares the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (a = periodic in-service written exam for residents, not a certification = exam) with hands-on tests of abilities to perform laparoscopy.  = 2nd and 3rd year residents were tested.  Assuming this study was = properly designed and conducted (are there others to support it?), then = for that single skill, it can be said that there is not a good = correlation between performance on the ABSITE exam and hands-on skill = assessments in laparoscopy.  That may demonstrate a weakness in = the ABSITE exam with regard to laparoscopy alone, or to surgical skill = in general, but only evidence with regard to the one specific skill has = been demonstrated.  In either event, this was not a test of a = certification program but only of one written exam that may or may not = be a component in a larger certification program (the abstract is = unclear as to how the ABSITE is ultimately used; it only states that = the exam is used in evaluation of competency during residency, not that = it is used as an ultimate determinator for licensing to = practice).  The solution is to improve the exam, or if that's not = enough (and it probably isn't), then do exactly what the authors = recommend:  

"CONCLUSIONS: The ABSITE measures knowledge but = does not correlate with technical skill or operative performance. = Residency programs should use multiple assessment instruments to = evaluate competency. There may be a role for both skill testing and = intraoperative assessment in the evaluation of surgical = competency."

I.e., "don't rely on a written exam alone to = evaluate competency, use practical criteria as well, in conjunction = with the written exam."  That's exactly what many other = certification programs already do, Bill (the ABC, for example).  = Everyone should know that the primary efficacy of a written exam is in = measuring knowledge, not necessarily technical skill.  If well = written, it can provide measurement of whether the examinee knows HOW = to apply knowledge in a practical/technical way, but not whether or not = he/she can actually successfully apply it in a real instance.  The = latter involves physical skills and abilities as well as mental acuity, = and can only be demonstrated through practical "hands-on" = examinations (which should be part of any certification process).  = Yet even if you only have the results of a written exam, that = information is still useful.  You may not know whether or not = someone who passes the ABSITE will do well on the practical exam (or in = examining a real patient), but if the ABSITE exam focuses on the = technical skills needed to carry out the practical skills, then you = have a strong indication that someone who _fails_ the ABSITE exam will = likewise NOT do well on the practical exam or with a real = patient.  That's useful information, especially if you're = evaluating someone who hasn't taken the practical exam.  The = knowledge must be possessed before it can be applied, successfully or = not, so it's an indicator. 

>Ah.  Well, then, there's the rub.  You = do not claim that
>certification has any relationship to actual = outcomes.  In
>other words, it is meaningless in actually = determining who
>will and will not make better decisions and be = better at
>treating a patient.  It doesn't even = determine who is competent,
>except when you define competence as = "having passed the exam."

Again you misrepresent my statements.  You say = medical certification is not the best predictor of patient = outcomes.  I reply that I never said it was the "best = predictor," just a relevant one, and ask if you maintain it has no = relationship to outcome whatsoever.  You then misinterpret that as = if I had said I agreed there was no relationship.  Au contraire.&nb= sp; I did not say certification has no relationship to outcomes (in = fact, I maintain it most certainly does), I merely challenged _your_ = assertion that it had no relation.  What I conceded was that for = medicine at least, your assertion that experience was the best = indicator might well be true, and if so, then certification was not the = best indicator for success in actual medical outcomes.  But = "not the best" doesn't mean "not good" or "not = useful."  I never said it had no relationship - you said = that, and I continue to challenge your statement because you haven't = proven it.  In fact, you've just conceded that it's impossible to = prove it, so how can you still insist it must be true?  It's your = opinion (and that's fine, you're certainly entitled to it), but nothing = more. 

 
>It's a bill of goods.  It's = "useful" because we all agree to
>pretend it means something it doesn't.  = What's the use
>of being "objective" if the = "objective" measure doesn't measure
>what you pretend it does?

That's just it - I'm not "pretending" = anything.  The programs I'm talking about DO measure exactly what = I say they do, and so certification by those programs means exactly = what I say it does - demonstration of minimum standards of professional = competence in both knowledge and actual work product, as determined by = the relevant peer professional community.  Maybe the medical = boards don't achieve the goals they intend or claim to.  Maybe = computer certification goals and meanings are misunderstood or = misrepresented.  I don't know, because I have neither personal = experience with those programs nor expertise in their fields of = endeavor, and so would not presume to be qualified to judge them.  = I _do_ know, however, that you either misunderstand or are ignorant of = the content and worth of the forensic certification programs I have = personal experience with.  They do just what they are designed and = advertised to do with reasonable efficacy, and they are getting better = all the time.

>Yes, I have passed the National Boards for = medicine, the Pathology
>specialty boards for Anatomic and Clinical = Pathology, and the
>special competency exam for Forensic = Pathology.  No, I do not
>think that board status is a measure of = competency other than
>in the self-referential manner.

Then you have a justified basis upon which to form an = opinion for those boards.  I would still be interested in knowing = how many other pathologists agree with you, as that data might be = illuminating for me.  In any event, you have no such basis to = justify your generalized opinions of programs you have no personal = knowledge or experience regarding.

>> Well, I must respectfully disagree with = you.  It may be presumptuous of me
>> (sorry about that), but I think you = benefited whether you realize it or not.
>> In any event, I know I did.
>
>Now, *that* is arrogant.  Since you are so = "measure" oriented,
>what "measure" are you using to = gainsay me about my own experience?

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the = gander, old buddy, and one arrogance deserves another.  I don't = gainsay your experience, just your valuation of it.  The measure I = use is my own experience under similar circumstances.  Perhaps you = did learn nothing from the experience.  That would be a shame = because it would be wasted time and effort.  But I believe you to = be too talented not to have derived some benefit from any academic = exercise, particularly one that I myself WOULD have derived benefit = from (because I derived benefit from a similar one).  My own = pigheaded self-confidence (we all have some conceits) has occasionally = kept me from seeing truths readily apparent to others.  Perhaps = your own is doing the same to you now.

>Yes --- I learned them through practice and = experience, *not* because
>I memorized them for a test.  The test was = irrelevant.

I disagree.  It was relevant if you learned them = for the test, and then retained them through practice and experience = (regardless of the reason your learned them in the first place).  = You didn't have to learn them on-the-job because you already had them = committed to memory; all you had to do was not forget them.  Even = if a memory fades, any memory researcher can tell you it is easier to = refresh that memory when it is needed again, even years later, than it = is to learn it for the first time.  Faded memories always leave = residues behind, and so things learned and forgotten come back to us = more easily than they were first gained.  Anyone who once learned = a foreign language, did not use it for many years and consciously = recalled little of it, and then suddenly had need of it again, can = verify that they weren't back at square one - as they continued to try = to communicate, more and more of it came out of "deep = storage" and back into conscious memory.  I've experienced = that myself.  Immediately before being deployed to Miami in the = aftermath of hurricane Andrew, I had not spoken a word of Spanish for = over 15 years and could not have put together a single sentence of any = reasonable length or complexity; but after a few weeks working closely = among the Hispanic populace, I was easily carrying on simple = conversations.  Today, 9 years later, I've lost that conscious = ability once again but have retained more than before (I can still put = together simple sentences).

>Guess what. Communism will never be done = perfectly.  Your certification
>exams are like the perfect communist state -- = they are wonderful in
>abstract, but deadly in the so-called = accomplishment.

You're right about communism, and totally wrong about = certification.  You simply know not of which you speak.  You = know nothing of "my" exams, only of the ones you have = experience with.  Talk about arrogance (but that's OK, I can = tolerate one of my own qualities in another).

>There you have it.  No, it is not a = realistic scenario.  And that's
>the problem -- people who are = certification-crazy mistake simulation
>for real practice.

Perhaps it was not, but as a non-doctor I'm not well = equipped to make the point using a medical scenario.  You insisted = in discussing medical boards, which by your description seem nothing = like the forensic boards I've been referring to, so I tried to put it = in that context.  I'm sure you got the point, and I know if you = wanted to you could envision a medical scenario in which a memorized = list of data could come in handy.  In fact, I'm sure you've = experienced one.  To say there is no useful purpose for rote = memorization is to say that there is no use in memorizing = multiplication tables, something else that seems to have survived the = ravages of long-term memory loss, at least for me, at least so = far.  ;)

I maintain that certification is not a panacea, but = that it serves a useful purpose and that we are demonstrably better off = with it than without it.  After what seemed like support for that = position in your original post, you now seem to take the opposite = position, perhaps for real, or perhaps just for the joy of = debate.  Ultimately, we may just have to agree to disagree.  = You "know" in your mind that certification serves no useful = purpose in determining competency, at least for the fields you have = experience with (notwithstanding your unjustified extension of that = "knowledge" to fields you have no experience with).  You = "know" that because of your personal experience in that = regard.  I "know" in my own mind that certification DOES = have a useful and relevant purpose in determining competency, if = properly carried out, at least for the fields _I_ have experience = with.  I "know" that because I have personal experience = in that regard.  There you have it, and there it must lay, as both = our positions seem intractable.

Nice discussion.  I did enjoy the = sparring.  A mental workout, like a physical one, is always = welcome.  Time to call it quits though, and on to other = things.

Regards,

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D4E4.292163E0-- From forens-owner Fri May 4 19:00:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18162 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 May 2001 19:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA18157 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 19:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 4 May 2001 23:00:05 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 4 May 2001 18:50:40 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Microcrystal tests Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 18:50:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D4EC.A275BF90" 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_01C0D4EC.A275BF90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Jeff, Was the inspector's objection to the two crystal tests based on the perceived reliability of crystal tests, or on the fact that they were two tests of the same kind, relying on the same principles (i.e., functional group reactivity)? I suspect it was the latter. It has been an emerging principle in forensic drug analysis (universal in my neck of the woods, for as long as I've been practicing, but apparently not everywhere) that two tests based on two different analytical principles are required to justify an identification, and that at least one of the two must be of sufficient specificity to be considered confirmatory (see current SWGDRUG guidelines). There are those who consider crystal tests to be merely presumptive exams, and others who consider them confirmatory, but in either case they are probably seen by many as being a single type of exam. Even though different reagents are being used in different tests, they all still rely on the principle of chemical reactivity to produce a pattern of crystalline structure. It may be that the inspector saw the tests as insufficiently different in principle to constitute two different tests, or it may be that the inspector saw crystal tests as only presumptive. I don't know which. There is no doubt in my mind that microcrystal tests are highly specific in the hands of a well-trained, well-experienced examiner, and several studies as well as a wealth of anecdotal evidence have backed up that impression, as your example illustrated. However, some people will always refuse to place their faith entirely in subjective exams, no matter how well supported by proficiency testing. Many people feel more comfortable with tangible objective data (like a mass spectrum) which can be held in the hand and easily shown to others. The former relies on the expert's judgment and can only be verified through reanalysis; but the latter can be verified in the absence of both the expert and the original evidence because it produces a hard copy that is easily reviewed by others. I would argue that a photo of the crystals formed serves the same purpose, and that even a mass spectrum requires expert interpretation for reliable identification. In fact, the only reservations about crystal tests I can see as having any validity are the issues of proven specificity and the time needed to train someone to achieve competency. It is assumed that no two different chemical structures will form the exact same crystals with the same reagents, and like the assumption that no two fingerprints are alike, the assumption is supported by a wealth of empirical data. Still, support does not equal proof. The argument makes sense from a chemical standpoint but is difficult to prove, especially since the "detector" used to measure differences is a subjective one - the human eye and brain. We can accept intellectually that no two snowflakes are alike, but how do we prove that it is so when we cannot examine every possible snowflake? No human being has personally viewed and compared the crystalline form of every drug with a given reagent or reagents to ascertain that they can all be distinguished visually. Proficiency tests support the contention but cannot prove it, because they don't include all known (and unknown) drugs. One could make a similar argument regarding instrumental exams, but at least with IR or MS you can demonstrate through chemical theory that no two organic chemicals will produce the same IR absorption bands or the same ion fracture pattern - to do that, they would have to be the same chemical structure and so would be the same chemical. I don't think that crystal theory can make that same statement with the same degree of certainty, but as I'm not a crystal expert I'm not completely sure of that. The reservation regarding training time is more relevant to me. The experience needed to proficiently identify drugs via crystal tests takes many months, if not years, to gain. In contrast, a qualified analytical chemist can easily be taught to proficiently identify drugs via IR or MS in a few weeks. If all college chemistry programs provided students with as much an education in light microscopy as they receive in instrumental analysis, perhaps there would not be such a distinction in the investment of training time. If there were such a degree as "analytical chemical microscopy," or if crime labs could hire chemists who were also well-trained microscopists, perhaps this would not be an issue at all. Unfortunately, as things are, there are both. Personally, I support the use of crystal tests (even though I don't use them myself), but I must admit I feel even stronger about them when they are backed up with another type of exam. I would no more rely on two crystal tests alone than I would on two gas chromatographic runs using different columns alone. However you vary them, gas chromatography is still gas chromatography and crystal tests are still crystal tests. The first depends on solubilities in a stationary phase and the other on crystal formation patterns. I'm more comfortable using two entirely different types of exams that depend on entirely different analytical principles, and that seems to be how most analysts feel these days, rightly or wrongly. There is a downside to accreditation, but given that the upside far eclipses the downside (IMHO), I'm willing to accept the former for the sake of the latter. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 20:37 To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail) Subject: Microcrystal tests Bob wrote: "On the other hand, if your lab routinely does microcrystal tests to screen all drug samples, followed by IR or MS, then there's no need to spend the time doing a second instrumental exam; one will suffice. Both approaches are effective and efficient." I agree with virtually everything you said, and as we move our facility towards accreditation, I definitely see the benefits, and they will outweigh the hassle if we do not go overboard, but... There are some labs (primarily west coast) that do not even use instrumentation at all. A prime example is LAPD, which does two unrelated crystal tests for 6 commonly encountered drugs. When they got accredited, the inspector(s) forced them to institute an instrumental review of 25% of their crystal-test-only-confirmed drugs. In order to do this, LAPD had to hire one full-time criminalist and purchase two GC/MS's for her use. All she does every day is confirm other criminalists identifications. The best part? Of the 3,720 times where crystal tests identified a controlled substance, the identification was confirmed 3,719 times. The one instance where it was not confirmed turned out to be a sample handling error, NOT a crystal test deficiency. In this instance, it seems to me that it would have been efficient for the inspector to educate him or herself about the usefulness of microcrystal tests, instead of allowing his lack of knowledge and personal biases to force a lab to spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and hire additional personnel to duplicate the work of others. Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D4EC.A275BF90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Microcrystal tests

Jeff,

Was the inspector's objection to the two crystal = tests based on the perceived reliability of crystal tests, or on the = fact that they were two tests of the same kind, relying on the same = principles (i.e., functional group reactivity)?  I suspect it was = the latter.  It has been an emerging principle in forensic drug = analysis (universal in my neck of the woods, for as long as I've been = practicing, but apparently not everywhere) that two tests based on two = different analytical principles are required to justify an = identification, and that at least one of the two must be of sufficient = specificity to be considered confirmatory (see current SWGDRUG = guidelines).  There are those who consider crystal tests to be = merely presumptive exams, and others who consider them confirmatory, = but in either case they are probably seen by many as being a single = type of exam.  Even though different reagents are being used in = different tests, they all still rely on the principle of chemical = reactivity to produce a pattern of crystalline structure.  It may = be that the inspector saw the tests as insufficiently different in = principle to constitute two different tests, or it may be that the = inspector saw crystal tests as only presumptive.  I don't know = which.

There is no doubt in my mind that microcrystal tests = are highly specific in the hands of a well-trained, well-experienced = examiner, and several studies as well as a wealth of anecdotal evidence = have backed up that impression, as your example illustrated.  = However, some people will always refuse to place their faith entirely = in subjective exams, no matter how well supported by proficiency = testing.  Many people feel more comfortable with tangible = objective data (like a mass spectrum) which can be held in the hand and = easily shown to others.  The former relies on the expert's = judgment and can only be verified through reanalysis; but the latter = can be verified in the absence of both the expert and the original = evidence because it produces a hard copy that is easily reviewed by = others.  I would argue that a photo of the crystals formed serves = the same purpose, and that even a mass spectrum requires expert = interpretation for reliable identification. 

In fact, the only reservations about crystal tests I = can see as having any validity are the issues of proven specificity and = the time needed to train someone to achieve competency.  It is = assumed that no two different chemical structures will form the exact = same crystals with the same reagents, and like the assumption that no = two fingerprints are alike, the assumption is supported by a wealth of = empirical data.  Still, support does not equal proof.  The = argument makes sense from a chemical standpoint but is difficult to = prove, especially since the "detector" used to measure = differences is a subjective one - the human eye and brain.  We can = accept intellectually that no two snowflakes are alike, but how do we = prove that it is so when we cannot examine every possible = snowflake?  No human being has personally viewed and compared the = crystalline form of every drug with a given reagent or reagents to = ascertain that they can all be distinguished visually.   = Proficiency tests support the contention but cannot prove it, because = they don't include all known (and unknown) drugs.  One could make = a similar argument regarding instrumental exams, but at least with IR = or MS you can demonstrate through chemical theory that no two organic = chemicals will produce the same IR absorption bands or the same ion = fracture pattern - to do that, they would have to be the same chemical = structure and so would be the same chemical.  I don't think that = crystal theory can make that same statement with the same degree of = certainty, but as I'm not a crystal expert I'm not completely sure of = that.

The reservation regarding training time is more = relevant to me.  The experience needed to proficiently identify = drugs via crystal tests takes many months, if not years, to gain.  = In contrast, a qualified analytical chemist can easily be taught to = proficiently identify drugs via IR or MS in a few weeks.  If all = college chemistry programs provided students with as much an education = in light microscopy as they receive in instrumental analysis, perhaps = there would not be such a distinction in the investment of training = time.  If there were such a degree as "analytical chemical = microscopy," or if crime labs could hire chemists who were also = well-trained microscopists, perhaps this would not be an issue at = all.  Unfortunately, as things are, there are both.  =

Personally, I support the use of crystal tests (even = though I don't use them myself), but I must admit I feel even stronger = about them when they are backed up with another type of exam.  I = would no more rely on two crystal tests alone than I would on two gas = chromatographic runs using different columns alone.  However you = vary them, gas chromatography is still gas chromatography and crystal = tests are still crystal tests.  The first depends on solubilities = in a stationary phase and the other on crystal formation = patterns.  I'm more comfortable using two entirely different types = of exams that depend on entirely different analytical principles, and = that seems to be how most analysts feel these days, rightly or = wrongly.

There is a downside to accreditation, but given that = the upside far eclipses the downside (IMHO), I'm willing to accept the = former for the sake of the latter.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 20:37
To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group = (E-mail)
Subject: Microcrystal tests


Bob wrote:
"On the other hand, if your lab routinely does = microcrystal tests to screen
all drug samples, followed by IR or MS, then there's = no need to spend the
time doing a second instrumental exam; one will = suffice. Both approaches are
effective and efficient."
I agree with virtually everything you said, and as = we move our facility
towards accreditation, I definitely see the = benefits, and they will outweigh
the hassle if we do not go overboard, but...
There are some labs (primarily west coast) that do = not even use
instrumentation at all.  A prime example is = LAPD, which does two unrelated
crystal tests for 6 commonly encountered = drugs.  When they got accredited,
the inspector(s) forced them to institute an = instrumental review of 25% of
their crystal-test-only-confirmed drugs.  In = order to do this, LAPD had to
hire one full-time criminalist and purchase two = GC/MS's for her use.  All
she does every day is confirm other criminalists = identifications.  The best
part?  Of the 3,720 times where crystal tests = identified a controlled
substance, the identification was confirmed 3,719 = times.  The one instance
where it was not confirmed turned out to be a sample = handling error, NOT a
crystal test deficiency.

In this instance, it seems to me that it would have = been efficient for the
inspector to educate him or herself about the = usefulness of microcrystal
tests, instead of allowing his lack of knowledge and = personal biases to
force a lab to spend tens of thousands of dollars on = equipment and hire
additional personnel to duplicate the work of = others.

Jeff Thompson
Supervising Criminalist
Scientific Investigation Unit
Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA)

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D4EC.A275BF90-- From forens-owner Sun May 6 11:56:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08863 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 6 May 2001 11:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08858 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 11:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from iceberg (1Cust148.tnt2.coos-bay.or.da.uu.net [63.25.154.148]) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA04463; Sun, 6 May 2001 08:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000201c0d645$52a97a60$949a193f@iceberg.com> Reply-To: "Poosakey" From: "Poosakey" To: "Forens-L" Subject: 5-6-1 = AP; Lawyers form task force to have forensic labs examined Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 08:51:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0D609.CBCC7DC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0D609.CBCC7DC0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0D609.CBD41EE0" ------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0D609.CBD41EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Top News=20 Lotteries=20 International=20 National=20 Washington=20 Business=20 Wall Street=20 Entertainment=20 Health/Science=20 Regional=20 Sports=20 Baseball=20 Football=20 Basketball=20 Hockey=20 Soccer=20 College=20 Tennis/Golf=20 Other Sports=20 Newsday.com=20 News=20 Sports=20 Business=20 Leisure=20 Opinion=20 Great Local Stuff=20 Site Index=20 AP National=20 Lawyers Want Forensic Labs Examined=20 by ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer=20 FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- The National Association of = Criminal Defense Lawyers said Saturday it would form a task force to = address what it calls ''systematic corruption'' in forensic laboratories = across the country.=20 Members plan to review cases where defendants were convicted = on DNA evidence analyzed by scientists whose work or testimony in other = cases has been questioned.=20 ''We're very serious about litigation and winning in this = area,'' association president Edward Mallett said Saturday at the spring = meeting of the group, which claims 10,500-members.=20 The task force will be led by attorney Barry Scheck, who = co-founded The Innocence Project, a group that helps inmates challenge = convictions with DNA evidence.=20 Defense attorneys say juries often convict based on = testimony from scientists, rarely questioning their methods or motives.=20 Lawyers say forensic labs must work independently from = police and prosecutors. They say labs must do a better job of making = sure employees are qualified and that evidence and results remain = sealed.=20 Scheck said a recent Oklahoma case was an example of = ''forensic fraud.'' Police chemist Joyce Gilchrist has been criticized = by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for allegedly testifying to = results that were not scientifically supported.=20 In 1999 a federal judge accused her of giving ''untrue'' and = ''misleading'' testimony for her work in an Oklahoma murder case.=20 Gilchrist was placed on paid leave after an FBI report = accused her giving testimony ''that went beyond the acceptable limits of = forensic science'' and of misidentifying hair and fibers in at least six = criminal cases.=20 Gilchrist, a 21-year employee of the police department, has = denied the allegations.=20 Scheck said 25 people on Oklahoma's death row were = implicated by Gilchrist's testimony about hair and fiber analysis. He = urged members to help review those cases.=20 ^------=3D=20 On the Net:=20 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: = http://www.criminaljustice.org=20 =03AP-NY-05-05-01 2056EDT< =04=20 05/05/2001 =20 Newsday Classifieds=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Visit the Shops of LI=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Yellow Pages=20 =20 Poo-sa'-key 960 Division Street Bandon, OR 97411 541.347.9848 poosakey@earthlink.net ------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0D609.CBD41EE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Top=20 News
Lotteries=20
Internati= onal=20
National=20
Washington=20
Business=20
Wall=20 Street
Entertain= ment=20
Health/Sc= ience=20
Regional=20

Sports=20
Basebal= l=20
Footbal= l=20
Baske= tball=20
Hockey=20
Soccer=20
College<= /FONT>=20
Tenni= s/Golf=20
Other=20 Sports=20

Newsday.com News = Sports = Business=20
Leisure<= /B>=20
Opinion
Great Local=20 Stuff
Site = Index

AP National=20

Lawyers Want Forensic Labs = Examined=20

by ANGELA K.=20 BROWN
Associated Press=20 Writer=20

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- The National Association of = Criminal=20 Defense Lawyers said Saturday it would form a task force to = address=20 what it calls ''systematic corruption'' in forensic = laboratories=20 across the country.=20

Members plan to review cases where defendants were = convicted on=20 DNA evidence analyzed by scientists whose work or testimony = in other=20 cases has been questioned.=20

''We're very serious about litigation and winning in this = area,''=20 association president Edward Mallett said Saturday at the = spring=20 meeting of the group, which claims 10,500-members.=20

The task force will be led by attorney Barry Scheck, who=20 co-founded The Innocence Project, a group that helps inmates = challenge convictions with DNA evidence.=20

Defense attorneys say juries often convict based on = testimony=20 from scientists, rarely questioning their methods or = motives.=20

Lawyers say forensic labs must work independently from = police and=20 prosecutors. They say labs must do a better job of making = sure=20 employees are qualified and that evidence and results remain = sealed.=20

Scheck said a recent Oklahoma case was an example of = ''forensic=20 fraud.'' Police chemist Joyce Gilchrist has been criticized = by the=20 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for allegedly testifying = to=20 results that were not scientifically supported.=20

In 1999 a federal judge accused her of giving ''untrue'' = and=20 ''misleading'' testimony for her work in an Oklahoma murder = case.=20

Gilchrist was placed on paid leave after an FBI report = accused=20 her giving testimony ''that went beyond the acceptable = limits of=20 forensic science'' and of misidentifying hair and fibers in = at least=20 six criminal cases.=20

Gilchrist, a 21-year employee of the police department, = has=20 denied the allegations.=20

Scheck said 25 people on Oklahoma's death row were = implicated by=20 Gilchrist's testimony about hair and fiber analysis. He = urged=20 members to help review those cases.=20

^------=3D=20

On the Net:=20

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:=20 http://www.criminaljustice.org=20

=03AP-NY-05-05-01 2056EDT< =04 =

05/05/2001
= Newsday=20 Classifieds
Visit the Shops of = LI
Yellow Pages =
Poo-sa'-key
960 Division Street
Bandon, = OR =20 97411
541.347.9848
poosakey@earthlink.net<= /DIV> ------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0D609.CBD41EE0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0D609.CBCC7DC0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="insidelogo_c.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.newsday.com/banner/insidelogo_c.gif R0lGODlhTgFAANX/AO4NDvlkZYoFCbFfb1AiOc7Nzu/v8L7CyOjq7T1QaE5gdmZ1hwkyXgovVxw0 UISSoaq0vwAzZgAyZQAxYQAuXQAqVQAmTAAfPgI1ZwIzZQQxYAU3aAU1ZAg2ZA08ahZDcBM5YR8/ XzFjlCRJbTNmmS9ejCxYgylReB47WDhomSRDYzlmlDtjjERsljxdf1R3m4Kasqm+0+Lk5vv8/ff4 +fLz9E5ti2mFoJSpvcfT3vT299nb3Pz9/fr7+/////r6+iwAAAAATgFAAEAG/0CScEgsGo/IpHLJ bDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdjtUCAgprnhMLpvP6DRSJCq9djedb06v230InGm/hzz4gCWCbGqFUmwxdz4y BTd8JYSGkpOUUjcHKyWALAiKnosFDyMnD581BgUQBzE5Bq6vrjsFLqMQPIo8BTghIzu3nrIqC7on xScsn8kyMCcmMoo0BQUjKCEqI4l3jAsoKCrNJTA5NXI8sgUwNiw5wAUK16MmN4qMN9Yjo52KBS0h vOAiKgncwkaQpj3NwBkUZKKYihAoHEicOLHaqGYNRzxEkUCBggUgF9hQZ2JhoEGaTmiE2E2ixYv4 NrZ08HIPJIYnXHy8wROkjf8EECWq8BhSpIqjKlp2q+biBgwcC6gtXXoPY8MECVRkpXnNmMqk1o66 7Nosh4wDCkaEoEkVn746sqjR/Gci0sC7AhcEAECgRJWAQwATEdHixdMYMWC4gXGjRQsWMBAjxgFj heEXOCRr3syZs4wZPEJLw+Fiz4scM/AcwAEhBgQYtubUKIBJRAoZoUPTgPCCTcAXoWeA9vFDxosY NezwmPEDxgsZNULXmf3ioFdACL8ixYcRkmC84I0AGA8gwACfLVYUSeH4xYIHA/YCECAgQd3vV0QY bvMUB+XMnQUo4IACHlBAAAcGoKCCAAzwwA0G9BDKRN8UE9M7OPxCx2wQzMX/Th3mhNKNAneggoNE pdixDU0Q2DHDDgck4ABdkIRn441c6EfgjjvC8FhDjzzCwgs3+HdDJoPYtUYbDal0UZALGdQkPtx5 RaUxNllH5ZXFTLnlRVZu2WVJ+OFo5plG6AVAC2Gg6eabcMYp55x01mknGmxcwkJDNryVzIYH0OJH Qia0EMMPdiCQiiAv+HnLDg8URmRq9BTwwguFtZFNHWe1UIJlmOki6XO51dEDAtWVVFIJMiiqmG0x LDecD9GgM+SH2hTATVdkwoDKAS200YYguJq66EIi3KAhHYo+YBAbftJRz7NK3mnjDQUwuapB6/w5 xzbVqHBDcneYs8BcVVIp/wwE73DHCS6y4HDUCMXCpYs3VbYw2w0qdfRetHT0IAsEQMVmxw+6dpOP IgjscK43JxxQYgE2zHvCDp7oIMPDLqxWQqzaHJDUNwcsWwc/6DZTrbWVFMSQTdsm6dvLfLjgglU2 +ebyQU3iHLPMgZEwLHaPeDcskSyc8IINx9jgWJQ8u1DYDQ/AYPXVDzxwVJclQOaaf2A/dQN3RJet iZTZYZklzV5ZJUgLOdwSwwI3d3mcDzXIcI4fEY0VT40s2/lCfPMloN4YeSLGwg08Nu64Zjjglmgo IdkhiwwnPGMHh/fUO4csN78wMQ7ewJBrVCO0WMeLMZIN9es6B37jCiwMm/+kISv09/juPD7mVAvF DEDf8MR/UWirriCAwGqsHeCjqjXfAMEOCLgCwXs77H2DjBIlwFoBsoQvja4KGCj+OWg9YD744Gfv RwJ/lyn7/GQkvtkL4Mjj32QsSM0YZDBoCJG6ZhjKNKYFjLlUsKKkM/k1ISANjKADhSDBCBYBghUk RAY3GIkJ0u+DIAyhCEeIJhGMhwAkTKEKV8jCFrowcCnwDwQgkAOMeasOOgAWZiCAgxzE4ACr4SEP bxC7Fx7BUAfYgQGEw0QmMgIGRTSiFI3gshccoCGbuqG5LjKo6+yhBYzLQcOo1yrl7SAxwSKBoR5H mRYIITKSaWNAGLcZA/7/5ilmGWMOaJMDH+LgBkkwDCvE6EPnfKxSNyDLIEiQgiKpgoeskIOLcgCD FMyxj5jMJCZdAwMSiEOTmozBHz04xS1cgknFwMENQcSaB2DEc59rhJNUZwdU2GAPDzAZHXYAAa/A 0ge8BBK2ArgHFlDqTzOowQFuYAMYrMYEplOELFx5kSxKS1dcAQgMChCDFPDMBEPS3B1ksYAxyaNS ohgTwOZAsSd5p5RjuEQmYKaJaN6wHtawwSdkkQBvbM1CR5lKVX45hweoImLJGE3bjgEBBNBglT7I xQFOQEvLiYwr2KjUw77xgmPGMp3F+KUsFGCRZsxjYg/I5gnW6QOKYZRM/6SEJxN2IIOa2tSm8RKW Jm5w057iFJv4MukBavCDHkgHmIkcBRgN6ry6qe0N2YvqOVIarohJNXvSgEA3qlKSAxgAAelYyUNC sIAZ0CBv43uAjBLgEwVEDhaxqFr7ripVvUmDcTT4gV73qkwcGOgGb6BBXvXagx80TBoPKI1NnElT vWGVNhBoAUtdOqP4yRQLQ0ub21CSEich5bPw6A5OPPvZJ0FpWzoThIViEtrueEkj8LiIzKyjttVq 5SMh6SevTHCzBNjgHSFIQNZu4ILYsja2tWVtWKpkDHWN9R5PqqGljhtbG5BLNoityDX2sLLLToGD vhmMb1agJgEIrYFHaP/gs2QWOwxKMBx/RJLRCvKC1mSmNbxrzQwR86CrWY2OnSHNCcBotcQkUILs wRRPeMKYIw3CKQZcQUHa0MirHcllTYENEA8wxBck7QRJ6VtNFundSgzuhH5BnG8AjBjG7I93MI6B JOnwK6vhoAcg2kEOEnCxWqYCSJ4zALAYNbGJnkCVKkLHHqz5Axj1rGx8SAjObldiJiygTVYYnHzq k2Ix6CwxJ4ixmDmjijhm5haoYJcCsrIAv/qBpCrAsY+16g3P5cIdKtCnj0+EAntekxshqGhEYaTb eIQXgkJLdJWtkII1E2B45Ik0eehDAAKMABKHy5EI4DjmTpOZQZKeNPz/TNfkXcVjD9gam9Kui7dU eIgONDjHuWhCIh+n1AF+juiKUCBoc8RIYQCJ6aLplywAeZpAfzxMDPjlgv49AjM48HBvK11prdSO gqpl7akZcrbsaGQqZIkJVcgypRAvJbQrEWi6ZNINXgFu2CrcdGeY4TXHUeZqL6ibGxinmBUgEGyA ZWB3qXjezJ6EvQU3SZAOnlopHeRsCucZ1GC2toHD+4Packq+YUrf/rzgZ+GI4w32RK2bSPDiKD9D BFbO8pa7/OUwj7nMZ07zmtv85jjPuc53zvOe+/znQA+60IdO9AhkIAEDIEAGis70pjv96VCPutSn TvWWZwAEe3HA0qvO//Wue/3rYA971yXQgUcLYANiT7va1872toddAwxAAQgksHW32/3ueM+73l8u gb5LYO+AD7zgBV89AySHB4JNvOIXL9jZ2EACL3iFWQsfC0tpwO+Dd/oHWOOaGXre8zhILOYzT/q7 b2ADS58AC3TAUk8YAAIgoIAGZk8BCNxAAxTIPe0pMIEJ9L30Q9+AB4bvAWt+S1e5773vgc/8tEug 9xToWAVOClE4WKAC2P/j9bHP/QoknwMe+MAIPkD+8KPe7sInv/jLj/abY8D8fe+9oI+/gO0nfwIt 3wD5u3SCD5jAaSZAfqj3dxGAAad3gAiYgBhQgAnYgKe3gM13d883Af8a0DENYAEgUAAQRRwFkAAW YAF/1H3Yd2QYsxw6IA0fFyu5MQPL8AEnAD63kBsyuBziIw0nIAEnQAMxSBxw8HyShQfhswM0cAMb AAOfEVHCIQtM0ww20EM59AIc4Ht9ZwIx8BnC4QOosAOslxmVogAXcAEfmHsS4AE0lAos8AEboAET 8IN3oAMQ4AITYAIzdABihEgTUF815AmM8ALK93sRuHbx1zEMwH02oEvJsDwNABXc1wuIxH3GZw42 wHsTYHzYZQPdxwIPZQcnaIm8R4YHMAK5V3seVUt/5AIN4H3PEQoU0AEGwympcIoVAALi5IoL8IVg 6H0SsE2hkAGhGIr/lAhMn+h9kogMuXID3UcB67QN2Hd/BPiHaad6B9ABFMB9DTB/f6KMFnACpmAA XgiGC+AJ6PCBHTCLdaAoCQCGeqYIs6EA1wcBBXAC2GcBIbCBolExIFABvyQN52gBYGiNjNCNt8h7 GDByNsATWeNM49AOLvCBy0iMSVaLDFkBk2UDH3h9YtiMzhh2LBCNubeMFeACrHaNugKGogOOupA1 DxB6KLmSWYMCYDgCn6A8DqAAr8dSPaADbhUj8WgBibiBcxANN2ABNmQHEgIBttiPGmWL13cDHqUo aGGRv8hPX7h9LsAwIzmVEmmIFKOU3rd8GSl2HSONvdiRSOYt2zCV/0OZZCpwlBXJj7Z4FFNpAd/o evpoAVXpCbPRgbd4fQywGidQJAeAAIiSDNFwAA4wApmYZA6glP7oDkpZlrvUgW0ZlXoJhgnwAh8A MAjzAErJABPJlbyHkV85dVbxlzXQM+OnfBUwAq33Z0rpAhp4BwjjkmDIkNenAgalAhXJfRkyMZVp AbWmifoYl9c3AjwgAxBQkUe5AORoALIQIxcwkwcwmHZQAGt5ASniCTiAFTyWa3PghvyIAg8gWJ+g K8MAASpQAR5QMuWiVgpAPTNWnTYAmhQgmqMJdRKwYPp5AwvAnzegAJI4AdPoAkVRoEVxjlhZATw5 FH7VPnb1eVARAv/cN41jaTNrtmbcuZhKORQXyp0ywpbYpwEdkGGeBwMPoj7P6QfnEp0d8RFrRhNs xZIPsADf8B4P4BEeyp1r1gANoABMtWEcxi4OcH0g4FZzuGHvU5veJz0V4y8LgBURcX3kCEzSMJ9Y GZr3WXXxJ6DTKILLmHwdqaBHOaZsaZHc94FkqqTCOJahqHwCGo9pqqZwmqbb56Zden1tqaBo+oUt +hEI2pZueZQx+qSBSqa7CaiGun3KGacRmUSzUKhKaQHRoijWCaKhaZ9Z6nTKF4re56X3B307Cah5 uoybeqeian8d2Yt9GH9heqgTyqWmOqqfSoFhKoI8GlwFupj2BwL/VGOQ/7kTCqCrp6qnE9p9p7p9 Inis9mc6CMCOp9oAm0IDlIoDY8qQWJqpVLelpcqlq6qtvagAeyEAEtCmved33tqLX6qq3cpy2joB +KCuUjgBHeAUNhAC9AphT5FAREI1/uVfVTNcF5iu0OYfWAMD9Yeq0CegsJqwCgurbNqmvPewa9p7 GmADDUUDZxGkj6ULhJqoyeeH2Dp1f2euJIupEdB3GgCu89EBGGCuMTeyEziy5Vqufuh3E8ABHdAB Ueim/mcYzDQC0ripLgA2RFu0Rlu0/WEWXyUNqyE90JEDBEu0/ykO0+pMy1EDO0AaO4uDfYQAOkAO OqhEJ5ABNzAO/01kKb3nAZFDKctxAJEYqx4pjHoKqdZ6qSELeBhQXhUAskTXdx/QH/7xAuNXJGED uIV7tIibuKwRHXRwgqHgAgkAA28RDaIwEmk5GzgQihJjKoHCexFgAndQmGMzf8vjtplDlLrgpao7 t7v5pVJ4t3onAS4QrgRQAfjHdHHILxQwsEhruIr7u8A7pYpie+9hB9GAAAlAfRuiCxW5udX5AN6n jbb2gdl5Tc4Kmex0ACEQkWvKqZ06ljRrsrCbdiNQXgTgABrgdBKwAY7QhDwBvPAbv0f7FK0hZ1io K2zlVoJ1WO5gAdS5vNT6hc5rL7oJk7b2hdV7fN2IvRJyAC5Zt/9u6qY2K4XiO748pyADkAAdUHc2 twEhoACEMx/oO3sVjHNbOnwd4AEUQK++K78ubLSqgCALYh5ZowCmwyEaOpVgeJRTOhucKcBFtpgq gFIInCsLfAe0oaEWWZ8lbMFNhwJmF2nmMQBUXMVUDGrj8QXoSwEny8E/JwGbRxkF9MJkDL8zvBfy QR4yYjpnocSKKpcd4gDkiLm2OMCgIDJfOMQHjJ1G/IUMnMRxealN7MRNJwEaMHwgIBEXQG3UBoYN kLMb0LJ8O3QZwL5lfMnAa7AKEGqTRh8XoAE2xAPNOqSx6AIGtZDxiFBzIMpGCcQak1UImsflwktF rIkO48clIgP/bnythPx1zeiyfCd1zxfGmHzJgHU1J4CsDNAUD2B2xUMAF1AB7zcCBEo1w/WksYeu Z9oADsBWNjqjdBMCDUCmSOEPLEERbOEPM0ER1aDOfcMV/Ih95drL9Mx3J9DCxYy4VgOP0wgCLmAD H+CRGjACTsECvNiLBYgBCn2yK8eqrIusFNq9sUqcbRmp9je31SqqGV3R1dqVvVfPIH2y8zq/+Ry4 24t9DJDNAsoBH7A4/8UCHjCukjjJLjfBXaqgxwiv0HfTqxuPwrjTZ2qbqtu6XxrUePrTXhnShPx8 LXwDsDh9RtvCJzCItqo0EBZtBekcLvAB5cqMNC1zE7ytfRi+bA39dwkribParROosAEawW0dwdza sKuq1CANxletfR/Li4SLA/AYtxTQAE0YNpgZhbjHpqua1EFXsphXwoq92DQ3egzNrpBd1sA8yHSN rc9n2AQ4gRSQARrg0b3XTH90htk8089Hsped2m4XBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0D609.CBCC7DC0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="apple120.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.newsday.com/ads/apple120.gif R0lGODlheABaANX/AAAAAP///+QTFuUXGegYGuUaG+YbHekdH+YdH+ggIusjJetFRuxaXet2d+qH iew2O+qcnuTGx+S0vtrW1+DN1N3U2dbU19XW1tPX1sDUztDU0mO2iJ3PtCOXU8vc0sPczNTa1sjJ yK+vrt3Y1dvZ2KJvV+S+sYtGMeLRzI4/LnsoGMOcmNfV1YWEhNjY2NfX19TU1M/Pz729vZ+fn2ho aFhYWEpKSkNDQzo6OiQkJBYWFgsLCwQEBAMDAwEBAf///ywAAAAAeABaAEAG/8CXcEgsGo/IpHLJ bDqfzBtgeoNak7BcTjcFXL/gooY2FQlhsyktOdUdQ9yqkAxoXYzk3kzYmgpDPQA0MEY5AG4vGBsd jIwcGGFLF3R7SHQtRlM7MkZ9gncveXJEMYY7IXx+FzFcOUeGo0MWGYuNIC8rKiorJC6RYDI9gV0A wphGUsTDrr9EEAIJCQjT1AMQz9MHCAbbBtwGBQgH3NMDDyNRU5zIU8dCMobKh+s5wwA5MTTCO8I9 OpVDpFSRQUzZuhcNDkjTZmBcAW/aCkj0JrGit4sXD2hUyMABqCPJDhYRUUzODWE3Wsy4QOhFMXcv PCFJA+BgskEXpGxSAoHAwv9x3R6Gs9hw48YEGsVFM8BgwpELH4tEZTL1RdUmUIlcYGEVxlUlFSA8 ULCRgAIFC8aSVahRAQMKFuK2UCnClxIcQmy48OXChhC8LWjYbSGjRY0aF2bMrbHjBQsdLmb4/SsE 0Qu8L2ygCoEDRw0ails2G026tOnTpb0IuTMjxgstojMD2KODBo0cFz7T8LHDtmUhflzy+FN3hobi d7yYIS5khgxULoeobtHYS44awFFr3869u/fv3wn2qEJHpJAYMtIrRiXiBhcdNwCmT6/yRYwW9Xbk oAF9iMwiM9yWww00LAdeEsHcc8OCDJ5UTGzS9QDTEBeIdwwZvxUhBTMywSD/BXwNhjiIEC7U0ggj HxSRiwolkADFKi2IIJIMMq5GY38v0NiCay71QANUiqkUggZ4BBfCXDGSIkNsISw5hGI0JBmbCyYs gIBECAwgwAAMvDDBCA4okKUAWw5gpgELmIAOVasYIuELMMCgAUs07KCOd1BdEMcTESiEQALhBGUA oEQRhVFDF1FTwAJ2IZEMiAzG4yMRMujQAzP+vUSEJ2tIhSGPLwiUoyE0EIlEBQ8slRE4EiWA6AAF HADrQ4ceJY00CkTAFaWchBDPDTNSV0ynMZREioNvSqHYFDie4YmBG2pVyqXNDuFCBWRFg5RRCZxl FFl/atStAoA+QIETLeAw/1kTInSWA2ZM4GDggfR+0agRWQnRCxFxGoEDdJz1t2+9BBdscBjEtNvO f9KtpI8gkS2sRhFeCDJDDzHpR1JmflVsSAsueNICDKplB1wXyZ0821cHt+yyEYXJwPLLNCvBaSAT 1stwzZLUkwORGhiSA4QzEBhPPfHRV894odBwg5339CajCHUCsIMIoLQQyBC+qjGDYsnc0BIGHDCy QYrg0bSfbb4FAhDFdUDY3BR7THJpEgIRqbVqJ/XG9t/J7OFC2SeiyF1+1eZIxRHtIPGsVfoMjcSe MW0dyiGgarUFjxdMQHjht7Awwgm6rOCUFckQo59+nMCjX0FWj9jGFAO61//GQXYfYvWCOUC9htMO KhgfHTswaKmEGuxqBAwWxMBBDCmoIMNeQ5xe8MRUPczdCAwIMM2t0gwgAQkNwMpNNNN4k/420JiA oDCwB9JPD8XPC4qcGmjQLxJ3XJC//mf4yAygpoaZEYEFDhjAn6iRvqGojyLdUF83xEEOcCAABUt4 Wk2OQJBPgOckNzDVEiyQkFttYyIPuVJFVohCWtHKG9pCCgRYoDwN2WlttrnB0eZFE3fQKRDQgYon BPGC5MHpYoIQzdNC+AdSXaUn0kAAWVI4EVZVxHxWjEhR/qQtBDhACRo0z3nqscEhFMZpxxsGTPYm QiIgUWZCeJoWigEAsSX/wQVQnCBFClUAM1URIuNoSAwTMIAGZNBOcCxSHRIzBbmRZJFkUIzljPBG UIjKP4HoFBKg2EVwrIpbbdmWuMjlqgZYjwhw0IQWdMCFguxHBkY8Dx3gV0ca2QN2dLscLmE3sl2O iAgTYIEEyHKWYh7AWwqJ4VmQIg0CMKACMajRanhWLwu4IC4VsKYFXnDNuFggm94E5jaX0C4d1CAE IahBZ87ZLi3sh0Sn4KYOSJAuHOSgBTbYgQ4Co4UavKtdOKBBZyrRAh3goDY26ExCqbkEzNQAE/TE zmWMcLUXhMAvOPCFCHaAFxHYIAcuosxERarOgMKjFzBYF0NXSiKWuvSl/zCN6YFq8rUX+OCdtjGC HkJxmDX4iAww8GgsXCKCgm7UJXMRBglyWrHkXKAOZIiOdGhQg41lp2JDmJdMt8rVrnr1q2AN60js VFGCsYIYGdoqDI5ntczVawzB8eqHslBHA3Jnb1+lxAuQOCEY0KELgenHFFCigQ52YRNukp8/3rYz GSRjGJnMnAc4gDZ6PXJELKCDVs3YhRuwYH+hEkZr7nAS+iUSKhu9ByZL9jQ9xEA0IruDIk7EAfCs 9RCkuCEbiLi8PKzjYYlEZSb5YLnHdUIYnJht4TgQUu3kpAvzs8cv4ZazdzTucrh5yoeIy7diRFew ZRCCBwpntnu9YATPqf/hFS7gibcNIQ/V1dQRHlkJMmAKGXerXHeHmoQLjJe8G2huCHSxi+ZeQQQo SQLipmIsfG2IR5o9Qg+5e8RcUlIYOLLA5xrhIheUoHTmhQIa5DeyI/i1De7twj82FQgdgOphPgqi Y6+rX+h44gb98RD9sLY8DdCCER4wQekGZgW67rIHZkDwLutICDUUVBk0MA9wUxeIe8JpyaV68vxy YJwikMAEEGAAAxoAATVNQAYSYAEKwOyABozZASaIwJq+kC/HGHBYUrHEJPuLr6jEKU5RGUEDWoW+ aSiAAnh8gPe+d0JtAIpLEeCODJZ1qa9tNqtF85oIEhcGEnTPhN8rgAP/yOe9CjLwgdVQAAaRUFTn YDpIKnHrBXxVu0jlQIyhgBTv3kmaCHQxUFfiRh8Ddahiq88h1lCvfXq3BejWOh5WKzF3RLBKKsgN CRN4wKDS9409WtGTFOl2IKnBDQF8UdkBuZNjKJQHTXpHIHYVAgQGEEUXhsOKK/Q2C7u9je+hAN1x DASuH8nfALlnQDvi2tQIcwcZAC9KcgMhIQITpbmwTTQl5LagTshCLKnvhRRJpqscEOKACLwIMNCa P0IAiqD5I0Y0epgcKG4n+NTxawEiq0jgvVdK37M+Q2jAoJAS7CjuEUvDzvc3HmKrBDzAAdcO+Hfh ByzRsLfKI7GwVW7c/8Y4qjbddoSHINwqBAv4mujdZtUeD4DCpV+E6eJKpgAkwDIHuTeoN0GltOFU UGNsKryUVHeoaukmJyWhAT4JCtsNlXSls2UhzBTHAk6J3zIed5H20WAXBpSGN62W1YIPnm1wBpYH +Ekj4La3UMy3EXGMI5kLJIAEMnhyCU9MPO6OECbqVJg9u1HddhsaDFiQSv4SAVXbRl/qwX0ULsa9 W9oiQKRpD4BLp7YHIUCD4FdTWkycpKi+z2roxxMbMuzkCHthgE/IFciiGOUozx8kl4iMSgIqQwfV HqwP81Brfth8QPwAbfiXA1iDH2RkNe7UWTeANWhEOwviXtwkAaHEFv+gtC3MNEgKQAALABdKgB5e 4RVWASfzMU0oBwNHYhst0B9FBRqG9wecABUykDk0IhroQSQiUCMwoCOJExcSwADHVEzG9HrjskxI oQAQMAEWEBiuJla/sBcVIAEQ4AAOAAESQAEVUAEUAIVuRmYRAE7vMAMiQHZMGAa+ME5FYBclBwU2 MAnx9hqckAZOcGlF4Cs40AIGxlUOBVGGIQQ+gB45MBg78FBmQIB5wV7YoSch0AuYMRsWhRn/4gIX hRkX1VWYoVKO6ALN5QJ4ARWuYAOgEQPyEgqGYYciBS+OmFA/FyACtVXtwlHoVFLshAMcZSAukAMJ FYr4oS6reBmdojDRncFRl8FRNVAJkrEDt1hdY8gdM/AunSGHyfiM0BiN0jiN1OgdCTME9OReibEO NjAZ7OUXfaFSwMEMccUGTrBLnKAaXZB7qWEbHWMDs8EsvzcDLsAfIbAG1WeDfiVR0uEXNJBPubYf PsIDNucSsogdNMBKgzAPwDFpLuAFLIFVJcMdAJAvv7NP7MiIEOkDD0kCJOADOuAVExkd6lAxm7Yx TCVVJhkgUgUc1OMFKVcdryFRI9kdmHiHq3EHfHEvIIgVUXeG/QJa69WG1ViURpkEQQAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0D609.CBCC7DC0-- From forens-owner Mon May 7 08:47:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA20500 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 08:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20495 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 08:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 08:47:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Bieber, Frederick R.,Ph.D." ] (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: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:38:52 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Bieber, Frederick R.,Ph.D." ] >From forens-owner Fri May 4 14:38:52 2001 Received: from PHSEXCHICO.MGH.HARVARD.EDU (phsexchico.mgh.harvard.edu [132.183.126.50]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14843 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:38:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by phsexchico.mgh.harvard.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 4 May 2001 14:38:13 -0400 Message-ID: <8E741FCD9606D411AD1B00508B64502901556CCC@phsexch16.mgh.harvard.edu> From: "Bieber, Frederick R.,Ph.D." To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Oklahoma city hair analysis Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:38:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Did anyone else see Wednesday's NY Times article on the potential issues in hair analysis in OK? what's the story From forens-owner Mon May 7 12:31:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25208 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA25203 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 12:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 7 May 2001 16:29:08 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 7 May 2001 09:32:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE047F273@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail)" Subject: FW: Microcrystal tests Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 09:32:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0D713.43BD0D2C" 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_01C0D713.43BD0D2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:31 AM To: 'Robert Parsons' Subject: RE: Microcrystal tests Bob- Again, we are in good agreement. I would argue that the "detector" in a microcrystalline test is the precipitation process, and the expert is then interpreting the "hard data" (which could be the actual crystals or a photograph of them), as the mass spectrum is interpreted by an expert. Not being steeped in the history of microcrystal tests (but an avid user), I would suspect that if all the fancy hyphenated methods were available when crystal tests were emerging, there would be a much greater understanding of the processes that result in crystal formation. I looked at my notes from the presentation, & as far as I can tell, the inspector was not comfortable with crystal tests, not the lack of multiple uncorrelated methods (a little less than 75% of the microcrytal test results are not verified further -- I do not know how long this will continue given the existence of SWGDRUG). I should also mention that having attended two presentations on the first draft of SWGDRUG, the initial proposal to downgrade microcrystal tests after a five year "grace period" was without scientific merit (the method I use in 2004 is not accurate in 2005????), and I believe grew out of unfamiliarity with microcrystal tests. I think the current version is a compromise between the two camps, & seems reasonable. Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept (CA) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:51 PM To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail) Subject: RE: Microcrystal tests Jeff, Was the inspector's objection to the two crystal tests based on the perceived reliability of crystal tests, or on the fact that they were two tests of the same kind, relying on the same principles (i.e., functional group reactivity)? I suspect it was the latter. It has been an emerging principle in forensic drug analysis (universal in my neck of the woods, for as long as I've been practicing, but apparently not everywhere) that two tests based on two different analytical principles are required to justify an identification, and that at least one of the two must be of sufficient specificity to be considered confirmatory (see current SWGDRUG guidelines). There are those who consider crystal tests to be merely presumptive exams, and others who consider them confirmatory, but in either case they are probably seen by many as being a single type of exam. Even though different reagents are being used in different tests, they all still rely on the principle of chemical reactivity to produce a pattern of crystalline structure. It may be that the inspector saw the tests as insufficiently different in principle to constitute two different tests, or it may be that the inspector saw crystal tests as only presumptive. I don't know which. There is no doubt in my mind that microcrystal tests are highly specific in the hands of a well-trained, well-experienced examiner, and several studies as well as a wealth of anecdotal evidence have backed up that impression, as your example illustrated. However, some people will always refuse to place their faith entirely in subjective exams, no matter how well supported by proficiency testing. Many people feel more comfortable with tangible objective data (like a mass spectrum) which can be held in the hand and easily shown to others. The former relies on the expert's judgment and can only be verified through reanalysis; but the latter can be verified in the absence of both the expert and the original evidence because it produces a hard copy that is easily reviewed by others. I would argue that a photo of the crystals formed serves the same purpose, and that even a mass spectrum requires expert interpretation for reliable identification. In fact, the only reservations about crystal tests I can see as having any validity are the issues of proven specificity and the time needed to train someone to achieve competency. It is assumed that no two different chemical structures will form the exact same crystals with the same reagents, and like the assumption that no two fingerprints are alike, the assumption is supported by a wealth of empirical data. Still, support does not equal proof. The argument makes sense from a chemical standpoint but is difficult to prove, especially since the "detector" used to measure differences is a subjective one - the human eye and brain. We can accept intellectually that no two snowflakes are alike, but how do we prove that it is so when we cannot examine every possible snowflake? No human being has personally viewed and compared the crystalline form of every drug with a given reagent or reagents to ascertain that they can all be distinguished visually. Proficiency tests support the contention but cannot prove it, because they don't include all known (and unknown) drugs. One could make a similar argument regarding instrumental exams, but at least with IR or MS you can demonstrate through chemical theory that no two organic chemicals will produce the same IR absorption bands or the same ion fracture pattern - to do that, they would have to be the same chemical structure and so would be the same chemical. I don't think that crystal theory can make that same statement with the same degree of certainty, but as I'm not a crystal expert I'm not completely sure of that. The reservation regarding training time is more relevant to me. The experience needed to proficiently identify drugs via crystal tests takes many months, if not years, to gain. In contrast, a qualified analytical chemist can easily be taught to proficiently identify drugs via IR or MS in a few weeks. If all college chemistry programs provided students with as much an education in light microscopy as they receive in instrumental analysis, perhaps there would not be such a distinction in the investment of training time. If there were such a degree as "analytical chemical microscopy," or if crime labs could hire chemists who were also well-trained microscopists, perhaps this would not be an issue at all. Unfortunately, as things are, there are both. Personally, I support the use of crystal tests (even though I don't use them myself), but I must admit I feel even stronger about them when they are backed up with another type of exam. I would no more rely on two crystal tests alone than I would on two gas chromatographic runs using different columns alone. However you vary them, gas chromatography is still gas chromatography and crystal tests are still crystal tests. The first depends on solubilities in a stationary phase and the other on crystal formation patterns. I'm more comfortable using two entirely different types of exams that depend on entirely different analytical principles, and that seems to be how most analysts feel these days, rightly or wrongly. There is a downside to accreditation, but given that the upside far eclipses the downside (IMHO), I'm willing to accept the former for the sake of the latter. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff [ mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org ] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 20:37 To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail) Subject: Microcrystal tests Bob wrote: "On the other hand, if your lab routinely does microcrystal tests to screen all drug samples, followed by IR or MS, then there's no need to spend the time doing a second instrumental exam; one will suffice. Both approaches are effective and efficient." I agree with virtually everything you said, and as we move our facility towards accreditation, I definitely see the benefits, and they will outweigh the hassle if we do not go overboard, but... There are some labs (primarily west coast) that do not even use instrumentation at all. A prime example is LAPD, which does two unrelated crystal tests for 6 commonly encountered drugs. When they got accredited, the inspector(s) forced them to institute an instrumental review of 25% of their crystal-test-only-confirmed drugs. In order to do this, LAPD had to hire one full-time criminalist and purchase two GC/MS's for her use. All she does every day is confirm other criminalists identifications. The best part? Of the 3,720 times where crystal tests identified a controlled substance, the identification was confirmed 3,719 times. The one instance where it was not confirmed turned out to be a sample handling error, NOT a crystal test deficiency. In this instance, it seems to me that it would have been efficient for the inspector to educate him or herself about the usefulness of microcrystal tests, instead of allowing his lack of knowledge and personal biases to force a lab to spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and hire additional personnel to duplicate the work of others. Jeff Thompson Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D713.43BD0D2C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Microcrystal tests
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson, Jeff
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:31 AM
To: 'Robert Parsons'
Subject: RE: Microcrystal tests

Bob-
Again, we are in good agreement.  I would argue that the "detector" in a microcrystalline test is the precipitation process, and the expert is then interpreting the "hard data" (which could be the actual crystals or a photograph of them), as the mass spectrum is interpreted by an expert.  Not being steeped in the history of microcrystal tests (but an avid user), I would suspect that if all the fancy hyphenated methods were available when crystal tests were emerging, there would be a much greater understanding of the processes that result in crystal formation.
I looked at my notes from the presentation, & as far as I can tell, the inspector was not comfortable with crystal tests, not the lack of multiple uncorrelated methods (a little less than 75% of the microcrytal test results are not verified further -- I do not know how long this will continue given the existence of SWGDRUG).  I should also mention that having attended two presentations on the first draft of SWGDRUG, the initial proposal to downgrade microcrystal tests after a five year "grace period" was without scientific merit (the method I use in 2004 is not accurate in 2005????), and I believe grew out of unfamiliarity with microcrystal tests.   I think the current version is a compromise between the two camps, & seems reasonable.
 
Jeff Thompson
Supervising Criminalist
Scientific Investigation Unit
Huntington Beach Police Dept (CA) 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:51 PM
To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Microcrystal tests

Jeff,

Was the inspector's objection to the two crystal tests based on the perceived reliability of crystal tests, or on the fact that they were two tests of the same kind, relying on the same principles (i.e., functional group reactivity)?  I suspect it was the latter.  It has been an emerging principle in forensic drug analysis (universal in my neck of the woods, for as long as I've been practicing, but apparently not everywhere) that two tests based on two different analytical principles are required to justify an identification, and that at least one of the two must be of sufficient specificity to be considered confirmatory (see current SWGDRUG guidelines).  There are those who consider crystal tests to be merely presumptive exams, and others who consider them confirmatory, but in either case they are probably seen by many as being a single type of exam.  Even though different reagents are being used in different tests, they all still rely on the principle of chemical reactivity to produce a pattern of crystalline structure.  It may be that the inspector saw the tests as insufficiently different in principle to constitute two different tests, or it may be that the inspector saw crystal tests as only presumptive.  I don't know which.

There is no doubt in my mind that microcrystal tests are highly specific in the hands of a well-trained, well-experienced examiner, and several studies as well as a wealth of anecdotal evidence have backed up that impression, as your example illustrated.  However, some people will always refuse to place their faith entirely in subjective exams, no matter how well supported by proficiency testing.  Many people feel more comfortable with tangible objective data (like a mass spectrum) which can be held in the hand and easily shown to others.  The former relies on the expert's judgment and can only be verified through reanalysis; but the latter can be verified in the absence of both the expert and the original evidence because it produces a hard copy that is easily reviewed by others.  I would argue that a photo of the crystals formed serves the same purpose, and that even a mass spectrum requires expert interpretation for reliable identification. 

In fact, the only reservations about crystal tests I can see as having any validity are the issues of proven specificity and the time needed to train someone to achieve competency.  It is assumed that no two different chemical structures will form the exact same crystals with the same reagents, and like the assumption that no two fingerprints are alike, the assumption is supported by a wealth of empirical data.  Still, support does not equal proof.  The argument makes sense from a chemical standpoint but is difficult to prove, especially since the "detector" used to measure differences is a subjective one - the human eye and brain.  We can accept intellectually that no two snowflakes are alike, but how do we prove that it is so when we cannot examine every possible snowflake?  No human being has personally viewed and compared the crystalline form of every drug with a given reagent or reagents to ascertain that they can all be distinguished visually.   Proficiency tests support the contention but cannot prove it, because they don't include all known (and unknown) drugs.  One could make a similar argument regarding instrumental exams, but at least with IR or MS you can demonstrate through chemical theory that no two organic chemicals will produce the same IR absorption bands or the same ion fracture pattern - to do that, they would have to be the same chemical structure and so would be the same chemical.  I don't think that crystal theory can make that same statement with the same degree of certainty, but as I'm not a crystal expert I'm not completely sure of that.

The reservation regarding training time is more relevant to me.  The experience needed to proficiently identify drugs via crystal tests takes many months, if not years, to gain.  In contrast, a qualified analytical chemist can easily be taught to proficiently identify drugs via IR or MS in a few weeks.  If all college chemistry programs provided students with as much an education in light microscopy as they receive in instrumental analysis, perhaps there would not be such a distinction in the investment of training time.  If there were such a degree as "analytical chemical microscopy," or if crime labs could hire chemists who were also well-trained microscopists, perhaps this would not be an issue at all.  Unfortunately, as things are, there are both. 

Personally, I support the use of crystal tests (even though I don't use them myself), but I must admit I feel even stronger about them when they are backed up with another type of exam.  I would no more rely on two crystal tests alone than I would on two gas chromatographic runs using different columns alone.  However you vary them, gas chromatography is still gas chromatography and crystal tests are still crystal tests.  The first depends on solubilities in a stationary phase and the other on crystal formation patterns.  I'm more comfortable using two entirely different types of exams that depend on entirely different analytical principles, and that seems to be how most analysts feel these days, rightly or wrongly.

There is a downside to accreditation, but given that the upside far eclipses the downside (IMHO), I'm willing to accept the former for the sake of the latter.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 20:37
To: ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group (E-mail)
Subject: Microcrystal tests


Bob wrote:
"On the other hand, if your lab routinely does microcrystal tests to screen
all drug samples, followed by IR or MS, then there's no need to spend the
time doing a second instrumental exam; one will suffice. Both approaches are
effective and efficient."
I agree with virtually everything you said, and as we move our facility
towards accreditation, I definitely see the benefits, and they will outweigh
the hassle if we do not go overboard, but...
There are some labs (primarily west coast) that do not even use
instrumentation at all.  A prime example is LAPD, which does two unrelated
crystal tests for 6 commonly encountered drugs.  When they got accredited,
the inspector(s) forced them to institute an instrumental review of 25% of
their crystal-test-only-confirmed drugs.  In order to do this, LAPD had to
hire one full-time criminalist and purchase two GC/MS's for her use.  All
she does every day is confirm other criminalists identifications.  The best
part?  Of the 3,720 times where crystal tests identified a controlled
substance, the identification was confirmed 3,719 times.  The one instance
where it was not confirmed turned out to be a sample handling error, NOT a
crystal test deficiency.

In this instance, it seems to me that it would have been efficient for the
inspector to educate him or herself about the usefulness of microcrystal
tests, instead of allowing his lack of knowledge and personal biases to
force a lab to spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and hire
additional personnel to duplicate the work of others.

Jeff Thompson
Supervising Criminalist
Scientific Investigation Unit
Huntington Beach Police Dept. (CA)

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0D713.43BD0D2C-- From forens-owner Mon May 7 23:24:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA03396 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 7 May 2001 23:23:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c001.zsm.cp.net (c001-h005.c001.zsm.cp.net [209.228.56.119]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03391 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 23:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (cpmta 15947 invoked from network); 7 May 2001 20:23:28 -0700 Received: from c846529-b.saltlk1.ut.home.com (HELO host) (24.20.100.68) by smtp.surfree.com (209.228.56.119) with SMTP; 7 May 2001 20:23:28 -0700 X-Sent: 8 May 2001 03:23:28 GMT Message-ID: <001e01c0d76e$2258e740$657ba8c0@host> From: "Peggy" To: Subject: anyone receiving serial killer post cards Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:22:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0D73B.D76C1180" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0D73B.D76C1180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello list, Is anyone receiving serial killer post cards from inmates? I have received one and have not opened it..but it concerns me a great = deal. Peggy ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0D73B.D76C1180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello list,
 
Is anyone receiving serial killer post = cards from=20 inmates?
 
I have received one and have not opened = it..but it=20 concerns me a great deal.
 
Peggy
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0D73B.D76C1180-- From forens-owner Tue May 8 00:14:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03866 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 00:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail19.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail19.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.128]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03861 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 00:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c777340a ([24.22.204.87]) by femail19.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010508041407.IEID98.femail19.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c777340a>; Mon, 7 May 2001 21:14:07 -0700 Message-ID: <001a01c0d775$87270240$57cc1618@grapid1.mi.home.com> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: , Subject: Fw: P30 kit manufacturers Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 00:15:33 -0400 Organization: Crime and Clues 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk A Turkish student is interested in obtaining a kit for P30 markers. If anyone knows of manufacturers for the kits could you send their contact info to: ViLDAN VOLKAN vildanvolkan1@ixir.com Thanks, Daryl ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 5:28 AM > I am a MS studentin Forensic Sciences,Istanbul,Turkey.I am looking for a kit for P30 marker in biological samples.I would appreciate if you can send me information. > Thanks in advance. > ViLDAN VOLKAN > 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 From forens-owner Tue May 8 01:09:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04218 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f49.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.49]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04213 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:09:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:09:22 -0700 Received: from 206.133.88.196 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 May 2001 05:09:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [206.133.88.196] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: davida_123@hotmail.com Subject: re: submission from ["Joan Chandler" Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 05:09:22 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2001 05:09:22.0998 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B7CB560:01C0D77D] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Joan: > >Mr.. Wheeler, > >I don't know either you or the Turvey's or Eoghan Casey, but I have > >surmised over the last year that you have a grudge against them. You are truly adroit at analysis. Are you a "forensic scientist" or a "criminal profiler"? > >You imply in your postings that their not answering your "charges" is >conclusive evidence that they're guilty. I asked some questions. Either they can answer them or they cannot. For now, it appears they cannot. Since both are subscribers, I can't imagine why, though you seem to think that you can. I've read your post twice and it seems bereft of anything resembling a real explanation. Maybe you can help with that? >There IS another reason they might ignore your attacks: why bother > >responding to the accusations of an idiot? It would be rude not to respond to your well thought questions and provocative repartee. > >I don't know if you're an idiot, of course, but your posts make me > >question your credibility. I am hurt, of course, at your standing as a non-member of this list, that you would offer such a flagitious and self-serving allegation. Let me help you address the key features here. Mr. Turvey alleged that Barbara Corey-Boulet had maligned his reputation unfairly. To that end, he lodged a bar complaint, which was dismissed as lacking a foundation in facts (read=he lied). Mr. Turvey, further alleged that Bob Keppel, Ph.D., also maligned his reputation with the specific aim of causing him financial harm and for his own advantage, a charged I find reckless and in poor repair for a man of such poor moral character as Mr. Turvey. Mr. Turvey, continued to allege that the FBI, did conspire to cause him and his good partner Eoghan Casey, had intended to cause him financial angst and consternation, not because his testimony, opinion and basis for it are lacking in anything remotely suggestive of any real training, rather that they were afraid of his opinions and intended to 'put him out of business'. Finally, Mr. Turvey has failed to address any of these, despite having lodged these charges formally with AAFS and his continued assertion of them on his website. >I fail to see how your posts add to the edification of anyone who >subscribes to this service, Since you replied as a non-subscriber, I can't understand how you would have a frame of reference. Maybe you can help me in my moment of confusion? Or will this be another un-answered question? >since they are utterly devoid of any sort of forensic information > >whatsoever. Instead, your posts are slanderous rantings that leave the >reader with the impression that you have the emotional maturity of a >13-year-old boy. I can see that you suffer from chronic mis-apprehension of the law, perhaps owing to your lack of any familiarity with it. First, slander is spoken, libel is written. As yet, I haven't spoken to any of the issues of Mr. Turvey or his good friend Eoghan Casey's malignant attacks on credible people whose careers are well established and whose reputations far exceed their own, but I promise that day isn't too far in the distant future. Second, rather than address the forensic issues I raised in my post to Tina Keller to this list quite some time ago (you do claim to have read that far back), Mr. Turvey chose instead to accuse me of every manner of malevolent disposition rather than address the factual issues which I had raised in response to her question. Of particular note is the fact that I merely pointed out that she should consult Mr. Turvey as his opinion was at odds with mine, owing to the fact that he has little use for his own policies which he preaches on his E-business. Glad that I could clear that up for you, "Joan". Maybe if you actually subsribed, or posted from the email addy from which you actually had a subscription, you would have known that, right? >Sarcasm is the acknowledged weapon of the weak, and "flaming" members >of >an online community really ought to be left to those communities >that >cater to a less sophisticated audience. I apologize unreservedly for failing to apprehend your obvious sophistication in responding with a non-member email address whilst extolling the many foibles and follies of how and why I post to people who *are* in fact subscribers. Perhaps I am obviating my lack of sophistication, but I think that most people need a little relief from dry, humorless technical documents devoid of any humanity. I am not particularly nor even generally obliged in that regard. Please make a note of it. Sarcasm is hardly the province of the weak and indeed, I find plenty of it here. If it weren't for that I'm not sure if it would be as entertaining and educational, indeed, a didactic experience. As groups go, it's not far from mud wrestling at times, and at others could serve well as an example for Judith Martin's column on etiquette, but unfortunately all of this would not mean much to you and so it will do little to help 'edify' your apprehension of the the facts, relevant or otherwise. >This is a professional community, after all, Not really, no. The community has people from all walks of life. That's why I'm still here. It's an education to both neophyte and old hand as well, and if you believe otherwise you are sadly mistaken and probably in need of a few facts. Were it not for your word to the contrary, I'd be willing to bet you weren't even a regular subscriber. But I believe you because I am sure you are an honest person, you just forgot your tall white hat today, right? >and the service was instituted for the sharing of forensic knowledge, >not >the sort of juvenile temper tantrums that you regularly display. Remarkably Mr. Turvey has no knowledge to share. He is niether a forensic scientist, nor is he even possessed of the training he so repeatedly offers to prosecutors and courts that he has:Training as a 'criminal profiler' from 'the ones who do the work, profilers'. >If you have issues with the credibility of other members, and if you >MUST >air them before the group, why don't you post in a more credible >manner? Darn, you really have me there. Let me, for the moment, play devils advocate. If Mr. Turvey took exception to being humbled by Dr. Keppel at an AAFS convention, after assaulting Keppel's analysis of a crime, coming up one body short (minor oversight, anybody could do it, right?, do you think it was appropriate for Turvey to lodge this as a formal complaint against a member of AAFS in good standing? Or would it have been more appropriate for him to first take issue with those facts with which he disagreed and ask Dr. Keppel, THEN argue them in a forum and THEN, lodge his complaint on the basis of that dispute, rather than make a vendetta out of it? You can apply that in equal measure to Mr. Turvey's very public and ongoing dispute with Bill Hagmaier, John Douglas, Greg McCrary, Richard Walter, and a host of other people whom he continues to attack on his website or in his only published book on the subject of profiling. Though I'm sure you have something in the way of an explanation, I doubt I could assign it much creedence in light of the other flaws of your logic and facts. >Here's a suggestion: "My experience with these individuals leads me to >question their credibility. Members who are considering attending their >seminars would be wise to research their professional qualifications. > >Please email me at shawn_wheeler@hotmail.com for further explanation." My question was public. Their answers should be public. If they can't be answered publically, I think it lets the reader decide for themselves. If you have a problem with that, I think you need to find a job with the thought police. I'm sure they have openings. I don't intend to tell people what to think, I just ask questions and make comments. >If you truly have a genuine and LEGITIMATE reason to distrust these > >people, and you truly believe that you have a duty to educate the > >uninformed about their shortcomings, the above suggested post would > >further your objectives in a more credible and dignified manner. Sorry but consumer fraud isn't my area. >But if you continue to post using your present style, it is guaranteed > >that you will never be taken seriously, Which is why you wasted all this time with a reply? Fascinating. I'd ask for an explanation but I don't think my heart could take it. >because each post demonstrates a PERSONAL animosity rather than a >professional one. I don't think I'm obliged to forego not liking somebody before I have the latitude to challenge their credibility by asking a question. Let me know how the job interview with the "thought police" goes. > >I suspect that this post will fall on deaf ears, but I'd love to be >proven >wrong in this instance. Give it a rest, Shawn. You're only >hurting >yourself. Yes, your point is well taken. It is without a doubt, that my 'e-business' selling forensic instruction will be damaged. I harbor no misapprehension of the fact that prosecutors the world over will use information from here to impeach my credibility. There can be no confusion regarding my failed future as an 'expert witness' who lacks any standing in any professional organization of any repute owing to my lack of verity and my self-serving allegations about other, well established professionals in the field of behavioral analysis. But I'll tell you one thing, Joan, substitute somebody elses name in here and maybe, just maybe, we'll make a 'forensic scientist' or a 'criminal, profiler' of you yet. All we need is a few years out of you online, a dozen or so courses (at a modest fee) and we'll even certify you in our professional organization, which I'll even create (for another modest fee of course), not that I in any way would do this in some self-serving or inappropriate way. But I'm sure I'm the only with who has a problem with that. > >Sincerely, J. Chandler Shaun _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Tue May 8 01:56:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04584 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f136.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.136]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04579 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 7 May 2001 22:56:27 -0700 Received: from 206.133.88.196 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 May 2001 05:56:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [206.133.88.196] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: davida_123@hotmail.com Subject: Non-member submission from ["Joan Chandler" ] (fwd) Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 05:56:27 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2001 05:56:27.0490 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F03FC20:01C0D783] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk "Joan": > >Billo, > >Well, I'm game enough to respond to your email. > >You neglected to mention a very important fact about all of the >world->class authors and statesmen you mentioned. Certainly they employed > >sarcasm, but they used it sparingly and for effect. So your original argument, which you now abandon in haste, was false and self-serving, not unlike the persons you attempted to defend. Amazing. >Anyone familiar with their works can >attest to the fact that their works are not composed of NOTHING BUT > >sarcasm. To wit, most people at least have a modest frame of reference from which to examine their postulates, something which you appear (as a non-subscriber, see your submission for details) lacking. > If you are implying that Mr. Wheeler or yourself should be counted as >members in the group you listed simply because you employ sarcasm in >your >writings, you need to be corrected. Not quite. The issue you raised was that the use of sarcasm was a tool of the weak. Re-read your post and see if this isn't true. Rather than retreat from your original argument, now that it is exposed for what it is, you simply recast the die hoping for another outcome. If there is a weak argument, I believe you've seized on it. Falling back to successive positions in retreat often leads to high casualty rates particularly when un-prepared. Were you by any chance unprepared? >You two wield sarcasm like a ham-handed >oaf, not with the delicate and deadly grace employed by the vituosos to > >whom you would compare yourself. Just as I suspected, you aren't a subscriber. > >And, by the way, the empassioned speeches of men like Patrick Henry or >Martin Luther have stood the test of time because they contained reason > >and sense and were created by men who respected their audiences. And those who either failed to respect, either the Papacy (by virtue of it's office) or the Crown (by virtue of similar divine authority) rejected God and of course were deemed worthy of accusations of heresy or open rebellion and conspiracy against the King, right? >Mr. Wheeler's posts will NEVER be immortalized for obvious reasons. I am hurt, that you feel that my posts will never be immortalized. >You can't even begin to compare the writings of these men with that of >Mr. >Wheeler - they are not in the same ballpark: your argument is >flawed >because it is based on a fallacy. That the use of sarcasm is a tool of the weak? Your original argument? Debate does not have to be dry, boring, or even dispassionate. That you think it is commends your opinion to the province and disposition of the person whom you so zealously defend. > >Mr. Wheeler does not support his criticisms, and there is nothing but >sarcasm in his tone. That is inaccurate, misleading, and libelous. My questions were direct and Mr. Turvey seems unwilling, as you pointed out, to answer them. What people choose to believe about that is up to them. That you feel obliged to respond, particularly in light of your inability to admit the indefensible nature of your response is not surprising. >Any fool can spout abuse, as we all well know. More fools try and retreat from successively indefensible positions and hope like hell nobody notices. I believe that's an eight digit grid your sitting in. For help, ask somebody with artillery experience what that means. Splash, over. > And anybody who wishes to be taken seriously at this site is required >to >back up his statements with some sort of evidence. Fair enough. Turvey has claimed for three years now that he has training with "profilers, the ones who do the work." He claims that he obtained that at the University of New Haven. I spoke with Dean Thomas Johnson of that institution, and he said directly that they offer no training of the sort. I would like to know where Mr. Turvey obtained this otherwise undisclosed information as to where he obtained this training. Since I am in receipt of his originally burgeoning yet now highly redacted C.V., I'd really like to know. Finally, this isn't a site, it's a subscription list. While your at it, there's one other thing that's been nagging at me. Since he maligned the hell out of Keppel at Orlando, I'd like to know how Brent accounts for the missing body in his analysis of Keppel's 'flawed' line of reasoning. If it's more convenenient, you can ask your icon that first and let me know his response. >(How many times have people gnashed their teeth at another's post because a >comment was made with no evidence to support it?) Fair 'nuff. I've never read you post before. Your a non-member, according to your submissions, yet you claim you've been a subscriber. Mind convincing me? > >I don't object to people offering public criticism. Just questions? Unless *you* are asking the questions, right? >But let's actually have something to SAY, shall we? I would think Mr. >Wheeler would want his audience to believe his accusations; You apparently didn't read the post. I asked questions to which Mr. Turvey has not responded. If you want to make them into accusations, particularly sarcastic ones, so be it. You initially offered that nobody would take them seriously, yet you engage in poorly reasoned arguments from which no easy retreat can be made. Not satisfied, you change the original issue in hopes that nobody will notice, either Billo or I, and continue on without addressing that original issue. Amazing. >if he does NOT wish for them to be believed, then he's just throwing a > >tantrum, now isn't he? And to think you accused me of a 'personal' as opposed to a 'professional' attack on somebody else. > And if he wants to be believed, then he needs to present his >criticisms >in a manner that bears some resemblence to reason. You mean on par with your analysis of the use of sarcasm? Or is that still separate and different? I'd like to advance this to something approaching logic and reason but I think it's entirely possible that both of us are in a different cosmos on each of these. > Tell me, Billo, who are you more likely to believe - the person who > >makes charges in a juvenile fashion, or the person who calmly lays out > >his arguments with supporting evidence? Supporting evidence? We're plowing the same ground twice, "Joan". Since you are an avid reader(see below) of the list, re-read what I wrote to Tina Keller on this list, and re-read Mr. Turvey response. When you've done that (you didn't lie earlier, did you?) remind me what his response, or for that matter any response he's made, has to do with facts? As to calm, you seem to be the one lodging all manner of unfounded allegations. In the absence of any logical argument you presume a personal motive of vendetta against Mr. Turvey. As far as I am concerned he can continue to defraud as many people as are willing to subscribe to his services, though I suspect it will harm the reputation of the few credible professionals who associate with him. That is a pity, and I do mean that most sincerely. >(Be careful here - I've read YOUR posts as well, you know, and you've >made >it very clear which kind of person you would believe. You're kidding, right? I must have missed something. One post earlier you decry the use of sarcasm then instantly ignore your reference one paragraph into this last post in favor of an almost obsequious response to a poster who took issue with it, perhaps in no small degree to his assiduous use of it? >Say it's the former, and you'll be laughed off the site.) It's not a 'site', it's a discussion list. > >I have no problem with anyone challenging another - Nope, only when other people ask a question or two, right? >I just prefer it to be a legitimate challenge, not some whining, >half->assed, name-calling. Darn, I musta forgot what kinda name I called Mr. Turvey in the post you took exception to. Maybe you can help me out? I have a lot of names that could fit, but I was wondering if you could supply me with the original? >The fact that Mr. Wheeler has not presented anything solid makes me >wonder >if there isn't a reason for this omission - "Joan", I would caution you on the abuse of the words "reason" or "ommission", owing largely to the fact that you seem to be devoid of the former and all to quick to defer to the latter when it is to your advantage. If you find that unreasonable, overborne or lacking in foundation, take a brief moment from your busy day to review your earlier posts and mine. >say, perhaps, that he has no evidence to >support his attacks? Mr. Turvey withdrew his membership application to AAFS. There is nothing to dispute with regard to that. What remains to be answered is why he did this, in fact, this forms the substance of one of the questions I asked. That you would confuse this as anything to the contrary does little to advance the notion that you are anything but a disinterested third party with no connection to the ubiquitous Mr. Turvey. > >[To everyone who emailed their support directly to my email address, > >please accept my thanks here. > I appreciate your comments and wish I had the time >to thank each of you individually.] Ahhh, the complexities of cutting and pasting two or three email addresses in the CC bar of email. This is truly one of the great unsolved mysteries of the internet and "sites". Maybe you can get a class on it from "Knowledge Solutions"? > >J. Chandler You forgot your "sincerely". Shaun Wheeler _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Tue May 8 04:41:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05817 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 04:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.141]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05812 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 04:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mp133ws ([65.1.194.131]) by femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010508084118.POSF12893.femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com@mp133ws> for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 01:41:18 -0700 Message-ID: <000801c0d79a$97bdfd00$8800a8c0@mp133ws> From: "Sheila Berry" To: References: <001e01c0d76e$2258e740$657ba8c0@host> Subject: Re: anyone receiving serial killer post cards Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 04:40:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D779.104780B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D779.104780B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Peggy wrote: "Is anyone receiving serial killer post cards from inmates? I have received one and have not opened it..but it concerns me a great = deal." What are "serial killer post cards"? Post cards aren't sent in = envelopes, so I take it what you actually received was a letter from an = inmate. Since you haven't opened it, I'm curious to know how you know = what's in it, especially since it concerns you a great deal. Sheila Berry ____________________ Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: martinberry@home.com Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who = are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."=20 - Albert Einstein ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D779.104780B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Peggy wrote:
 
"Is anyone receiving serial killer post = cards from=20 inmates?
 
I have received one and have not opened = it..but it=20 concerns me a great deal."
 
What are "serial killer post cards"?  Post cards aren't sent = in=20 envelopes, so I take it what you actually received was a letter from an=20 inmate.  Since you haven't opened it, I'm curious to know how = you know=20 what's in it, especially since it concerns you a great deal.
 
Sheila Berry
____________________
 
Sheila Martin Berry
E-mail:  martinberry@home.com
Web = Sites:
http://spiritlink.com/
http://truthinjustice.org/=
 
"The world is a dangerous place to = live; not=20 because of the people who are
evil, but because of the people who = don't do=20 anything about it."
  - Albert = Einstein
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0D779.104780B0-- From MajorDomo Tue May 8 13:25:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA00702 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web9505.mail.yahoo.com (web9505.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.135]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00689 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010508171856.69103.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.243.169.116] by web9505.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 08 May 2001 10:18:56 PDT Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:18:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Brenna Primrose Subject: Re: anyone receiving serial killer post cards To: Peggy , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <001e01c0d76e$2258e740$657ba8c0@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 847 No, but I am also curious how you could know what it was without opening it. Does it have some sort of special packaging or something? Brenna --- Peggy wrote: > Hello list, > > Is anyone receiving serial killer post cards from > inmates? > > I have received one and have not opened it..but it > concerns me a great deal. > > Peggy > ===== http://www.geocities.com/h_primrose/ - My homepage http://profiles.yahoo.com/absolut_contagion/ - My Yahoo! Profile http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/amazongirls - AmazonGIRLS Club http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/greenparty2004 - Green Party Club "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n." - John Milton, Paradise Lost (Book 1) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From MajorDomo Tue May 8 13:34:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA01097 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhmres1.mhmr.state.tx.us (mhmres1.mhmr.state.tx.us [163.126.158.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01092 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 13:34:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mhmres1.mhmr.state.tx.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 May 2001 11:38:34 -0500 Message-ID: <1D66906D4B5CD1118D8900A0C98F1A5403FEB721@mhmrkshes1.ksh.mhmr.state.tx.us> From: "Frantzen, Roxanne" To: "'mhl'" , "'Forensic Medicine Discussion List'" Subject: video - Anatomy of a Setup Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 11:33:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 407 I would like to borrow the following video and have not been able to locate it through my usual sources. Would any of you own this video and be willing to loan it to me? Thank you for the help. Please excuse cross posting. Roxanne Frantzen, Staff Librarian Kerrville State Hospital 721 Thompson Drive Kerrville, TX 78028 roxanne.frantzen@mhmr.state.tx.us 830-896-2211 X6283 FAX 830-895-2989 From MajorDomo Tue May 8 14:28:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA03101 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03096 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.43.210] by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.03.03.00 201-232-128 license 840fca18751889914c07c5419b2f6990) with ESMTP id <20010508182353.LSLO19388.spn25c0@[131.94.43.210]>; Tue, 8 May 2001 14:23:53 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: estauf01@fiu.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001e01c0d76e$2258e740$657ba8c0@host> References: <001e01c0d76e$2258e740$657ba8c0@host> Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 14:32:19 -0400 To: "Peggy" From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Serial Killer et al. Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1222775755==_ma============" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3739 --============_-1222775755==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Dear Peggy, Did you just received it or is it from a while ago? Because Valentine's Day as well as Easter have already passed. And Mother's Day as well as Memorial Day are coming up soon. So, we want to know what this letter says. Why don't you open it and send a scan to the list, maybe there are some "interesting details" in it ;-) After the cat story, the smoking policy and the concerns about the availability of the Visine at the shelf, maybe we will have one of these fun Late Friday night's Drama on the list ;-) Keep us in touch, Best Regards, Eric >Hello list, > >Is anyone receiving serial killer post cards from inmates? > >I have received one and have not opened it..but it concerns me a great deal. > >Peggy -- "Stealing someone's idea alone is called plagiarism. Stealing someone's idea when you are a group of people is called research". ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Criminalist seeking employment Miami, FL (305) 551-0178 estauf01@fiu.edu ----------------------------------------------------------- --============_-1222775755==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Serial Killer et al.
Dear Peggy,

Did you just received it or is it from a while ago? Because Valentine's Day as well as Easter have already passed. And Mother's Day as well as Memorial Day are coming up soon.

So, we want to know what this letter says. Why don't you open it and send a scan to the list, maybe there are some "interesting details" in it ;-)

After the cat story, the smoking policy and the concerns about the availability of the Visine at the shelf, maybe we will have one of these fun Late Friday night's Drama on the list ;-)

Keep us in touch,

Best Regards,

Eric



Hello list,
 
Is anyone receiving serial killer post cards from inmates?
 
I have received one and have not opened it..but it concerns me a great deal.
 
Peggy


--
"Stealing someone's idea alone is called plagiarism. Stealing someone's idea when you are a group of people is called research".

-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stauffer
Criminalist seeking employment
Miami, FL
(305) 551-0178
estauf01@fiu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
--============_-1222775755==_ma============-- From MajorDomo Tue May 8 17:10:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA06965 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06960 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:10:46 -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 ESMTP id RAA24185; Tue, 8 May 2001 17:10:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 17:10:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Robert Parsons cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Billo vs. Bob on certification (was: Employment) - disregard if n ot interested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6727 On Fri, 4 May 2001, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > > >That's the crux of our disagreement. Our argument boils down > >pretty much to the following: > >Me: Certification is bad as a measure of competency. At best > >it is certification of *training.* > >You: That's because the certifications you point to were done > >wrong. The *perfect* certification done *right* will demonstrate > >competency. All we have to do is create the perfect certification > >exams. > >Me: There ain't no such thing. > > Actually, it's more like this: > > You: I think the certification programs I've had experience with are > worthless, therefore all certification programs (including those I know > nothing about and have no experience with) are worthless. [An illogical and > non sequitur argument unworthy of you] Hardly a non-sequitor. It's called empiricism. I have experienced many kinds of certification in many kinds of fields -- academics, medicine, military, etc. They have universally not measured what they pretend to measure. This is like the SAT arguments -- advocates of the SAT argue that is is "good" because even if it isn't perfect, it measures *something,* and it is *objective.* That is is a bad predictor of academic or lifetime achievement isn't important because it gives folk the two things they really want: 1) A piece of paper with a number. 2) Something that relieves them of the need to do any real assessment or judgement about competency or quality. Certification is the SAT of the post-graduate world. It's bullshit, but it's quantitative and objective bullshit, and that's good enough. > Me: You're wrong. I have experience with certification programs which are > quite valuable and which do a good job of indicating basic competence as > opposed to gross incompetence Fine. Frankly, I doubt it, but even so they are the exceptions that prove the rule. > > You: There is no perfect certification program, therefore all certification > programs are worthless. Certification has no value unless it is an absolute > determinator of competence and a perfect predictor of successful practice Not only is there no perfect certification program, most, if not all fall far short of that semi-nirvana you point to. > > Me: A program doesn't have to be "perfect" to be useful. There are many > useful programs which provide a strong indicator of basic mastery of the > subject specialty, which can be used in conjunction with other indicators to > allow lay persons to judge professional competence. Many? So far you have pointed to one set of programs -- the ABC. I have pointed to many which do not -- National Boards, Specialty Boards, ASQ, most military certification badges, CPR, etc. The CPR certification is the paradigm. A CPR certification does *not* indicate "minimal" competence. It indicates that one has gone through the required training and not managed to break anything. The value of CPR certification does not lie in the certification, it lies in the fact that most CPR certified folk have been certified repeatedly for years -- and have thus had the training repeated enough times so that they start to get it down. You take 100 first-time CPR certified folk who have *only* the certification training, and you will have 95 people who will screw up the CPR. You take 100 people who have been certified for 10 years, and you will have 40 people who will screw up the CPR. And most of those are the ones who have *only* certification training, not experience or medical/EMT/paramedic training. Certification shows you have training. It doesn't show you have competency. > > I argue certification is AN indicator that correlates to potential for > success, and you respond that it's not a perfect indicator and does not > provide the BEST correlation to success (experience does, you say, at least > for medicine), so you are responding again to arguments I am not making. > You also are comparing apples to oranges - successful patient outcome in > medical treatment with the ability to successfully perform forensic drug > analysis (for example). Medical boards may do a poor job of predicting the > former (according to you, anyway), but the ABC Fellow and technical > Specialist certification programs in Forensic Drug Analysis do an excellent > job predicting the latter. Oh? Let's see the study for that. The problem is that your claim is essentially unprovable. Once you make certification either necessary or desirable, then you have a selection bias that is self-fulfilling. If I were to make "certification" in, oh, Billo's Criminalistics Boards a *necessary* prerequesite for career advancement or employment, then, guess what, motivated people would do it. So, let's say that my "criminalistics" certification test consisted of making people stand on their heads and sing the national anthem. Guess what -- I will get lots of people practicing their hand stands and exercising their voices. The motivated people will do it, and the unmotivated people will not. And guess what else. Motivated people do better in the long run. Thus, it doesn't matter *what* the certification "tests," as long as it is difficult. Any rite of passage will do the job. And then we can all pretend that standing on your head is the mark of a "competent" criminalist. In order to show your claim, you will have to have two "certified" groups, one which has the "good" certification test and one which has a difficult but irrelevant certification test -- with the same educational and experiential requirements. Then you will have to show that, 5 years down the line, the group which passed the difficult but irrelevant test does significantly worse. Nobody will do that study because it will poke a hole in the entire certification balloon. > > >> Why wouldn't it be? You have not established that it has no value in > >> indicating competence. > > >Well, I have given examples, such as medical board exams, computer > >certification exams, etc. How many examples do you want? > > The provision of any number of examples from among a larger set of units > does not form a valid basis for a blanket statement applied to the entire > set - it only proves the statement applies to those examples. Ah, yes, the famous unicorn test. "There are unicorns on the earth!" "No there aren't" "How do you know?" "I've looked a lot of places." "Aha! You haven't looked *everywhere on earth*. Lot's of people believe in them, some people claim to have seen them, and you can't *prove* they don't exist because you aren't everywhere at once. See, I told you there are unicorns!" billo From MajorDomo Wed May 9 08:37:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA10559 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 08:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10554 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 08:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:37:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Wheeler (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2039 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:27:36 -0700 From: Joan Chandler To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Wheeler Shawn, Seven of the 32 responses I received to my original email gave me some information concerning a POSSIBLE reason why you bear the Turvey's and their partner a grudge. I checked up on their info, and it appears to be legitimate. In the case of the West Memphis Three, you failed to notice a human bite mark on the face of the mutilated victim. Mr. Turvey, on the other hand, immediately spotted it. Upon examination, the bite mark was confirmed as human, and did not match any of the dental patterns belonging to the three suspects. As an expert witness for the state, qualified to accurately identify injuries on a victim, your failure to notice the bite mark may have caused you considerable public and professional embarrassment. One takes into consideration that some people find the best defense is to take offensive measures. I don't know if that's the case here with you, but I cannot ignore it any more than I can accept it at face value. It's a piece of information that goes into the collection for further rumination. I AM interested in learning more about Mr. Turvey as well. Your allegations against him may very well be true, but I'd like the freedom to decide based on factual documentation, rather than just taking your word for it. If there are any websites that present documentation that supports your claims, would you post them here? BTW, I AM a member of this listserve, but I never post anything on the internet that reveals my real identity. I learned the hard way how foolish that is. A few years ago, I was stalked and hospitalized by a very enterprising maniac who tracked me down via the internet. I'm unwilling to make myself vulnerable again. Thanks, J. Chandler _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Wed May 9 08:37:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA10578 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 08:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10573 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 08:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:37:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tetramethylbenzidine (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 935 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 09:43:18 +1000 From: Mojca Keglovic To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tetramethylbenzidine Hi all, My name is Mojca Keglovic and I am studing crime scene investigation at the Canberra Institute of Technology, Canberra, Australia. I have a short presentation due about the application of tetramethylbenzidine in the use of chemically enhancing footprints. Does anyone have a suggestion about where a good site on the net is or a good reference book, or journal articles. I have as much general chemical information as I need but am lacking in the forensic footprint (or blood) application. Any help would be greatly appreciated, Mojca Keglovic _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. From MajorDomo Wed May 9 09:06:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA11220 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11215 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:06:08 -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 ESMTP id JAA18761; Wed, 9 May 2001 09:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 09:06:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Basten cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Wheeler (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 723 On Wed, 9 May 2001, Basten wrote: > From: Basten > > > Shawn, > > Seven of the 32 responses I received to my original email gave me some > information concerning a POSSIBLE reason why you bear the Turvey's and their > partner a grudge. I checked up on their info, and it appears to be > legitimate. > >[snip] > > Thanks, > J. Chandler > After you have spent so much time opining about how others should take personal communications to email and not post to the list, why do you feel obligated to continue to post your problems with Wheeler to the list as a whole? Is this not *exactly* what you complain about? How does that fit in with your admonishments? billo From MajorDomo Wed May 9 15:50:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA02083 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tebenet.nl (p9051.net.upc.nl [212.142.9.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA02076 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fam ([213.46.139.127]) by tebenet.nl; Wed, 09 May 2001 21:46:10 +0200 Message-ID: <001901c0d8c1$0f521820$0ff2fea9@arnhem.chello.nl> From: "Bert Lesger" To: , References: Subject: Tetramethylbenzidine (chemical enhancement of shoeprints) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:48:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8D1.D2B95660" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7863 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8D1.D2B95660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mojca, In the next issue of the Journal "Forensic Science International" there = is an article about the chemical enhancement of muddy shoeprints. It = doesn't handle shoeprints in blood, but only in mud. Maybe it can help = you in some way.=20 In the tests we made, some chemicals for the use on crime scenes and = some chemicals for the use in (police) laboratories came out to be = useful. But the before the use of any chemical treatment on muddy = shoeprints it is the best to make a lift with a (black) gelatine-lifter = first. Not one of the chemical method is "a miracle", but on occasion it = can be of great use. For the treatment of shoeprints in blood we use other chemicals. See the = 1998 nr. 95 issue of Forensic Science International. If you like some more information, let me know. Bert Lesger Instructor Institute for criminal investigation and crime science Scene of crime department Zutphen The Netherlands. e-mail: tr.icr@lsop.nl / lesger@bigfoot.com=20 ----------------------------- Journal: Forensic Science International ISSN : 0379-0738, Volume : 119 Issue : 1' date : 01-Jun-2001 pp 57-67 Enhancement of muddy footwear impressions A.B.E. Theeuwen, S. van Barneveld, J.W. Drok, I. Keereweer, B. Lesger, J.C.M. Limborgh, W.M. Naber, R. Schrok, T. Velders ----------------------------- Journal: Forensic Science International volume (issue): 95 (2) 1998 pp 133 - 151 enhancement of footwear impressions in blood A.B.E. Theeuwen, S. van Barneveld, J.W. Drok, I. Keereweer,=20 J.C.M. Limborgh, W.M. Naber, T. Velders ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 09:43:18 +1000 From: Mojca Keglovic To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Tetramethylbenzidine Hi all, My name is Mojca Keglovic and I am studing crime scene investigation at = the=20 Canberra Institute of Technology, Canberra, Australia. I have a short presentation due about the application of=20 tetramethylbenzidine in the use of chemically enhancing footprints. = Does=20 anyone have a suggestion about where a good site on the net is or a good = reference book, or journal articles. I have as much general chemical information as I need but am lacking in = the=20 forensic footprint (or blood) application. Any help would be greatly appreciated, Mojca Keglovic ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8D1.D2B95660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mojca,
 
In the next issue of the Journal  = "Forensic=20 Science International" there is an article about the chemical = enhancement of=20 muddy shoeprints. It doesn't handle shoeprints in blood, but only in = mud. Maybe=20 it can help you in some way.
In the tests we made, some chemicals = for the=20 use on crime scenes and some chemicals for the use in (police) = laboratories came=20 out to be useful. But the before the use of any chemical treatment on = muddy=20 shoeprints it is the best to make a lift with a (black) gelatine-lifter = first.=20 Not one of the chemical method is "a miracle", but on occasion it can be = of=20 great use.
For the treatment of shoeprints in blood we use other = chemicals.=20 See the 1998 nr. 95 issue of  Forensic Science = International.
 
If you like some more information, let = me=20 know.
 

Bert Lesger
 
Instructor
Institute for criminal = investigation=20 and crime science
Scene of crime department
Zutphen
The=20 Netherlands.
e-mail:  tr.icr@lsop.nl    = /  =20 lesger@bigfoot.com =
 
-----------------------------
 
Journal: Forensic Science=20 International
ISSN   : 0379-0738,  Volume : = 119
Issue =20 : 1'  date   : 01-Jun-2001

pp=20 57-67

Enhancement of muddy footwear = impressions
A.B.E. Theeuwen, S. van Barneveld, J.W. Drok, I. Keereweer, B.=20 Lesger,
J.C.M. Limborgh, W.M. Naber, R. Schrok, T. = Velders
 
-----------------------------
 
Journal: Forensic Science=20 International
volume (issue): 95 (2) = 1998
 
pp 133 - 151
 
enhancement of footwear = impressions in=20 blood
 
A.B.E. Theeuwen, S. van Barneveld, J.W. = Drok, I.=20 Keereweer,
J.C.M. Limborgh, W.M. Naber, T. Velders
 
 

----------=20 Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 09:43:18 = +1000
From:=20 Mojca Keglovic <mojca_keglovic@hotmail.com>
To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Tetramethylbenzidine


Hi = all,

My=20 name is Mojca Keglovic and I am studing crime scene investigation at the =
Canberra Institute of Technology, Canberra, Australia.

I have = a short=20 presentation due about the application of
tetramethylbenzidine in = the use of=20 chemically enhancing footprints.  Does
anyone have a suggestion = about=20 where a good site on the net is or a good
reference book, or journal = articles.

I have as much general chemical information as I need = but am=20 lacking in the
forensic footprint (or blood) application.

Any = help=20 would be greatly appreciated,

Mojca = Keglovic ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8D1.D2B95660-- From MajorDomo Wed May 9 22:56:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA04676 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 9 May 2001 22:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sierra.onr.com (sierra.onr.com [199.1.90.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04671 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 22:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from geraldhu (austin1-96.onr.com [64.28.100.96]) by sierra.onr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AF592F17E5 for ; Wed, 9 May 2001 21:55:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 21:21:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002e01c0d8f7$f07205a0$2d4ffea9@geraldhu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1551 And speaking of the West Memphis Three, how many of you folks out there saw the TV show dedicated to Brent Turvey's work on the case? I have seen some of Turvey's pro bono work in another case and found that he did his homework very well. While I have never been fan of profiling in general, the West Memphis story raised a number of questions and left me waiting to see just how the matter will resolve itself over the long haul. Against my better judgement, I sometimes agree with billo, but this is not one of those times. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:06 AM To: Basten Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Wheeler (fwd) On Wed, 9 May 2001, Basten wrote: > From: Basten > > > Shawn, > > Seven of the 32 responses I received to my original email gave me some > information concerning a POSSIBLE reason why you bear the Turvey's and their > partner a grudge. I checked up on their info, and it appears to be > legitimate. > >[snip] > > Thanks, > J. Chandler > After you have spent so much time opining about how others should take personal communications to email and not post to the list, why do you feel obligated to continue to post your problems with Wheeler to the list as a whole? Is this not *exactly* what you complain about? How does that fit in with your admonishments? billo From MajorDomo Thu May 10 03:10:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id DAA06311 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 03:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA06306 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 03:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esmefluff (ip44.indianapolis14.in.pub-ip.psi.net [38.33.128.44]) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA23930 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 00:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001901c0d937$5aed3e60$2c802126@esmefluff> From: "Deborah M. Nolan" To: Subject: Joan CHandler has left the building Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 02:55:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8FC.AD67E7C0" 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 Content-Length: 3542 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8FC.AD67E7C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear List Members, There are times when I wonder if getting "away from it all" is really = worth it. My husband and I just returned from a short trip to my mother's, and I = just read the List's emails. I am not Joan Chandler. "Joan Chandler" is, = it would seem, the kid we hired to tend our dog while we were out of = town. (I wooed him with, among other things, the opportunity to use our = computer to "Surf the Net.")=20 I now understand why people "lock" their email programs.=20 I feel somewhat responsible for the havoc that "Joan" has been raising = and hope that nobody's life was made too miserable. If it's any = consolation, I now appear to be on the mailing list of every porno site = in the Northern Hemisphere. Bill, I received a personal email from you that was very sweet, and I = was touched by the concern of a total stranger. (Especially in light of = the crap "I" was throwing your way.) *smile* I've never been in the = situation "Joan" described, but your advice was wise, and I appreciate = your sharing it with me.=20 Again, sorry for the inconvenience. And, now, if you'll excuse me, I = have to start disinfecting my keyboard. . . and my desk. . . and my = chair. . . . Deborah=20 "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish He=20 didn't trust me so much." - Mother Teresa ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8FC.AD67E7C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear List Members,

There are times when I wonder if getting "away from it all" is really = worth=20 it.

My husband and I just returned from a short trip to my mother's, and = I just=20 read the List's emails. I am not Joan Chandler. "Joan Chandler" is, it = would=20 seem, the kid we hired to tend our dog while we were out of town. (I = wooed him=20 with, among other things, the opportunity to use our computer to "Surf = the=20 Net.")

I now understand why people "lock" their email programs.

I feel somewhat responsible for the havoc that "Joan" has been = raising and=20 hope that nobody's life was made too miserable. If it's any consolation, = I now=20 appear to be on the mailing list of every porno site in the Northern=20 Hemisphere.

Bill, I received a personal email from you that was very sweet, and I = was=20 touched by the concern of a total stranger. (Especially in light of the = crap "I"=20 was throwing your way.) *smile* I've never been in the situation "Joan"=20 described, but your advice was wise, and I appreciate your sharing it = with me.=20

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. And, now, if you'll excuse me, I = have to=20 start disinfecting my keyboard. . . and my desk. . . and my chair. . . = .

Deborah

 
 
"I know God will not give me anything I can't = handle. I=20 just wish He
didn't trust me so much."     - = Mother=20 Teresa
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C0D8FC.AD67E7C0-- From MajorDomo Thu May 10 04:25:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id EAA06681 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 04:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwsmtp.ohsu.edu (gwsmtp.ohsu.edu [137.53.4.219]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA06676 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 04:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwiadom1-Message_Server by gwsmtp.ohsu.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 10 May 2001 01:25:03 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 01:24:48 -0700 From: "Jeanine Serusa" To: Subject: Luminol research 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 sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id EAA06677 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 257 Hi all, I'm writing a research paper on luminol for my chemistry final. I'm finding very little information out there. If anyone has any information that would help with my research paper, I would be greatly appreciative. Thank You in advance. Jeanine From MajorDomo Thu May 10 07:35:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA07680 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-c.netway.at (pop-c.netway.at [195.96.0.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA07675 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 07:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pop-a.netway.at (pop-a.netway.at [195.96.10.226]) by pop-c.netway.at (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4ABZth11712; Thu, 10 May 2001 13:35:55 +0200 Received: from netway.at (t1p203.at-561.netway.at [212.27.90.203]) by pop-a.netway.at (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f4ABZqp03381; Thu, 10 May 2001 13:35:52 +0200 Message-ID: <3AFA7BB2.4C7AFB71@netway.at> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:29:56 +0200 From: KTPI X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeanine Serusa CC: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Luminol research References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 971 Hi Jeanine, about the history you should read: Blutiges Geheimnis, Jürgen Thorwald, Knaur ISBN 3-425-03210-4, especially the famous case of "Lindörfer", first applications of Luminol. For chemical details: Franz Schleyer und Irmgard Oepen, Leitfaden der gerichtlich-medizinischen Blutspuren-Untersuchung, Schmidt-Römhild Lübeck, ISBN 3 7950 9617 1. Hope this helps Dr.Friederike Blümelhuber Jeanine Serusa schrieb: > Hi all, > I'm writing a research paper on luminol for my chemistry final. I'm finding very little information out there. If anyone has any information that would help with my research paper, I would be greatly appreciative. Thank You in advance. > > Jeanine -- -------------------------------------------- Kriminaltechnisches Privatinstitut Mag. Blümelhuber Ges.m.b.H. Technisches Büro für Techn. Chemie Mag.Dr. Friederike Blümelhuber Robert Stolz-Straße 18 A-4020 Linz Tel/Fax +43 (732) 667859 -------------------------------------------- From MajorDomo Thu May 10 11:56:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA10024 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:56:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from postal1.lbl.gov (postal1.lbl.gov [128.3.7.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10019 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SpamWall.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postal1.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4AFu9d22980 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.3.183.89] ([128.3.183.89]) by SpamWall.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4AFu8F22976 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 08:56:08 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 08:55:38 -0700 Subject: Re: Joan CHandler has left the building From: "T. J. Wilkinson" To: Forensics Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001901c0d937$5aed3e60$2c802126@esmefluff> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3072329738_36527_MIME_Part" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4158 > 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. --MS_Mac_OE_3072329738_36527_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Deborah, Don't feel bad. I went through something very similar. I left the son of a friend house-setting while we went on vacation. When we came back, not only did we have ourselves on every porn list in the world, but discovered we had a nearly $2000 phone bill from 900 numbers. T. J. Wilkinson on 5/10/01 2:55 AM, Deborah M. Nolan wrote: Dear List Members, There are times when I wonder if getting "away from it all" is really worth it. My husband and I just returned from a short trip to my mother's, and I just read the List's emails. I am not Joan Chandler. "Joan Chandler" is, it would seem, the kid we hired to tend our dog while we were out of town. (I wooed him with, among other things, the opportunity to use our computer to "Surf the Net.") I now understand why people "lock" their email programs. I feel somewhat responsible for the havoc that "Joan" has been raising and hope that nobody's life was made too miserable. If it's any consolation, I now appear to be on the mailing list of every porno site in the Northern Hemisphere. Bill, I received a personal email from you that was very sweet, and I was touched by the concern of a total stranger. (Especially in light of the crap "I" was throwing your way.) *smile* I've never been in the situation "Joan" described, but your advice was wise, and I appreciate your sharing it with me. Again, sorry for the inconvenience. And, now, if you'll excuse me, I have to start disinfecting my keyboard. . . and my desk. . . and my chair. . . . Deborah "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish He didn't trust me so much." - Mother Teresa --MS_Mac_OE_3072329738_36527_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Joan CHandler has left the building Deborah,

Don't feel bad. I went through something very similar. I left the son of a = friend house-setting while we went on vacation. When we came back, not only = did we have ourselves on every porn list in the world, but discovered we had= a nearly $2000 phone bill from 900 numbers.

T. J. Wilkinson


on 5/10/01 2:55 AM, Deborah M. Nolan wrote:

Dear List Members,

There are times when I wonder if getting "away from it all" is re= ally worth it.

My husband and I just returned from a short trip to my mother's, and I just= read the List's emails. I am not Joan Chandler. "Joan Chandler" i= s, it would seem, the kid we hired to tend our dog while we were out of town= . (I wooed him with, among other things, the opportunity to use our computer= to "Surf the Net.")

I now understand why people "lock" their email programs.

I feel somewhat responsible for the havoc that "Joan" has been ra= ising and hope that nobody's life was made too miserable. If it's any consol= ation, I now appear to be on the mailing list of every porno site in the Nor= thern Hemisphere.

Bill, I received a personal email from you that was very sweet, and I was t= ouched by the concern of a total stranger. (Especially in light of the crap = "I" was throwing your way.) *smile* I've never been in the situati= on "Joan" described, but your advice was wise, and I appreciate yo= ur sharing it with me.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. And, now, if you'll excuse me, I have t= o start disinfecting my keyboard. . . and my desk. . . and my chair. . . . <= BR>
Deborah


"I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish He <= BR> didn't trust me so much."     - Mother Teresa


--MS_Mac_OE_3072329738_36527_MIME_Part-- From MajorDomo Thu May 10 12:33:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA10584 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:33:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10579 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:33:39 -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 ESMTP id MAA00849; Thu, 10 May 2001 12:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "Gerald L. Hurst" cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s In-Reply-To: <002e01c0d8f7$f07205a0$2d4ffea9@geraldhu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 506 > > Against my better judgement, I sometimes agree with > billo, but this is not one of those times. > > > Jerry > I see. So. Personal attacks you agree with are "professional," and should be posted to the list. Personal attacks you disagree with are "unprofessional" and should not be posted to the list. Glad we've cleared up what constitutes "professional" correspondence. Perhaps you can post a list of who it is acceptable to criticize, and who it is not acceptable to criticize. billo From MajorDomo Thu May 10 14:20:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA11757 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 14:20:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11752 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 14:20:20 -0400 (EDT) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200105101820.OAA11752@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 11:20:44 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, forensic-science@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vehicle Identification Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:15:00 -0700 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 Content-Length: 262 ---------- Does anyone recognize the letters "ANKUNI" with the letters "ANCE" under them on an amber tail light lens? I recall there being a data base with automotive parts. Does anyone have any information on the status of that data base? Helen R. Griffin From MajorDomo Thu May 10 15:33:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA12761 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:33:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doaisd01001.state.mt.us (doaisd01001.state.mt.us [161.7.1.78]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12756 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by doaisd01001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 10 May 2001 13:33:40 -0600 Message-ID: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7E43C9A@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, forensic-science@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Vehicle Identification Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 13:33:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 686 Hi Helen, The phone number for Motor Computer Connection Services is 705 267-5300. The Parts Query Software has not been marketed, but they can search your query. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division -----Original Message----- From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:15 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; forensic-science@yahoogroups.com Subject: Vehicle Identification ---------- Does anyone recognize the letters "ANKUNI" with the letters "ANCE" under them on an amber tail light lens? I recall there being a data base with automotive parts. Does anyone have any information on the status of that data base? Helen R. Griffin From MajorDomo Thu May 10 15:44:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA12966 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:44:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com [207.46.181.80]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12961 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 15:44:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from oemcomputer ([63.17.249.228]) by cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3225); Thu, 10 May 2001 12:44:26 -0700 Message-ID: <003901c0d989$b3810d20$e4f9113f@oemcomputer> From: "ndsos" To: Subject: research topic-forensic geology, fibers or hair Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:44:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C0D968.299F3620" 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 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2001 19:44:27.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F64E370:01C0D989] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 976 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C0D968.299F3620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Request for a research topic dealing with Forensic Geology, Fibers or = Hair; I am working towards PhD. john ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C0D968.299F3620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Request for a research topic dealing = with Forensic=20 Geology, Fibers or Hair; I am working towards PhD.
 
john
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C0D968.299F3620-- From MajorDomo Thu May 10 17:02:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA14310 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 17:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14305 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 17:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:02:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Site for Footwear Information (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 247 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 09:07:30 -0600 From: donna.meade@isp.state.id.us To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Site for Footwear Information http://members.aol.com/varfee/mastssite/home.html From MajorDomo Thu May 10 21:27:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA15980 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 May 2001 21:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sierra.onr.com (sierra.onr.com [199.1.90.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15975 for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 21:27:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from geraldhu (austin1-186.onr.com [64.28.100.186]) by sierra.onr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A8F3EF17CD for ; Thu, 10 May 2001 20:27:39 -0500 (CDT) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:52:38 -0500 Message-ID: <004c01c0d9b4$acb72bc0$2d4ffea9@geraldhu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 869 What I think is that you and Joan (whoever he may be) have blurred the distinction between "professional" and "professionalism." Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:34 AM To: Gerald L. Hurst Cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s > > Against my better judgement, I sometimes agree with > billo, but this is not one of those times. > > > Jerry > I see. So. Personal attacks you agree with are "professional," and should be posted to the list. Personal attacks you disagree with are "unprofessional" and should not be posted to the list. Glad we've cleared up what constitutes "professional" correspondence. Perhaps you can post a list of who it is acceptable to criticize, and who it is not acceptable to criticize. billo From MajorDomo Fri May 11 07:49:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA19088 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 07:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19083 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 07:49:43 -0400 (EDT) From: EarlNMeyer@aol.com Received: from EarlNMeyer@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.e8.14858ce6 (16783) for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 07:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 07:49:20 EDT Subject: Footwear Storage & retrieval To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e8.14858ce6.282d2bc0_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1485 --part1_e8.14858ce6.282d2bc0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am looking for information from labs with experience with electronic storage & retrieval of shoeprints. I am aware that the FBI offers a service to identify outsoles. I have also seen the demo disk for SICAR. 1) If you have used SICAR, what are your experiences and comments? 2) If you have another program you use or have developed an inhouse program can you give me information? 3) If you document reference outerwear electronically, what resolution/file sizes do you prefer? Please respond offline to EarlNMeyer@aol.com Thanks --part1_e8.14858ce6.282d2bc0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am looking for information from labs with experience with electronic
storage & retrieval of shoeprints.  I am aware that the FBI offers a service
to identify outsoles.  I have also seen the demo disk for SICAR.

1) If you have used SICAR, what are your experiences and comments?
2) If you have another program you use or have developed an inhouse program
can you give me information?
3) If you document reference outerwear electronically, what resolution/file
sizes do you prefer?

Please respond offline to EarlNMeyer@aol.com
Thanks

--part1_e8.14858ce6.282d2bc0_boundary-- From MajorDomo Fri May 11 10:00:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA21103 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:00:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f10.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21098 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 10:00:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 07:00:34 -0700 Received: from 199.172.230.61 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [199.172.230.61] From: "Vaughan Caines" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fire Debris Analysis Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:34 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2001 14:00:34.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF7EB7F0:01C0DA22] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 527 To the list, I am presently working at the Bermuda Government Laboratory as a temporary analyst, and I AM REQUESTING INFORMATION ON FIRE DEBRIS ANALYSIS. Which may be the best method: Direct Headspace Analysis? Heated? Activate Charcoal(Adsorbent)? Any other method? Any information would be greatly appreciated. I thank you in advance for your help. Vaughan Caines _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. From MajorDomo Fri May 11 13:10:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA23879 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA23874 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 11 May 2001 17:10:12 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:00:28 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Fire Debris Analysis Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:00:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DA3B.E10A2D00" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4884 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_01C0DA3B.E10A2D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, there are really two implied questions, what extraction method and what analytical method. For extraction, heated headspace sampling (i.e., heat container and sample headspace with a gas-tight syringe) is suitable as a quick screening test, and in some cases (light, low-boiling hydrocarbon mixtures, like gasoline) may be sufficient for identification. In most cases you will need a more efficient sampling method, and the method of choice today is undoubtedly passive heated headspace trapping via the carbon strip, e.g., DFlex (TM). It provides the best balance of ease, speed, efficiency and low discrimination (bias) between light and heavy components. Second best would probably be dynamic heated headspace trapping via charcoal tube. For analysis, GC/MS is state of the art, but capillary GC alone will suffice most of the time. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Vaughan Caines [mailto:vaughancaines@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:01 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fire Debris Analysis To the list, I am presently working at the Bermuda Government Laboratory as a temporary analyst, and I AM REQUESTING INFORMATION ON FIRE DEBRIS ANALYSIS. Which may be the best method: Direct Headspace Analysis? Heated? Activate Charcoal(Adsorbent)? Any other method? Any information would be greatly appreciated. I thank you in advance for your help. Vaughan Caines _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DA3B.E10A2D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Fire Debris Analysis

Well, there are really two implied questions, what = extraction method and what analytical method.  For extraction, = heated headspace sampling (i.e., heat container and sample headspace = with a gas-tight syringe) is suitable as a quick screening test, and in = some cases (light, low-boiling hydrocarbon mixtures, like gasoline) may = be sufficient for identification.  In most cases you will need a = more efficient sampling method, and the method of choice today is = undoubtedly passive heated headspace trapping via the carbon strip, = e.g., DFlex (TM).  It provides the best balance of ease, speed, = efficiency and low discrimination (bias) between light and heavy = components.  Second best would probably be dynamic heated = headspace trapping via charcoal tube.

For analysis, GC/MS is state of the art, but = capillary GC alone will suffice most of the time.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Vaughan Caines [mailto:vaughancaines@hotmail.c= om]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:01
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Fire Debris Analysis


To the list,

I am presently working at the Bermuda Government = Laboratory as a temporary
analyst, and I AM REQUESTING INFORMATION ON FIRE = DEBRIS ANALYSIS.
Which may be the best method:

Direct Headspace Analysis? Heated?

Activate Charcoal(Adsorbent)?

Any other method?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

I thank you in advance for your help.

Vaughan Caines




_______________________________________________________________= __________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DA3B.E10A2D00-- From MajorDomo Fri May 11 13:28:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA24277 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24272 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 13:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:28:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Thank-you (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1749 Please reply directly to this student if you would like to help her on her project. Thanks, Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 10 May 2001 19:03:58 -0700 From: Samantha Balogh To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Thank-you Dear Mr or Ms, Hello.I'm writing a research paper for school and I was wondering if you could please take some of your time and answer my survey, I'd be very greatful. I've always wanted to know how your job in Forensic Science operates. Thank-you for helping in my research, Samantha 1.How long have you been in your present career? 2.What education and training did you complete for your career?(include the amount of time and where studied/trained) 3.What are the duties that you preform in your career? 4.What are the advantages/postive aspects of your career? 5.What are the disadvantages/negative aspects of your career? 6.Describe your typical working conditions: A.Hours worked? B.Place of work? C.Type of clothing worn? D.Other? 7.What personality qualities does someone in your position need? 8.What advice would you give someone wanting to enter this job? 9.What do you most enjoy about your job? Explain. 10.What is the salary range in your position? 11.Benefits? 12.Do you belong to any professional organizations?List 13.What is the job outlook in your career field in the future? 14.Any additional comments about your position/career? Thank-you once again for taking time to answer my questionnaire. Looking forward for your answers! ------------------------------------------------------------- Sign up for ICQmail at http://www.icq.com/icqmail/signup.html From MajorDomo Fri May 11 20:16:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA27699 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 20:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f232.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.232]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27694 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 20:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:16:20 -0700 Received: from 168.191.72.90 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:16:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [168.191.72.90] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: glhurst@onr.com Subject: Geraldo's Lament Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:16:19 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2001 00:16:20.0016 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4DD9300:01C0DA78] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1149 Billo and List: It would appear that Geraldo is willing to accept the role of Turvey apologist. As he has stated plainly that he has examined Turvey's case work, found it worthy and now makes defense of it, I invite him to discuss those aspects he feels have merit Shaun >From: Bill Oliver >To: "Gerald L. Hurst" >CC: Forens E-mail Group >Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s >Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:33:32 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > Against my better judgement, I sometimes agree with > > billo, but this is not one of those times. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > >I see. So. Personal attacks you agree with are "professional," and >should be posted to the list. Personal attacks you disagree with are >"unprofessional" and should not be posted to the list. Glad we've >cleared up what constitutes "professional" correspondence. Perhaps you >can post a list of who it is acceptable to criticize, and who it is not >acceptable to criticize. > > >billo > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Fri May 11 20:24:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA27836 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 11 May 2001 20:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f190.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.190]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27831 for ; Fri, 11 May 2001 20:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 May 2001 17:24:29 -0700 Received: from 168.191.72.90 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 12 May 2001 00:24:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [168.191.72.90] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Professional? Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:24:29 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2001 00:24:29.0715 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8BFB630:01C0DA79] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1778 Gerald: I think I'd like to help you out with this. A professional is ostensibly somebody who subscribes to a code of ethics or technical standards of a profession. I invite you to say whether or not you believe Turvey is a professional by that standard. Before you reply, consider carefully the code of ethics his professional society which he created for himself. They are, of course, available at his website which hosts the prestigious "Academy of Behavioral Profiling". If it isn't too much to ask a simple yes or no reply will suffice. Shaun >From: "Gerald L. Hurst" >To: "Forens E-mail Group" >Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s >Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 19:52:38 -0500 > >What I think is that you and Joan (whoever he >may be) have blurred the distinction between >"professional" and "professionalism." > > >Jerry > >Gerald L. Hurst >ghurst@austin.rr.com > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] >Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:34 AM >To: Gerald L. Hurst >Cc: Forens E-mail Group >Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s > > > > > > > > Against my better judgement, I sometimes agree with > > billo, but this is not one of those times. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > >I see. So. Personal attacks you agree with are "professional," and >should be posted to the list. Personal attacks you disagree with are >"unprofessional" and should not be posted to the list. Glad we've >cleared up what constitutes "professional" correspondence. Perhaps you >can post a list of who it is acceptable to criticize, and who it is not >acceptable to criticize. > > >billo > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Mon May 14 13:37:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA22229 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 13:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MAIL4.pbso.org (fire1.pbso.org [209.149.216.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22224 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 13:37:24 -0400 (EDT) From: CaraballoB@pbso.org Subject: Photo Labs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:37:44 -0400 Disposition-Notification-To: x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4418.65 Message-ID: content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Photo Labs Thread-Index: AcDcnJUaiZRECAHyROStfkfrtcZ9vQ== To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id NAA22225 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 644 We are applying for re-accreditation via ASCLD/LAB and are including some non-traditional units in our application one is our Photo Lab. (Color and Black & White film processing, contact sheets, prints storage of negatives, Live Scan line-ups, some digital work product, public relations phot shoots etc) If your laboratory has included a Photo Lab in the accreditation process would you kindly identify yourself and would you be willing to chat and exchange information re: procedures, policies etc? I can be contacted via the list or directly caraballob@pbso.org Barbara Caraballo PBSO Crime Laboratory 561-688-4233 Thanks for your input. From MajorDomo Mon May 14 13:53:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA22698 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22693 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:36 -0400 (EDT) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Received: from ForensicRe@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.4c.152d33bc (18560) for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c.152d33bc.2831759a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:30 EDT Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_4c.152d33bc.2831759a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 17968 --part1_4c.152d33bc.2831759a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 05/14/2001 1:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Typeter writes: > Subj: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > Date: 05/14/2001 11:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time > Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > > > > /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ > > > Let NYTimes.com Come to You > > Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails > and the news will come directly to you. > YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis > and information about personal investing. > CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on > personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers > you a jump on special travel deals and news. > > http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5 > > \----------------------------------------------------------/ > > The Myth of Fingerprints > > > By SIMON COLE > > Future historians of science and law may well date the beginning of > the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season > of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony > Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd > anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are > exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, > they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room > to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever > lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he > concludes, "They got nothin."' > > He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has > ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years > ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like > snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this > bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent > the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of > infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded > as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at > criminal trials came to be practically unassailable. > > > > Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard > Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on > a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The > defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after > Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution > conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was > upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the > crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never > been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in > two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her > fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a > tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the > victim. > > As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether > fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are > ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, > it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent > proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint > examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three > years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions > arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic > requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such > challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried > for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the > credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and > academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these > cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it > is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility > and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long > reign. > > But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be > cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting > has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use > of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic > fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels > and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, > individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, > so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time > to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe > that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of > genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything > that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover > identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological > material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. > Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname > of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech > millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its > reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic > notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last > century. > > If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting, > history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was > the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal > identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily > measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to > pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting > was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more > discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically > enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting > as quaint as we find the Bertillon system. > > What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that > we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather, > that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more > easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public > trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the > course of history, even those propositions that seem most > indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this > increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before > we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of > infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints. > > Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of > Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University > Press). > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en= > fefd5afce2ff304f > > /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ > > > Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the > most authoritative news coverage on the Web, > updated throughout the day. > > Become a member today! It's free! > > http://www.nytimes.com?eta > > > \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ > > HOW TO ADVERTISE > --------------------------------- > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters > or other creative advertising opportunities with The > New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson > Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to > help@nytimes.com. > > Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: > Received: from rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.102]) > by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:51 - > 0400 > Received: from ms4.lga2.nytimes.com ([208.48.26.171]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol. > com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:26 -0400 > Received: from email5.lga2.nytimes.com (email5 [10.0.0.170]) > by ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D72C376D > for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) > Received: by email5.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202) > id 1192958A4E; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > Reply-To: typeter@aol.com > Errors-To: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > From: typeter@aol.com > To: typeter@aol.com > Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > Message-Id: <20010514154415.1192958A4E@email5.lga2.nytimes.com> > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > --part1_4c.152d33bc.2831759a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: Typeter@aol.com Full-name: Typeter Message-ID: <38.161ac4bb.28317488@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:48:56 EDT Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints To: ForensicRe@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_4c.152d33bc.28317488_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 --part2_4c.152d33bc.28317488_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part2_4c.152d33bc.28317488_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.102]) by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:51 -0400 Received: from ms4.lga2.nytimes.com ([208.48.26.171]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:26 -0400 Received: from email5.lga2.nytimes.com (email5 [10.0.0.170]) by ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D72C376D for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by email5.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202) id 1192958A4E; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com Reply-To: typeter@aol.com Errors-To: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com From: typeter@aol.com To: typeter@aol.com Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Message-Id: <20010514154415.1192958A4E@email5.lga2.nytimes.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by typeter@aol.com. /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ Let NYTimes.com Come to You Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails and the news will come directly to you. YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis and information about personal investing. CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers you a jump on special travel deals and news. http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5 \----------------------------------------------------------/ The Myth of Fingerprints By SIMON COLE uture historians of science and law may well date the beginning of the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he concludes, "They got nothin."' He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at criminal trials came to be practically unassailable. Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the victim. As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long reign. But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last century. If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting, history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting as quaint as we find the Bertillon system. What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather, that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the course of history, even those propositions that seem most indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints. Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University Press). http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en=fefd5afce2ff304f /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the most authoritative news coverage on the Web, updated throughout the day. Become a member today! It's free! http://www.nytimes.com?eta \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company --part2_4c.152d33bc.28317488_boundary-- --part1_4c.152d33bc.2831759a_boundary-- From MajorDomo Tue May 15 08:42:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA17197 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17184 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:42:39 -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 ESMTP id IAA00558; Tue, 15 May 2001 08:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:42:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "Gerald L. Hurst" cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: RE: Wheeler (fwd)s In-Reply-To: <004c01c0d9b4$acb72bc0$2d4ffea9@geraldhu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2207 Heh. A nice turn of phrase, there. However, I see it ultimately as vacuous (as you might expect). Certainly, I agree with the general principle. I agree with St. Paul when he said: "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another.(1)" Some people take that to mean that one should not take a nibble now and then. *I* take it to mean that one should not eat too much at one sitting. After all, loving one another does include the little love bite now and then. But as to your specific complaint about "professional" versus "professionalism." Let's consider how Jesus and Paul handled it. Jesus felt that calling things straight up was pretty much the appropriate thing to do. It was He who drove the moneychangers from the temple. It was He who said to his critics "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers! How can ye escape the damnation of Hell?(2)" I gather that, whether or not Jesus was a "professional," he was not displaying "professionalism" here. In contrast, no doubt you would applaud St. Paul's "professionalism" when he preferred to express his displeasure more obliquely: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works.(3)" I can just see Paul sniffing and looking down his nose when he wrote that sentence. He would have made a much better forensic scientist than his master, I suppose. No, Gerry, spare me from faux civility and misleading propriety. Save me from two-faced weasles who smile to your face and simper behind your back. I'd rather have it out with my wife over the dinner table and make love afterwords than be coldly polite while divorce lawyers haggle over the divorce papers with quiet "professionalism." I am what I am. And I don't mistake duplicity for "professionalism." (1) Gal 5:15, Revised Standard Version (2) Matthey 12:34, King James Version. (3) 2 Timothy 4:14 KJV On Thu, 10 May 2001, Gerald L. Hurst wrote: > From: Gerald L. Hurst > > What I think is that you and Joan (whoever he > may be) have blurred the distinction between > "professional" and "professionalism." > > > Jerry > > Gerald L. Hurst > ghurst@austin.rr.com > From MajorDomo Tue May 15 11:49:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA19969 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:49:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.truman.edu (gold.truman.edu [150.243.90.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19964 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 11:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from truman.edu (sh271001.truman.edu [150.243.68.148]) by gold.truman.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA893090; Tue, 15 May 2001 10:50:03 -0500 Message-ID: <3B014FE7.237A7E8A@truman.edu> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:48:56 -0500 From: joy pugh X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ForensicRe@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints References: <4c.152d33bc.2831759a@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1BE65C4CED2EC7544CF0F4BD" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 41216 --------------1BE65C4CED2EC7544CF0F4BD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a question for DNA analysts- I was taught several years ago that forensic DNA typing will not distinguish monozygotic twins. Is this still the case, using the current standards and technology? Assuming that the above is still true- if DNA typing will not absolutely distinguish two persons, how can DNA typing results be used as an individual characteristic (which I read as a unique characteristic)? Isn't there a fundamental difference between something truly unique and something extremely rare within the population? It seems that statements of identity, based on DNA typing, are made using "the extremely rare" rather than "unique" category. The claim for the individuality of prints is, of course, that the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique to persons, including identical twins. Explanations for this individuality include the anecdotal (those identifications/non-idents of prints made over the decades) and the notion that ridge patterns in skin develop randomly. Assuming, for the moment, that this is true, whether or not fingerPRINTS are unique depends on the quality of the print available for examination. Whether or not misidentifications have been made, based on print evidence, is due to the competence of the examiner, and the quality of that particular examination- which includes the ability and willingness to recognize that not every print can be identified. Now, regarding whether or not the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique- I have yet to see a statistical model that encompasses every aspect of the observations that are made when comparing two prints to determine if they share a common origin, or addresses the supposed random formation of friction ridge skin. (can anyone share such a study?) Trying to fit the DNA model to prints just doesn't work. It would really be a shame to have the value of print evidence called into question because it isn't DNA, or because some print examiner got it wrong. Being the ancient technology it is, one rarely hears any press about the innocent being exonerated on the basis of fingerprints- but it happens every day- typically before that innocent is ever charged. I'll look forward to any of your comments on this subject. I suspect that I am over-simplifying this issue- and if I am, I'm sure someone out there will set me straight ;-) Joy Pugh Truman State University ForensicRe@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 05/14/2001 1:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Typeter > writes: > > > Subj: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > > Date: 05/14/2001 11:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time > > Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > > > > > > > > /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ > > > > > > Let NYTimes.com Come to You > > > > Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails > > and the news will come directly to you. > > YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis > > and information about personal investing. > > CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on > > personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers > > you a jump on special travel deals and news. > > > > http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5 > > > > \----------------------------------------------------------/ > > > > The Myth of Fingerprints > > > > > > By SIMON COLE > > > > Future historians of science and law may well date the beginning of > > the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season > > of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony > > Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd > > anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are > > exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, > > they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room > > to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever > > lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he > > concludes, "They got nothin."' > > > > He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has > > ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years > > ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like > > snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this > > bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent > > the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of > > infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded > > as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at > > criminal trials came to be practically unassailable. > > > > > > > > Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard > > Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on > > a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The > > defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after > > Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution > > conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was > > upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the > > crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never > > been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in > > two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her > > fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a > > tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the > > victim. > > > > As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether > > fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are > > ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, > > it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent > > proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint > > examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three > > years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions > > arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic > > requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such > > challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried > > for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the > > credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and > > academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these > > cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it > > is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility > > and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long > > reign. > > > > But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be > > cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting > > has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use > > of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic > > fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels > > and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, > > individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, > > so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time > > to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe > > that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of > > genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything > > that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover > > identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological > > material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. > > Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname > > of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech > > millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its > > reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic > > notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last > > century. > > > > If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting, > > history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was > > the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal > > identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily > > measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to > > pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting > > was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more > > discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically > > enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting > > as quaint as we find the Bertillon system. > > > > What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that > > we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather, > > that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more > > easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public > > trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the > > course of history, even those propositions that seem most > > indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this > > increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before > > we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of > > infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints. > > > > Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of > > Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University > > Press). > > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en= > > fefd5afce2ff304f > > > > /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ > > > > > > Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the > > most authoritative news coverage on the Web, > > updated throughout the day. > > > > Become a member today! It's free! > > > > http://www.nytimes.com?eta > > > > > > \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ > > > > HOW TO ADVERTISE > > --------------------------------- > > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters > > or other creative advertising opportunities with The > > New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson > > Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media > > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > > > > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to > > help@nytimes.com. > > > > Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > > Return-Path: > > Received: from rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com > [172.20.105.102]) > > by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:51 - > > 0400 > > Received: from ms4.lga2.nytimes.com ([208.48.26.171]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol. > > com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:26 -0400 > > Received: from email5.lga2.nytimes.com (email5 [10.0.0.170]) > > by ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D72C376D > > for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) > > Received: by email5.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202) > > id 1192958A4E; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > > Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > > Reply-To: typeter@aol.com > > Errors-To: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > > From: typeter@aol.com > > To: typeter@aol.com > > Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > > Message-Id: <20010514154415.1192958A4E@email5.lga2.nytimes.com> > > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:48:56 EDT > From: Typeter@aol.com > To: ForensicRe@aol.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: typeter@aol.com > To: typeter@aol.com > > This article from NYTimes.com > has been sent to you by typeter@aol.com. > > /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ > > Let NYTimes.com Come to You > > Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails > and the news will come directly to you. > YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis > and information about personal investing. > CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on > personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers > you a jump on special travel deals and news. > > http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5 > > \----------------------------------------------------------/ > > The Myth of Fingerprints > > By SIMON COLE > > uture historians of science and law may well date the beginning of > the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season > of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony > Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd > anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are > exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, > they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room > to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever > lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he > concludes, "They got nothin."' > > He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has > ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years > ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like > snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this > bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent > the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of > infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded > as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at > criminal trials came to be practically unassailable. > > Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard > Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on > a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The > defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after > Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution > conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was > upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the > crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never > been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in > two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her > fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a > tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the > victim. > > As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether > fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are > ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, > it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent > proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint > examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three > years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions > arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic > requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such > challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried > for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the > credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and > academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these > cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it > is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility > and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long > reign. > > But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be > cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting > has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use > of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic > fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels > and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, > individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, > so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time > to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe > that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of > genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything > that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover > identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological > material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. > Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname > of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech > millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its > reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic > notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last > century. > > If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting, > history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was > the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal > identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily > measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to > pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting > was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more > discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically > enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting > as quaint as we find the Bertillon system. > > What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that > we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather, > that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more > easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public > trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the > course of history, even those propositions that seem most > indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this > increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before > we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of > infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints. > > Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of > Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University > Press). > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en=fefd5afce2ff304f > > /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ > > Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the > most authoritative news coverage on the Web, > updated throughout the day. > > Become a member today! It's free! > > http://www.nytimes.com?eta > > \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ > > HOW TO ADVERTISE > --------------------------------- > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters > or other creative advertising opportunities with The > New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson > Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to > help@nytimes.com. > > Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company --------------1BE65C4CED2EC7544CF0F4BD Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a question for DNA analysts- I was taught several years ago that forensic DNA typing will not distinguish monozygotic twins.  Is this still the case, using the current standards and technology?

Assuming that the above is still true- if DNA typing will not absolutely distinguish two persons, how can DNA typing results be used as an individual characteristic (which I read as a unique characteristic)?  Isn't there a fundamental difference between something truly unique and something extremely rare within the population?  It seems that statements of identity, based on DNA typing, are made using "the extremely rare" rather than "unique" category. 

The claim for the individuality of prints is, of course, that the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique to persons, including identical twins.  Explanations for this individuality include the anecdotal (those identifications/non-idents of prints made over the decades) and the notion that ridge patterns in skin develop randomly.  Assuming, for the moment, that this is true, whether or not fingerPRINTS are unique depends on the quality of the print available for examination.  Whether or not misidentifications have been made, based on print evidence, is due to the competence of the examiner, and the quality of that particular examination- which includes the ability and willingness to recognize that not every print can be identified.

Now, regarding whether or not the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique- I have yet to see a statistical model that encompasses every aspect of the observations that are made when comparing two prints to determine if they share a common origin, or addresses the supposed random formation of friction ridge skin.  (can anyone share such a study?)

Trying to fit the DNA model to prints just doesn't work.

It would really be a shame to have the value of print evidence called into question because it isn't DNA, or because some print examiner got it wrong.  Being the ancient technology it is, one rarely hears any press about the innocent being exonerated on the basis of fingerprints- but it happens every day- typically before that innocent is ever charged.

I'll look forward to any of your comments on this subject.  I suspect that  I am over-simplifying this issue- and if I am, I'm sure someone out there will set me straight ;-)

Joy Pugh
Truman State University

ForensicRe@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 05/14/2001 1:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Typeter
writes:

> Subj:  NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
>  Date:    05/14/2001 11:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>  Sender:  articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com
>
>
>
>  /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\
>
>
>  Let NYTimes.com Come to You
>
>  Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails
>  and the news will come directly to you.
>  YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis
>  and information about personal investing.
>  CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on
>  personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers
>  you a jump on special travel deals and news.
>
>  http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5
>
>  \----------------------------------------------------------/
>
>  The Myth of Fingerprints
>
>
>  By SIMON COLE
>
>   Future historians of science and law may well date the beginning of
>  the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season
>  of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony
>  Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd
>  anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are
>  exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons,
>  they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room
>  to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever
>  lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he
>  concludes, "They got nothin."'
>
>   He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has
>  ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years
>  ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like
>  snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this
>  bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent
>  the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of
>  infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded
>  as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at
>  criminal trials came to be practically unassailable.
>
>
>
>   Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard
>  Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on
>  a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The
>  defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after
>  Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution
>  conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was
>  upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the
>  crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never
>  been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in
>  two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her
>  fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a
>  tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the
>  victim.
>
>   As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether
>  fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are
>  ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer,
>  it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent
>  proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint
>  examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three
>  years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions
>  arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic
>  requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such
>  challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried
>  for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the
>  credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and
>  academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these
>  cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it
>  is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility
>  and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long
>  reign.
>
>   But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be
>  cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting
>  has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use
>  of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic
>  fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels
>  and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all,
>  individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore,
>  so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time
>  to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe
>  that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of
>  genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything
>  that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover
>  identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological
>  material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger.
>  Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname
>  of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech
>  millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its
>  reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic
>  notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last
>  century.
>
>   If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting,
>  history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was
>  the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal
>  identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily
>  measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to
>  pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting
>  was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more
>  discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically
>  enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting
>  as quaint as we find the Bertillon system.
>
>   What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that
>  we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather,
>  that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more
>  easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public
>  trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the
>  course of history, even those propositions that seem most
>  indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this
>  increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before
>  we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of
>  infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints.
>
>   Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of
>  Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University
>  Press).
>
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en=
> fefd5afce2ff304f
>
>  /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
>
>
>  Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
>  most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
>  updated throughout the day.
>
>  Become a member today! It's free!
>
>  http://www.nytimes.com?eta
>
>
>  \-----------------------------------------------------------------/
>
>  HOW TO ADVERTISE
>  ---------------------------------
>  For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
>  or other creative advertising opportunities with The
>  New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
>  Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media
>  kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
>
>  For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
>  help@nytimes.com.
>
>  Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
>
>
>
>
>  ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>  Return-Path: <siteadm@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com>
>  Received: from  rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com
[172.20.105.102])
> by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:51 -
> 0400
>  Received: from  ms4.lga2.nytimes.com ([208.48.26.171]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol.
> com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:26 -0400
>  Received: from email5.lga2.nytimes.com (email5 [10.0.0.170])
>   by ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D72C376D
>   for <typeter@aol.com>; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
>  Received: by email5.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202)
>   id 1192958A4E; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
>  Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com
>  Reply-To: typeter@aol.com
>  Errors-To: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com
>  From: typeter@aol.com
>  To: typeter@aol.com
>  Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
>  Message-Id: <20010514154415.1192958A4E@email5.lga2.nytimes.com>
>  Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
>

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:48:56 EDT
From: Typeter@aol.com
To: ForensicRe@aol.com
 
 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: typeter@aol.com
To: typeter@aol.com

This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by typeter@aol.com.

/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\

Let NYTimes.com Come to You

Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails
and the news will come directly to you.
YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis
and information about personal investing.
CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on
personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers
you a jump on special travel deals and news.

http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5

\----------------------------------------------------------/

The Myth of Fingerprints

By SIMON COLE

 uture historians of science and law may well date the beginning of
the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season
of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony
Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd
anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are
exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons,
they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room
to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever
lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he
concludes, "They got nothin."'

 He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has
ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years
ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like
snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this
bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent
the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of
infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded
as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at
criminal trials came to be practically unassailable.

 Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard
Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on
a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The
defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after
Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution
conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was
upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the
crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never
been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in
two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her
fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a
tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the
victim.

 As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether
fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are
ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer,
it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent
proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint
examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three
years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions
arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic
requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such
challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried
for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the
credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and
academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these
cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it
is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility
and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long
reign.

 But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be
cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting
has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use
of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic
fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels
and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all,
individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore,
so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time
to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe
that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of
genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything
that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover
identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological
material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger.
Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname
of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech
millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its
reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic
notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last
century.

 If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting,
history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was
the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal
identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily
measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to
pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting
was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more
discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically
enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting
as quaint as we find the Bertillon system.

 What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that
we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather,
that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more
easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public
trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the
course of history, even those propositions that seem most
indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this
increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before
we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of
infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints.

 Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of
Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University
Press).
 
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en=fefd5afce2ff304f

/-----------------------------------------------------------------\

Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.

Become a member today! It's free!

http://www.nytimes.com?eta

\-----------------------------------------------------------------/

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

--------------1BE65C4CED2EC7544CF0F4BD-- From MajorDomo Tue May 15 12:40:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA20786 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20781 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 12:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:40:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Photo Labs (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2439 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:56:14 -0400 From: "Thompson, Roger" To: "'CaraballoB@pbso.org'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Photo Labs Like you, we were also concerned about how we were to handle and document the forensic photography services provide to our analysts/examiners by our Photography Unit (A separate unit and operation as part of our Crime Scene Search Unit). After contact with a veteran ASCLD-Lab Inspector/Trainer, It was advised to have the process of how we handle and store physical evidence between the analyst/examiner and the forensic photographer both in the section's and photography unit's operating procedures manuals. The primary issues of concern are: 1) How do we handle our need for forensic photography when it is necessary for the analyst/examiner to have an evidence item photographed when the use of "to scale" photograph(s)is necessary for correct and proper analysis? 2) Describe how and document that the requesting analyst/examiner is the individual responsible for the instructions and oversight to assure the desired photograph meets established scientific principles for use in the analysis? 3) Describe how we maintain our chain of custody with this evidence? 4) Describe how and where the evidence is secured and what is the security of the Photo graphic Unit to accommodate this "process and procedure". I hope this gives you some thought or starting point for your venture into developing your documentation to cover this important aspect of photography for the crime laboratory. -----Original Message----- From: CaraballoB@pbso.org [mailto:CaraballoB@pbso.org] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 1:38 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Photo Labs We are applying for re-accreditation via ASCLD/LAB and are including some non-traditional units in our application one is our Photo Lab. (Color and Black & White film processing, contact sheets, prints storage of negatives, Live Scan line-ups, some digital work product, public relations phot shoots etc) If your laboratory has included a Photo Lab in the accreditation process would you kindly identify yourself and would you be willing to chat and exchange information re: procedures, policies etc? I can be contacted via the list or directly caraballob@pbso.org Barbara Caraballo PBSO Crime Laboratory 561-688-4233 Thanks for your input. From MajorDomo Tue May 15 13:41:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA21928 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:41:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web13404.mail.yahoo.com (web13404.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA21923 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010515174113.19066.qmail@web13404.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.180.26.11] by web13404.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 15 May 2001 10:41:13 PDT Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:41:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Patricia Lough To: CAT Forum Cc: forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 325 We have received a sample of apple juice that is suspected to contain urine. Does anyone know a lab that can test this sample for urine? Thanks, Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From MajorDomo Tue May 15 13:45:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA22053 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web13405.mail.yahoo.com (web13405.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.63]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA22048 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010515174508.19824.qmail@web13405.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.180.26.11] by web13405.mail.yahoo.com; Tue, 15 May 2001 10:45:08 PDT Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Patricia Lough Subject: Detection of Urine in Juice To: CAT Forum Cc: forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 413 I am resending this email because I forgot to put a subject line in the first message. We have received a sample of apple juice that is suspected to contain urine. Does anyone know a lab that can test this sample for urine? Thanks, Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From MajorDomo Tue May 15 13:45:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA22107 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from agency6.state.ky.us (agency6.state.ky.us [162.114.120.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22102 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:45:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Received: by agency6.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 13:38:41 -0400 Message-ID: To: plough7537@yahoo.com, catforum@onelist.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:40:25 -0400 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 Content-Length: 528 Pattie, Check with your serology section. Tracy -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Lough [mailto:plough7537@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1:41 PM To: CAT Forum Cc: forensl Subject: We have received a sample of apple juice that is suspected to contain urine. Does anyone know a lab that can test this sample for urine? Thanks, Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From MajorDomo Tue May 15 14:15:29 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA22955 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.state.me.us (mailhub.state.me.us [141.114.122.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22949 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-email.ps.state.me.us by mailhub.state.me.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:12:39 -0400 Received: from [141.114.109.134] by dps-email.ps.state.me.us; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:16:47 -0400 Message-Id: <001c01c0dd6b$0573fae0$866d728d@pschelms.ps.state.me.us> From: "Gretchen D. Hicks" To: "Patricia Lough" , "CAT Forum" Cc: "forensl" Subject: Re: Detection of Urine in Juice Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:15:23 -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 Content-Length: 967 Patricia, I have used the Urea Nitrogen test kit, an enzymatic colormetric test, from Sigma Diagnostics - "Quantitative, Urease/Berthelot Determination in Serum, Plasma or Urine at 500-650 nm." The catalog number is 640-A for 100 assays, or 640-B for 400 assays. 100 assays cost approximately $74.00. I have not used it for liquid samples, but for cuttings of clothing, etc. I make a cutting, place it in a spot plate, and add the reagents to the spot plate (per the New Hampshire crime laboratory protocol). I do not quantify, but simply report as presumptively positive or negative. According to the product insert, the limitations of the procedure are that "endogenous ammonia will be measured as urea N by this procedure." Please let me know if you would like more information. Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 30 Hospital St. Augusta, ME 04333 Gretchen.D.Hicks@state.me.us Tel: 207-624-7028 Fax: 207-624-7123 From MajorDomo Tue May 15 14:36:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA23422 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA23417 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:36:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.41.222] by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.03.03.00 201-232-128 license 840fca18751889914c07c5419b2f6990) with ESMTP id <20010515183157.ZPUA19388.spn25c0@[131.94.41.222]>; Tue, 15 May 2001 14:31:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: estauf01@fiu.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010515174508.19824.qmail@web13405.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20010515174508.19824.qmail@web13405.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:40:47 -0400 To: Patricia Lough From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: Detection of Urine in Juice Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1222170442==_ma============" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6573 --============_-1222170442==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Patricia, You can also use the test called Merckognost (by Merck), which is made to detect urea in blood. It works pretty well with urine. Otherwise you also have the test called Microquant (by Merck) used to test urea in swimming-pool water. It is a semi-quantitative colorimetric test and should work pretty too. You can also go for some more cumbersome tests such as TLC tests in order to detect some compounds such as creatinine, urea, indolmelanogen, urochrom, indican, etc... You may want to look at (sorry only German reference): Kerde, C., R. Werner & M. Recknagel (1986). "Zum Nachweis von Urinspuren". Kriminalistik und forensiche Wissenschaft, 63-64, 131-133 for the TLC of urine in order to detect indolmelanogen (supposedly the only really specific compound of urine according to some authors). Thoma, K. (1956). "Neues Verfahren: Der Nachweis von Urinspuren in der kriminalisticgen (gerichtsmedizinischen) Praxis". Arch. Kriminol., 118, 127-130. Weinke, H., F. Martin & B. Gibb (1966). "Zur Identifizierung van Harn und Harnflecken mittels D=FCnnschichtchromatographie". Dtsch. Z. Gesamte Gerichtl. Med., 58, 222-227. for the TLC of urine in order to detect urea and creatinine. You may also look in Gaensslen's Sourcebook in Forensic Serology, Immunology, and Biochemistry. Now, beware of the decomposition of urine in ammonia after a few days. You may not detect as much urea as it should be contained in urine since everything's has been transformed in ammonia and CO2. Hope this help, Regards, Eric >I am resending this email because I forgot to put a >subject line in the first message. > >We have received a sample of apple juice that is >suspected to contain urine. > >Does anyone know a lab that can test this sample for >urine? > >Thanks, >Pattie Lough >San Diego PD > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices >http://auctions.yahoo.com/ -- "Stealing someone's idea alone is called plagiarism. Stealing someone's idea when you are a group of people is called research". ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Criminalist seeking employment Miami, FL (305) 551-0178 estauf01@fiu.edu ----------------------------------------------------------- --============_-1222170442==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Detection of Urine in Juice
Patricia,

You can also use the test called Merckognost (by Merck), which is made to detect urea in blood. It works pretty well with urine. Otherwise you also have the test called Microquant (by Merck) used to test urea in swimming-pool water. It is a semi-quantitative colorimetric test and should work pretty too.

You can also go for some more cumbersome tests such as TLC tests in order to detect some compounds such as creatinine, urea, indolmelanogen, urochrom, indican, etc...

You may want to look at (sorry only German reference):

Kerde, C., R. Werner & M. Recknagel (1986). "Zum Nachweis von Urinspuren". Kriminalistik und forensiche Wissenschaft, 63-64, 131-133

for the TLC of urine in order to detect indolmelanogen (supposedly the only really specific compound of urine according to some authors).

Thoma, K. (1956). "Neues Verfahren: Der Nachweis von Urinspuren in der kriminalisticgen (gerichtsmedizinischen) Praxis". Arch. Kriminol., 118, 127-130.

Weinke, H., F. Martin & B. Gibb (1966). "Zur Identifizierung van Harn und Harnflecken mittels D=FCnnschichtchromatographie". Dtsch. Z. Gesamte Gerichtl. Med., 58, 222-227.

for the TLC of urine in order to detect urea and creatinine.

You may also look in Gaensslen's Sourcebook in Forensic Serology, Immunology, and Biochemistry.

Now, beware of the decomposition of urine in ammonia after a few days. You may not detect as much urea as it should be contained in urine since everything's has been transformed in ammonia and CO2.


Hope this help,

Regards,

Eric


I am resending this email because I forgot to put a
subject line in the first message.

We have received a sample of apple juice that is
suspected to contain urine.

Does anyone know a lab that can test this sample for
urine?

Thanks,
Pattie Lough
San Diego PD

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


--
"Stealing someone's idea alone is called plagiarism. Stealing someone's idea when you are a group of people is called research".

-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stauffer
Criminalist seeking employment
Miami, FL
(305) 551-0178
estauf01@fiu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------
--============_-1222170442==_ma============-- From MajorDomo Tue May 15 19:35:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA26160 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA26155 for ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 15 May 2001 23:35:37 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 15 May 2001 19:25:39 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:25:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DD96.59D666B0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 63117 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_01C0DD96.59D666B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Joy, I am not a DNA analyst, but I can provide you with some basic information. DNA typing cannot distinguish between monozygotic twins because their DNA is by definition, well, identical. Since their DNA is the same, there are no differences for typing to reveal. However, monozygotic twins are the only exception to the premise that everyone's DNA has some differences from everyone else's DNA; that everyone (except monozygotic twins) therefore has "unique" DNA, and so, given enough genetic markers for comparison, no two people will have the same "DNA profile." However, it is a mischaracterization to say that DNA typing, as practiced with current technology, is an "individualizing" (or "identifying") technique. Rather, it is a characterization technique which may infer (not guarantee) a near-individualization based on very high probability assessments. Only portions of the DNA molecule are analyzed, not the entire genome. More than 99% of human DNA is the same for all people anyway (and something like 95% of it is the same as a chimpanzee's), but not even all of the 1% that is different is compared, only portions of it (because the DNA molecule is very large and even that 1% represents a huge amount of genetic data). It is differences and similarities in these DNA fragments or segments that is being considered in DNA typing. DNA databases containing the "profiles" of these DNA segments for different people help us determine population frequencies, i.e., with what frequency different DNA profiles are expected to occur in a given population or population sample. If the population frequency is sufficiently low (i.e., the "profile" occurs sufficiently rarely), then an individualization (identification) may be statistically inferred, but not proven absolutely. Here is a GREATLY oversimplified illustration, just to give you the general idea. If a particular DNA "profile" has a determined frequency distribution within a given state population of 7 million people, and that frequency is 1 in 7 million, that means that particular profile is expected to occur in approximately one out of every 7 million people; but it does NOT mean that there is only one person in the state (population) who has that profile. It simply means that if you tested 7 million people, you would expect to find approximately 1 with that profile, if you tested 14 million, you would expect to find approximately two, etc. "Approximately" is a very important word in this case. On average, you would expect to find about 1 in every 7 million tested, but you might in reality find more or less than those numbers. Consider that people come into and out of that population every day, due to travel, births and deaths, etc., which alters the specific demographics of that statistic for any given day. So it's only an estimate. If it's announced that a DNA "profile" has a population frequency of 1 in 3 billion, many people make the mistake of assuming that because the world population is only 6 billion that there are only two people alive who could have that profile, and that there would not be a third person with that profile until the world population reached 9 billion. That assumption betrays a misunderstanding of both statistics and genetics. Without going into a detailed dissertation that I'm not really qualified to make (others on this list are much better qualified for this topic), consider first that the figure of "1 in 3 billion" is only an estimate, not an absolute. Secondly, consider that millions of people are born and die every day. I don't know the actual figure, but for the sake of illustration let's assume the figure is 90 million deaths and 100 million new births daily. Over the course of 30 years, then, 3 billion people have entered the world population but only 2.7 billion have left it. Even if there were only two people with the "1 in 3 billion" profile at year one, after thirty years we would expect at least one more with that profile to be born, so if the first two were still alive, you would now have three people with that profile. Yet the frequency estimate might still be only 1 in three billion, statistically speaking. Now suppose we have a crime in which blood left at the scene is tested and produces a profile that has a known frequency estimate of 1 in 9 billion. The suspect's profile is the same as that of the evidence from the scene, and his location/movements at the time of the crime are such that he could possibly have been present at the scene. Does that mean the suspect is the only person on Earth (total population 6 billion) who could have contributed that blood, because the profile has a frequency estimate of only 1 in 9 billion? As you might suspect by now, it does not. There may actually be two, five, or even ten people on Earth who happen to have that same profile, despite the probability estimate. So has there been an absolute identification of the suspect as the person who contributed the blood found at the scene? No, but from a practical standpoint, it almost amounts to the same thing because the chances of the only other person (or one of the only other 5 or even 10) having the opportunity to be at that same crime scene, out of all the places in the world they might otherwise have been, is extremely remote. Not impossible, but extremely remote. In practice, the DNA test may provide a frequency estimate of only 1 in millions rather than billions. That obviously doesn't justify a claim of absolute identification, but it's still a pretty powerful inference of commonality. Let's say the estimate is 1 in 10 million, and the crime occurred in Los Angeles. With 6 billion on the planet, we would expect there to be approximately 600 other people with that same profile on earth, but how many of them could have been at that scene? We would expect only 3 or 4 people with that profile to be found among California's population of 34 million, and approximately only one in Los Angeles County (population 9.9 million). Now that doesn't mean the perpetrator could not have driven from, say, San Francisco (or flown in from Miami for that matter), committed the crime and then left again. But what are the chances of that happening, of one of the other few people with the same DNA profile being at the very same place the defendant had access to? Certainly possible, but very unlikely. So in a nutshell, DNA testing does not identify a person, it only gives a probability estimate of the likelihood that someone other than the suspect contributed the evidence. When that probability assessment is very low, as it often is, the evidence against the suspect, while not absolute, is very strong. Since it is not absolute, it must still be considered in conjunction with all the other evidence in the case. Some day we may be able to "profile" 100% of the portion of human DNA that varies from person to person, and assuming the testing was done properly, we will then justifiably be able to say that we have established a 100% conclusive identification with no possibility for error (except for monozygotic twins). Right now, however, as powerful as DNA evidence can be, fingerprints are still the only method of absolute identification (individualization) of people that is recognized by both the scientific community and the courts, and it has been called into question by some. I believe that fingerprints will weather the storm, and that formal studies will corroborate the empirical evidence relied on to date which supports the contention that everyone's fingerprints are unique. Whether or not fingerprint examiners are always correct in their conclusions regarding fingerprint comparison is another matter entirely. I'm convinced fingerprints are in fact unique, but I'm just as certain that fingerprint examiners sometimes make mistakes - just like everyone else - because they're human, and no human is infallible. If proficiency test studies determine an error rate in fingerprint identification, that is not an indictment of the principle, but rather a demonstration that human application of the principle is fallible. The solution then would not be to abandon fingerprint analysis, but rather to improve training of examiners and institute better quality control safeguards (peer review, etc.). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: joy pugh [mailto:jpugh@truman.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:49 To: ForensicRe@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints I have a question for DNA analysts- I was taught several years ago that forensic DNA typing will not distinguish monozygotic twins. Is this still the case, using the current standards and technology? Assuming that the above is still true- if DNA typing will not absolutely distinguish two persons, how can DNA typing results be used as an individual characteristic (which I read as a unique characteristic)? Isn't there a fundamental difference between something truly unique and something extremely rare within the population? It seems that statements of identity, based on DNA typing, are made using "the extremely rare" rather than "unique" category. The claim for the individuality of prints is, of course, that the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique to persons, including identical twins. Explanations for this individuality include the anecdotal (those identifications/non-idents of prints made over the decades) and the notion that ridge patterns in skin develop randomly. Assuming, for the moment, that this is true, whether or not fingerPRINTS are unique depends on the quality of the print available for examination. Whether or not misidentifications have been made, based on print evidence, is due to the competence of the examiner, and the quality of that particular examination- which includes the ability and willingness to recognize that not every print can be identified. Now, regarding whether or not the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique- I have yet to see a statistical model that encompasses every aspect of the observations that are made when comparing two prints to determine if they share a common origin, or addresses the supposed random formation of friction ridge skin. (can anyone share such a study?) Trying to fit the DNA model to prints just doesn't work. It would really be a shame to have the value of print evidence called into question because it isn't DNA, or because some print examiner got it wrong. Being the ancient technology it is, one rarely hears any press about the innocent being exonerated on the basis of fingerprints- but it happens every day- typically before that innocent is ever charged. I'll look forward to any of your comments on this subject. I suspect that I am over-simplifying this issue- and if I am, I'm sure someone out there will set me straight ;-) Joy Pugh Truman State University ForensicRe@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 05/14/2001 1:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Typeter writes: > Subj: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > Date: 05/14/2001 11:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time > Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > > > > /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ > > > Let NYTimes.com Come to You > > Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails > and the news will come directly to you. > YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis > and information about personal investing. > CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on > personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers > you a jump on special travel deals and news. > > http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5 > > \----------------------------------------------------------/ > > The Myth of Fingerprints > > > By SIMON COLE > > Future historians of science and law may well date the beginning of > the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season > of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony > Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd > anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are > exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, > they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room > to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever > lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he > concludes, "They got nothin."' > > He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has > ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years > ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like > snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this > bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent > the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of > infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded > as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at > criminal trials came to be practically unassailable. > > > > Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard > Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on > a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The > defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after > Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution > conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was > upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the > crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never > been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in > two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her > fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a > tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the > victim. > > As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether > fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are > ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, > it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent > proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint > examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three > years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions > arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic > requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such > challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried > for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the > credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and > academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these > cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it > is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility > and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long > reign. > > But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be > cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting > has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use > of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic > fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels > and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, > individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, > so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time > to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe > that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of > genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything > that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover > identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological > material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. > Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname > of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech > millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its > reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic > notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last > century. > > If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting, > history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was > the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal > identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily > measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to > pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting > was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more > discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically > enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting > as quaint as we find the Bertillon system. > > What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that > we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather, > that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more > easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public > trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the > course of history, even those propositions that seem most > indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this > increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before > we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of > infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints. > > Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of > Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University > Press). > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054 &ei=1&en= > fefd5afce2ff304f > > /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ > > > Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the > most authoritative news coverage on the Web, > updated throughout the day. > > Become a member today! It's free! > > http://www.nytimes.com?eta > > > \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ > > HOW TO ADVERTISE > --------------------------------- > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters > or other creative advertising opportunities with The > New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson > Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to > help@nytimes.com. > > Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: > Received: from rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.102]) > by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:51 - > 0400 > Received: from ms4.lga2.nytimes.com ([208.48.26.171]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol. > com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:26 -0400 > Received: from email5.lga2.nytimes.com (email5 [10.0.0.170]) > by ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D72C376D > for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT) > Received: by email5.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202) > id 1192958A4E; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > Reply-To: typeter@aol.com > Errors-To: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com > From: typeter@aol.com > To: typeter@aol.com > Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints > Message-Id: <20010514154415.1192958A4E@email5.lga2.nytimes.com> > Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:48:56 EDT From: Typeter@aol.com To: ForensicRe@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT) From: typeter@aol.com To: typeter@aol.com This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by typeter@aol.com. /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\ Let NYTimes.com Come to You Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails and the news will come directly to you. YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis and information about personal investing. CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers you a jump on special travel deals and news. http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5 \----------------------------------------------------------/ The Myth of Fingerprints By SIMON COLE uture historians of science and law may well date the beginning of the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons, they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he concludes, "They got nothin."' He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at criminal trials came to be practically unassailable. Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the victim. As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer, it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long reign. But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all, individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore, so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger. Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last century. If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting, history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting as quaint as we find the Bertillon system. What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather, that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the course of history, even those propositions that seem most indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints. Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University Press). http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054 &ei=1&en=fefd5afce2ff304f /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the most authoritative news coverage on the Web, updated throughout the day. Become a member today! It's free! http://www.nytimes.com?eta \-----------------------------------------------------------------/ HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DD96.59D666B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Joy,
 
I am not a DNA analyst, but I can provide you with some basic information.  DNA typing cannot distinguish between monozygotic twins because their DNA is by definition, well, identical.  Since their DNA is the same, there are no differences for typing to reveal.  However, monozygotic twins are the only exception to the premise that everyone's DNA has some differences from everyone else's DNA; that everyone (except monozygotic twins) therefore has "unique" DNA, and so, given enough genetic markers for comparison, no two people will have the same "DNA profile."  However, it is a mischaracterization to say that DNA typing, as practiced with current technology, is an "individualizing" (or "identifying") technique.  Rather, it is a characterization technique which may infer (not guarantee) a near-individualization based on very high probability assessments.  Only portions of the DNA molecule are analyzed, not the entire genome.  More than 99% of human DNA is the same for all people anyway (and something like 95% of it is the same as a chimpanzee's), but not even all of the 1% that is different is compared, only portions of it (because the DNA molecule is very large and even that 1% represents a huge amount of genetic data).  It is differences and similarities in these DNA fragments or segments that is being considered in DNA typing.  DNA databases containing the "profiles" of these DNA segments for different people help us determine population frequencies, i.e., with what frequency different DNA profiles are expected to occur in a given population or population sample.  If the population frequency is sufficiently low (i.e., the "profile" occurs sufficiently rarely), then an individualization (identification) may be statistically inferred, but not proven absolutely.
 
Here is a GREATLY oversimplified illustration, just to give you the general idea.  If a particular DNA "profile" has a determined frequency distribution within a given state population of 7 million people, and that frequency is 1 in 7 million, that means that particular profile is expected to occur in approximately one out of every 7 million people; but it does NOT mean that there is only one person in the state (population) who has that profile.  It simply means that if you tested 7 million people, you would expect to find approximately 1 with that profile, if you tested 14 million, you would expect to find approximately two, etc.  "Approximately" is a very important word in this case.  On average, you would expect to find about 1 in every 7 million tested, but you might in reality find more or less than those numbers.  Consider that people come into and out of that population every day, due to travel, births and deaths, etc., which alters the specific demographics of that statistic for any given day.  So it's only an estimate.
 
If it's announced that a DNA "profile" has a population frequency of 1 in 3 billion, many people make the mistake of assuming that because the world population is only 6 billion that there are only two people alive who could have that profile, and that there would not be a third person with that profile until the world population reached 9 billion.  That assumption betrays a misunderstanding of both statistics and genetics.   Without going into a detailed dissertation that I'm not really qualified to make (others on this list are much better qualified for this topic), consider first that the figure of "1 in 3 billion" is only an estimate, not an absolute.  Secondly, consider that millions of people are born and die every day.  I don't know the actual figure, but for the sake of illustration let's assume the figure is 90 million deaths and 100 million new births daily.  Over the course of 30 years, then, 3 billion people have entered the world population but only 2.7 billion have left it.  Even if there were only two people with the "1 in 3 billion" profile at year one, after thirty years we would expect at least one more with that profile to be born, so if the first two were still alive, you would now have three people with that profile.  Yet the frequency estimate might still be only 1 in three billion, statistically speaking.
 
Now suppose we have a crime in which blood left at the scene is tested and produces a profile that has a known frequency estimate of 1 in 9 billion.  The suspect's profile is the same as that of the evidence from the scene, and his location/movements at the time of the crime are such that he could possibly have been present at the scene.  Does that mean the suspect is the only person on Earth (total population 6 billion) who could have contributed that blood, because the profile has a frequency estimate of only 1 in 9 billion?  As you might suspect by now, it does not.  There may actually be two, five, or even ten people on Earth who happen to have that same profile, despite the probability estimate.  So has there been an absolute identification of the suspect as the person who contributed the blood found at the scene?  No, but from a practical standpoint, it almost amounts to the same thing because the chances of the only other person (or one of the only other 5 or even 10) having the opportunity to be at that same crime scene, out of all the places in the world they might otherwise have been, is extremely remote.  Not impossible, but extremely remote.
 
In practice, the DNA test may provide a frequency estimate of only 1 in millions rather than billions.  That obviously doesn't justify a claim of absolute identification, but it's still a pretty powerful inference of commonality.  Let's say the estimate is 1 in 10 million, and the crime occurred in Los Angeles.  With 6 billion on the planet, we would expect there to be approximately 600 other people with that same profile on earth, but how many of them could have been at that scene?  We would expect only 3 or 4 people with that profile to be found among California's population of 34 million, and approximately only one in Los Angeles County (population 9.9 million).  Now that doesn't mean the perpetrator could not have driven from, say, San Francisco (or flown in from Miami for that matter), committed the crime and then left again.  But what are the chances of that happening, of one of the other few people with the same DNA profile being at the very same place the defendant had access to?  Certainly possible, but very unlikely.  So in a nutshell, DNA testing does not identify a person, it only gives a probability estimate of the likelihood that someone other than the suspect contributed the evidence.  When that probability assessment is very low, as it often is, the evidence against the suspect, while not absolute, is very strong.  Since it is not absolute, it must still be considered in conjunction with all the other evidence in the case. 
 
Some day we may be able to "profile" 100% of the portion of human DNA that varies from person to person, and assuming the testing was done properly, we will then justifiably be able to say that we have established a 100% conclusive identification with no possibility for error (except for monozygotic twins).  Right now, however, as powerful as DNA evidence can be, fingerprints are still the only method of absolute identification (individualization) of people that is recognized by both the scientific community and the courts, and it has been called into question by some.  I believe that fingerprints will weather the storm, and that formal studies will corroborate the empirical evidence relied on to date which supports the contention that everyone's fingerprints are unique.  Whether or not fingerprint examiners are always correct in their conclusions regarding fingerprint comparison is another matter entirely.  I'm convinced fingerprints are in fact unique, but I'm just as certain that fingerprint examiners sometimes make mistakes - just like everyone else - because they're human, and no human is infallible.  If proficiency test studies determine an error rate in fingerprint identification, that is not an indictment of the principle, but rather a demonstration that human application of the principle is fallible.  The solution then would not be to abandon fingerprint analysis, but rather to improve training of examiners and institute better quality control safeguards (peer review, etc.).
 
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: joy pugh [mailto:jpugh@truman.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:49
To: ForensicRe@aol.com
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints

I have a question for DNA analysts- I was taught several years ago that forensic DNA typing will not distinguish monozygotic twins.  Is this still the case, using the current standards and technology?

Assuming that the above is still true- if DNA typing will not absolutely distinguish two persons, how can DNA typing results be used as an individual characteristic (which I read as a unique characteristic)?  Isn't there a fundamental difference between something truly unique and something extremely rare within the population?  It seems that statements of identity, based on DNA typing, are made using "the extremely rare" rather than "unique" category. 

The claim for the individuality of prints is, of course, that the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique to persons, including identical twins.  Explanations for this individuality include the anecdotal (those identifications/non-idents of prints made over the decades) and the notion that ridge patterns in skin develop randomly.  Assuming, for the moment, that this is true, whether or not fingerPRINTS are unique depends on the quality of the print available for examination.  Whether or not misidentifications have been made, based on print evidence, is due to the competence of the examiner, and the quality of that particular examination- which includes the ability and willingness to recognize that not every print can be identified.

Now, regarding whether or not the patterns of friction ridge skin are unique- I have yet to see a statistical model that encompasses every aspect of the observations that are made when comparing two prints to determine if they share a common origin, or addresses the supposed random formation of friction ridge skin.  (can anyone share such a study?)

Trying to fit the DNA model to prints just doesn't work.

It would really be a shame to have the value of print evidence called into question because it isn't DNA, or because some print examiner got it wrong.  Being the ancient technology it is, one rarely hears any press about the innocent being exonerated on the basis of fingerprints- but it happens every day- typically before that innocent is ever charged.

I'll look forward to any of your comments on this subject.  I suspect that  I am over-simplifying this issue- and if I am, I'm sure someone out there will set me straight ;-)

Joy Pugh
Truman State University

ForensicRe@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 05/14/2001 1:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Typeter
writes:

> Subj:  NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
>  Date:    05/14/2001 11:43:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>  Sender:  articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com
>
>
>
>  /-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\
>
>
>  Let NYTimes.com Come to You
>
>  Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails
>  and the news will come directly to you.
>  YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis
>  and information about personal investing.
>  CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on
>  personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers
>  you a jump on special travel deals and news.
>
>  http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5
>
>  \----------------------------------------------------------/
>
>  The Myth of Fingerprints
>
>
>  By SIMON COLE
>
>   Future historians of science and law may well date the beginning of
>  the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season
>  of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony
>  Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd
>  anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are
>  exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons,
>  they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room
>  to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever
>  lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he
>  concludes, "They got nothin."'
>
>   He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has
>  ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years
>  ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like
>  snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this
>  bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent
>  the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of
>  infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded
>  as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at
>  criminal trials came to be practically unassailable.
>
>
>
>   Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard
>  Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on
>  a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The
>  defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after
>  Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution
>  conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was
>  upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the
>  crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never
>  been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in
>  two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her
>  fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a
>  tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the
>  victim.
>
>   As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether
>  fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are
>  ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer,
>  it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent
>  proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint
>  examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three
>  years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions
>  arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic
>  requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such
>  challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried
>  for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the
>  credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and
>  academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these
>  cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it
>  is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility
>  and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long
>  reign.
>
>   But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be
>  cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting
>  has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use
>  of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic
>  fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels
>  and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all,
>  individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore,
>  so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time
>  to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe
>  that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of
>  genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything
>  that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover
>  identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological
>  material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger.
>  Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname
>  of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech
>  millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its
>  reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic
>  notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last
>  century.
>
>   If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting,
>  history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was
>  the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal
>  identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily
>  measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to
>  pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting
>  was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more
>  discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically
>  enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting
>  as quaint as we find the Bertillon system.
>
>   What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that
>  we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather,
>  that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more
>  easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public
>  trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the
>  course of history, even those propositions that seem most
>  indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this
>  increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before
>  we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of
>  infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints.
>
>   Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of
>  Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University
>  Press).
>
>
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en=
> fefd5afce2ff304f
>
>  /-----------------------------------------------------------------\
>
>
>  Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
>  most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
>  updated throughout the day.
>
>  Become a member today! It's free!
>
>  http://www.nytimes.com?eta
>
>
>  \-----------------------------------------------------------------/
>
>  HOW TO ADVERTISE
>  ---------------------------------
>  For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
>  or other creative advertising opportunities with The
>  New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
>  Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media
>  kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
>
>  For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
>  help@nytimes.com.
>
>  Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
>
>
>
>
>  ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>  Return-Path: <siteadm@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com>
>  Received: from  rly-xb01.mx.aol.com (rly-xb01.mail.aol.com
[172.20.105.102])
> by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:51 -
> 0400
>  Received: from  ms4.lga2.nytimes.com ([208.48.26.171]) by rly-xb01.mx.aol.
> com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:43:26 -0400
>  Received: from email5.lga2.nytimes.com (email5 [10.0.0.170])
>   by ms4.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D72C376D
>   for <typeter@aol.com>; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
>  Received: by email5.lga2.nytimes.com (Postfix, from userid 202)
>   id 1192958A4E; Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
>  Sender: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com
>  Reply-To: typeter@aol.com
>  Errors-To: articles-email@ms1.lga2.nytimes.com
>  From: typeter@aol.com
>  To: typeter@aol.com
>  Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
>  Message-Id: <20010514154415.1192958A4E@email5.lga2.nytimes.com>
>  Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
>

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:48:56 EDT
From: Typeter@aol.com
To: ForensicRe@aol.com
 
 

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: typeter@aol.com
To: typeter@aol.com

This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by typeter@aol.com.

/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\

Let NYTimes.com Come to You

Sign up for one of our weekly e-mails
and the news will come directly to you.
YOUR MONEY brings you a wealth of analysis
and information about personal investing.
CIRCUITS plugs you into the latest on
personal technology. TRAVEL DISPATCH offers
you a jump on special travel deals and news.

http://email.nytimes.com/email/email.jsp?eta5

\----------------------------------------------------------/

The Myth of Fingerprints

By SIMON COLE

 uture historians of science and law may well date the beginning of
the end of fingerprinting to the opening night of the third season
of "The Sopranos." Coked to the gills, Christopher Moltisanti, Tony
Soprano's nephew, brings Livia Soprano's wake to an absurd
anticlimax as he muses on the claim that no two fingerprints are
exactly alike. For scientists to know this, Christopher reasons,
they would have to get everyone in the world together in one room
to check. And not just everyone in the world, but everyone who ever
lived. Since this would be impossible -- even using computers -- he
concludes, "They got nothin."'

 He's right, as it turns out. The claim that no fingerprint has
ever appeared twice was first popularized more than a hundred years
ago, and by dint of analogy (with other natural objects like
snowflakes), lack of contradiction and relentless repetition, this
bit of folk wisdom became deeply enshrined. By extension, it lent
the technique of forensic fingerprint analysis an aura of
infallibility. More than just a useful tool, it came to be regarded
as a perfect system of identification, and examiners' testimony at
criminal trials came to be practically unassailable.

 Until now, that is. In 1998, in Delaware County, Pa., Richard
Jackson was sentenced to life in prison for murder based largely on
a fingerprint match to which three experts had testified. The
defense argued, unsuccessfully, that it was a bad match. But after
Jackson spent more than two years in prison the prosecution
conceded the error, and he was freed. In Scotland a murder case was
upended when detectives found a fingerprint at the scene of the
crime that belonged to a police officer -- who claimed she'd never
been there in the first place. To verify her claim, she brought in
two fingerprint analysts who attested that not only had her
fingerprint been misidentified, but so had the print, found on a
tin at the home of the accused, originally attributed to the
victim.

 As these cases suggest, the relevant question isn't whether
fingerprints could ever be exactly alike -- it's whether they are
ever similar enough to fool a fingerprint examiner. And the answer,
it's increasingly, unnervingly clear, is a resounding yes. A recent
proficiency test found that as many as one out of five fingerprint
examiners misidentified fingerprint samples. In the last three
years, defendants in at least 11 criminal cases have filed motions
arguing that fingerprinting does not meet even the basic
requirements for scientific and technical evidence. The first such
challenge -- filed on behalf of Byron Mitchell, who was being tried
for robbery -- involved five full days of testimony on the
credibility of the technique by leading fingerprint examiners and
academic critics, including myself. There's no way to say how these
cases, some of which are still on appeal, will be decided, but it
is clear that puncturing the myth of fingerprinting's infallibility
and scientific validity poses a grave threat to its century-long
reign.

 But ultimately, the most dangerous threat to fingerprinting may be
cultural, not legal. Much of the public's faith in fingerprinting
has derived not from law but from culture: from the ubiquitous use
of the fingerprint as a metaphor (think of chemical and electronic
fingerprints); as an icon (think of advertisements, mystery novels
and the Court TV logo) of truth, science and most of all,
individual identity. Our fingerprints were unique, and, therefore,
so were we. As it happens, a new metaphor has arisen just in time
to fill the breach. These days we are increasingly apt to believe
that our individuality is vouched for by the unique arrangement of
genetic material in our cells. And DNA can now do nearly everything
that fingerprinting does. Forensic scientists can recover
identifiable DNA samples from ever-smaller traces of biological
material, even the stray cells left by the smudge of a finger.
Forensic DNA profiling, which has notably shed the early nickname
of "DNA fingerprinting," is a perfect match for high-tech
millennial sensibilities. Old-style fingerprinting, with its
reliance on human observation and its correspondence to a romantic
notion of our place in the universe looks . . . well, just so last
century.

 If this is indeed the beginning of the end of fingerprinting,
history will be repeating itself. A century ago, fingerprinting was
the upstart rival of the world's dominant method of criminal
identification: the Bertillon system, which used 11 bodily
measurements, facial features, birthmarks, scars and tattoos to
pinpoint individual identities. The transition to fingerprinting
was treated as proof that the world was growing more rational, more
discerning. But there may well come a time when our own genetically
enhanced descendants find our belief in the power of fingerprinting
as quaint as we find the Bertillon system.

 What are we to make of the end of fingerprinting? Not simply that
we are growing steadily less gullible and more scientific. Rather,
that the consensus that coalesces around scientific ideas is more
easily built than we might like to think, that legal and public
trust can be won over with a culturally resonant image. Over the
course of history, even those propositions that seem most
indisputable become fragile; our belief in them, fickle. In this
increasingly scientific era, it's a fact worth remembering before
we imbue the next foolproof system with the same aura of
infallibility that we once ascribed to fingerprints.

 Simon Cole is the author of "Suspect Identities: A History of
Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification" (Harvard University
Press).
 
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/magazine/13WWLN.html?ex=990855054&ei=1&en=fefd5afce2ff304f

/-----------------------------------------------------------------\

Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the
most authoritative news coverage on the Web,
updated throughout the day.

Become a member today! It's free!

http://www.nytimes.com?eta

\-----------------------------------------------------------------/

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson
Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DD96.59D666B0-- From MajorDomo Wed May 16 19:50:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA07195 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07190 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 19:50:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vifp.monash.edu.au (pc_haem_1 [130.194.124.124]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20259 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 09:50:18 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3B031407.75BFBC2D@vifp.monash.edu.au> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:57:59 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Organization: VIFM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3072 It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a DNA profile being “unique” on the basis of the low match probabilities. The concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a reading of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law Review 2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify this issue. Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell division. It is a question of what technique is used to detect the differences. If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA, then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical purposes, identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile. It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA profile, given a sibling’s profile, is several orders of magnitude higher than the “random” person. Hence, Balding takes relatives into account in his article “When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?” (Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260). Taking relatives into account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but, without it, a false impression of “uniqueness” is easily given. When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. However, you should consider what is actually meant by such a statement. Medicos commonly use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with partial prints at crime scenes. Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis that no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the testing. I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly titled “The prosecutor’s fallacy and DNA evidence”(Crim law Review 1994, pp711 –721). This article points out the problem of ignoring error rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result. It is also called the “Base Rate Effect” in non-forensic circles. In essence, the lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease, fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for significant weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish to make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then they have to be infallible. It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to consider when evaluating a “hit” from a search of a database. Such matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University. From MajorDomo Thu May 17 14:38:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA20315 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c0mailgw02.prontomail.com (mailgw.prontomail.com [216.163.180.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20310 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c0web111 (216.163.180.10) by c0mailgw02.prontomail.com (NPlex 5.1.050) id 3B019F410007A604; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:36:12 -0700 X-Version: medscape 6.0 .2057.0 From: "mary raidy" Message-Id: <514EC326EEA45D115A450005B83762B3@mary_raidy.medscape.com> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:38:43 -0400 X-Priority: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints X-Mailer: Web Based Pronto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1323 This comment is about the use of dna for identification in the justice system. It is not about fingerprints from the hand. DNA typing uses STR's, short for 'short tandem repeats'. Alec Jeffreys, who is the originator of the idea of using these segments of dna in the justice system is from England. He suggested using 13 areas of the STR's for matching purposes. In the U.S. today, only 4 areas of the STR's are used in dna profile testing. In my opinion, his theory may have been somewhat applicable in England, a small country with a relatively homogenous population. I do not agree that the same kind of testing is valid in a large country with such a heterogenous population as the U.S. So, because of the decrease in numbers of areas used for matching, and also because of the large size and heterogeneity of the U.S., I do not think that the use of STR's is useful or valid in the U.S. There are also other reasons that I think make the use of STR's invalid for profile testing. I am willing to discuss in detail any area of this topic. Mary Raidy ABCEV Institute. p.s. I may not check this list for replies for a few days, but I will respond to any discussion at a later date. mary_raidy@medscape.com Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move http://www.medscape.com From MajorDomo Thu May 17 16:06:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA21724 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA21719 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:06:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 17 May 2001 20:03:45 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 13:06:57 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE00700AF@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Breyer, Chris" To: "'mary raidy'" , rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 13:06:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1694 Is this opinion born out in studies? I don't hear about too many 'cold hits' in DNA databases to multiple individuals. Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: mary raidy [mailto:mary_raidy@medscape.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:39 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints This comment is about the use of dna for identification in the justice system. It is not about fingerprints from the hand. DNA typing uses STR's, short for 'short tandem repeats'. Alec Jeffreys, who is the originator of the idea of using these segments of dna in the justice system is from England. He suggested using 13 areas of the STR's for matching purposes. In the U.S. today, only 4 areas of the STR's are used in dna profile testing. In my opinion, his theory may have been somewhat applicable in England, a small country with a relatively homogenous population. I do not agree that the same kind of testing is valid in a large country with such a heterogenous population as the U.S. So, because of the decrease in numbers of areas used for matching, and also because of the large size and heterogeneity of the U.S., I do not think that the use of STR's is useful or valid in the U.S. There are also other reasons that I think make the use of STR's invalid for profile testing. I am willing to discuss in detail any area of this topic. Mary Raidy ABCEV Institute. p.s. I may not check this list for replies for a few days, but I will respond to any discussion at a later date. mary_raidy@medscape.com Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move http://www.medscape.com From MajorDomo Thu May 17 16:25:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA22213 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:25:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22208 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 16:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:25:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4874 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:55:25 -0400 From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness <<<<<<>>>>>>> If relatives are a factor in the case, we do. If they were not a factor, like in another state at the time (or don't even exist) we don't. There was a case where it was requested to calculate the possibility of the suspect's twin donating the sample, when the guy did not have a twin. <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> The hit is only used for probable cause to get a search warrant and the new sample is tested for confirmation. That would mean an error (and the same error whatever it was) would have to occur twice to not be detected. If the "error" was because a brother was in the system and they both had the same type (at 14 loci), those "duplicates" would be discovered through routine database searches. Additional testing could sort that out should it ever occur. Error rates should go to the credibility of the particular analyst, not incorporated into the match probability. My personal error rate does not change the frequency of alleles in a population used in the calculation. -----Original Message----- From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 7:58 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a DNA profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match probabilities. The concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a reading of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law Review 2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify this issue. Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell division. It is a question of what technique is used to detect the differences. If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA, then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical purposes, identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile. It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA profile, given a sibling's profile, is several orders of magnitude higher than the "random" person. Hence, Balding takes relatives into account in his article "When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?" (Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260). Taking relatives into account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but, without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is easily given. When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. However, you should consider what is actually meant by such a statement. Medicos commonly use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with partial prints at crime scenes. Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis that no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the testing. I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence"(Crim law Review 1994, pp711 -721). This article points out the problem of ignoring error rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result. It is also called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic circles. In essence, the lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease, fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for significant weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish to make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then they have to be infallible. It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a database. Such matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University. From MajorDomo Thu May 17 17:36:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA22969 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA22964 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 17 May 2001 21:36:40 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:26:37 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:26:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF18.0992F910" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 12482 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_01C0DF18.0992F910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I am not certain whether Dr. Atchison was replying to my post or simply continuing this discussion. In case he was replying to my post, I wish to make it clear that I pretty much agree with all he said, and did NOT at any time support the proposition that DNA profiles (as currently produced with current technology), are necessarily unique. I took pains to point out that this is not so. I did speculate that we might one day be able to routinely type enough of the genome to establish true uniqueness, but that day is not here yet. I also pointed out while very low match probabilities were very strong evidence supporting commonality of source, they were still not absolute and did not constitute "uniqueness" or "identification" (though they may infer it with a high degree of probability). As Dr. Atchinson says, it "is clearly a statistical issue." We also are in agreement about the uniqueness of fingerprints, i.e., that the issue in question (as far as scientists are concerned - lawyers are another matter) is not whether fingerprints are unique but rather whether the examiner correctly identified a given print in a given case. Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, that of partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of DNA replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a means to distinguish between monozygotic twins. Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my less than perfect discussion of this issue. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 19:58 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a DNA profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match probabilities. The concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a reading of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law Review 2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify this issue. Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell division. It is a question of what technique is used to detect the differences. If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA, then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical purposes, identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile. It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA profile, given a sibling's profile, is several orders of magnitude higher than the "random" person. Hence, Balding takes relatives into account in his article "When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?" (Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260). Taking relatives into account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but, without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is easily given. When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. However, you should consider what is actually meant by such a statement. Medicos commonly use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with partial prints at crime scenes. Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis that no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the testing. I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence"(Crim law Review 1994, pp711 -721). This article points out the problem of ignoring error rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result. It is also called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic circles. In essence, the lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease, fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for significant weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish to make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then they have to be infallible. It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a database. Such matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF18.0992F910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness

I am not certain whether Dr. Atchison was replying to = my post or simply continuing this discussion.  In case he was = replying to my post, I wish to make it clear that I pretty much agree = with all he said, and did NOT at any time support the proposition that = DNA profiles (as currently produced with current technology), are = necessarily unique.  I took pains to point out that this is not = so.  I did speculate that we might one day be able to routinely = type enough of the genome to establish true uniqueness, but that day is = not here yet.  I also pointed out while very low match = probabilities were very strong evidence supporting commonality of = source, they were still not absolute and did not constitute = "uniqueness" or "identification" (though they may = infer it with a high degree of probability).  As Dr. Atchinson = says, it "is clearly a statistical issue."  We also are = in agreement about the uniqueness of fingerprints, i.e., that the issue = in question (as far as scientists are concerned - lawyers are another = matter) is not whether fingerprints are unique but rather whether the = examiner correctly identified a given print in a given case.

Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post = failed to mention, that of partial prints (which may or may not be = unique), and that of DNA replication mutations which could some day = potentially provide a means to distinguish between monozygotic = twins.  Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your = insightful expansions of my less than perfect discussion of this = issue.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.= edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 19:58
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness


It is something of a worry that forensic scientists = still talk of a DNA
profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match = probabilities.  The
concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical = issue. Perhaps a reading
of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., = Criminal Law Review
2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding = will help to clarify
this issue.

Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same = 3 billion DNA
bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring = during cell
division.  It is a question of what technique = is used to detect the
differences.  If we look at only a very small = proportion of the DNA,
then the differences would not be seen. However, for = practical purposes,
identical twins are considered to have the same DNA = profile.

It should also be emphasized that the probability of = seeing the DNA
profile, given a sibling's profile, is several = orders of magnitude
higher than the "random" person.  Hence, = Balding takes relatives into
account in his article "When can a DNA profile be = regarded as unique?"
(Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260).  = Taking relatives into
account is not an approach favoured by some forensic = scientists but,
without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is = easily given.

When considering friction ridge prints, it is often = stated that
identical twins do not have the same = fingerprints.  However, you should
consider what is actually meant by such a = statement.  Medicos commonly
use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they = have similar
fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital = to ask is not
whether two people have the same set of = fingerprints, but whether they
can possibly have the same partial print. = Presumably, this is a
difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to = evaluate when faced with
partial prints at crime scenes.

Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored = on the basis that
no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness = Balding states the
assumptions he is making, including that there is no = error rate to the
testing.  I especially recommend an article by = Balding and Donnelly
titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA = evidence"(Crim law Review 1994,
pp711 -721).  This article points out the = problem of ignoring error
rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test = result.  It is also
called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic = circles. In essence, the
lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA = profile, disease,
fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to = be for significant
weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, = if analysts wish to
make a claim that no two people have the same = profile/fingerprint then
they have to be infallible.

It should be apparent that error rates are especially = critical to
consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a = database.  Such
matches may be the result of error rather than true = matches with crime
samples.

Dr. Bentley Atchison
Manager, Molecular Biology
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine
Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash = University.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF18.0992F910-- From MajorDomo Thu May 17 17:39:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA23082 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:39:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA23077 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:39:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 17 May 2001 21:39:20 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:29:17 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:29:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF18.69389960" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5676 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_01C0DF18.69389960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mary, I think you'll find that forensic labs in the US are using all 13 core loci for STRs as specified by DAB/SWGDAM guidelines (and as required for entry into the FBI's CODIS database) not just 4. I know we're using all 13 at my lab. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: mary raidy [mailto:mary_raidy@medscape.com] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 14:39 To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints This comment is about the use of dna for identification in the justice system. It is not about fingerprints from the hand. DNA typing uses STR's, short for 'short tandem repeats'. Alec Jeffreys, who is the originator of the idea of using these segments of dna in the justice system is from England. He suggested using 13 areas of the STR's for matching purposes. In the U.S. today, only 4 areas of the STR's are used in dna profile testing. In my opinion, his theory may have been somewhat applicable in England, a small country with a relatively homogenous population. I do not agree that the same kind of testing is valid in a large country with such a heterogenous population as the U.S. So, because of the decrease in numbers of areas used for matching, and also because of the large size and heterogeneity of the U.S., I do not think that the use of STR's is useful or valid in the U.S. There are also other reasons that I think make the use of STR's invalid for profile testing. I am willing to discuss in detail any area of this topic. Mary Raidy ABCEV Institute. p.s. I may not check this list for replies for a few days, but I will respond to any discussion at a later date. mary_raidy@medscape.com Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move http://www.medscape.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF18.69389960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of = Fingerprints

Mary, I think you'll find that forensic labs in the = US are using all 13 core loci for STRs as specified by DAB/SWGDAM = guidelines (and as required for entry into the FBI's CODIS database) = not just 4.  I know we're using all 13 at my lab.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: mary raidy [mailto:mary_raidy@medscape.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 14:39
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth = of Fingerprints


This comment is about the use of dna for = identification in the justice system.
It is not about fingerprints from the hand.

DNA typing uses STR's, short for 'short tandem = repeats'.

Alec Jeffreys, who is the originator of the idea of = using these segments of dna
in the justice system is from England.

He suggested using 13 areas of the STR's  for = matching purposes.

In the U.S. today, only 4 areas of the STR's are used = in dna profile  testing.

In my opinion, his theory may have been somewhat = applicable in England,
a small country with a relatively homogenous = population. I do not agree
that  the same kind of testing is valid in a = large country with such a heterogenous
population as the U.S.

So, because of the decrease in numbers of areas used = for matching, and also
because of the large size and heterogeneity of the = U.S., I do not think that the
use of STR's  is useful or valid in the = U.S.

There are also other reasons that I think make the = use of STR's
invalid for profile testing. I am willing to discuss = in detail any area of this topic.

Mary Raidy
ABCEV Institute.

p.s. I may not check this list for replies for a few = days, but I will respond to any discussion
at a later date.

mary_raidy@medscape.com

Sent by Medscape Mail: FREE Portable E-mail for = Professionals on the Move
http://www.medscape.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DF18.69389960-- From MajorDomo Fri May 18 08:04:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA28948 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28943 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:04:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: INPALMS (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3675 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:50:34 +1000 From: Sally Edwards To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: INPALMS Hello! I have recently started project coordinating the trade exhibition associated with the 7th Indo Pacific Congress on Legal Medicine and Forensic Science (INPALMS) 2001. While INPALMS is designed to promote national and international co-operation in education and research in legal medicine, forensic science and law enforcement, it has a particular interest in establishing and developing good forensic practice in developing countries. The conference will be staged in Melbourne in September 2001 and is expected to attract over 400 delegates from many countries. The trade show will be staged for the first two days of the conference and is linked to the catering area to ensure maximum contact with the delegates. You can access information about the congress throught the link in my signature. Information about the trade show can be obtained by contacting me directly. My hope is that you may be able to post notification of INPALMS on your noticeboard to help make it as successful as possible and hopefully go a long way to preventing/minimising future human rights abuses as the perpetrators gradually realise that with good forensic skills and the capacity to follow them through, crime does not pay. If you do have any ideas could you please email me back with them, I'll look forward to your reply. Thank you in anticipation! Sally Edwards - Project Manager, Australian Science Network (ASN) Unit 21B Balnarring Village Centre (PO Box 200) Balnarring Victoria 3926 AUSTRALIA ph + 61 3 5983 2400 fax + 61 3 5983 2223 mobile 0401 439 743 se@asnevents.net.au http://www.asnevents.net.au INPALMS website: http://www.vifp.monash.edu.au/inpalms2001/ PS. NOW is the time to register for the 7th Indo-Pacific Congress on Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences in Melbourne from 16-21 September 2001. We're sure you'll be excited by the program, which includes: * Major plenaries on * Forensic Medicine and Human Rights * A New Philosophy for Policing: Law Enforcement Engaging with Forensic Science * Investigating Sexual Assault * Applying Forensic Skills to Mass Fatalities * A range of minor plenaries on topics of current interest to practitioners in forensic science and medicine, law enforcement and related disciplines. * A great social program including a Welcome Reception hosted by the Governor of Victoria at Government House, and a selection of day trips taking in scenery, wildlife, and gourmet food and wine. * A series of workshops on: Clinical Toxicology; Expert Evidence; Drugs and Driving; Paediatric Forensic Medicine and The Ethics of Genetics. We are expecting a good turnout of delegates from the Indo-Pacific and from Europe and America, so it should be a very stimulating forum for both presentations and discussion. All the details you need to register or to submit an abstract are on the website at www.vifp.monash.edu.au/inpalms2001 NOTE: Earlybird registration finishes on 31 May 2001, so NOW really IS the time to register. We hope to see you at INPALMS 2001 in Melbourne in September. Alastair Ross On behalf of the INPALMS 2001 Organising Committee Regards, Ann Gidley Secretary National Institute of Forensic Science Suite 1, R & D Park Centre 2 Research Avenue BUNDOORA VIC 3083 AUSTRALIA Email: ann@nifs.com.au Tel: +61 3 9459-4299 Fax: +61 3 9457-3622 http://www.nifs.com.au 7th Indo-Pacific Congress on Legal Medicine & Forensic Sciences 16-21 September 2001 - Melbourne, Australia www.vifp.monash.edu.au/inpalms2001/ From MajorDomo Fri May 18 08:04:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA28967 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28962 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:04:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2666 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:51:23 +1200 From: john turner To: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness Just a few quick thoughts on fingerprints, uniqueness & statistics. (With the qualifiying statement that stats are not my strong point and I'm not making a dig at anyone in particular) 1. Partial ridge skin (even pore & ridge unit shape) is unique due to random growth of ridge units in the foetus. Whether or not this level of detail (Third level detail) is reproduced in the latent print is another story, so is our ability to discern , detect or compare this level of detail with sample inked prints. >Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, that of partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of DNA replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a means to distinguish between monozygotic twins. Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my less than perfect discussion of this issue. > 2. Fingerprnts of Identical twins undergo the same development in the foetus as anyone else. Level 1 detail (pattern types) are more likely to be similar in twins but level 2 & 3 detail is unique. In fact study of identical twins strongly supports the uniqueness of partail ridge skin. Again partial ridged skin is unique - our ability to discern this uniqueness is the issue. (As well as whether or not we could ever quantify this in a statistical manner.) That is why there are times where the conclusion must be: there is insufficent detail to reach a conclusion. > Medicos commonly use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with partial prints at crime scenes. > 3. A further comment I can't help but make in light of this statement... >The concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. ...is to quote the title of article I've read: 'What ever made us think we could individualize using statistics?' (by David Stoney, I believe). I've always liked the title, have enjoyed reading the article a number of times and I thought that the statement still held true. Sorry, this started as a 2 line comment and kind of expanded a lttle. Look forward to comments if any. John Turner A (Hopefully Not Too Biased) Fingerprint Officer From MajorDomo Fri May 18 11:00:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA02878 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f8.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02871 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:00:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 May 2001 08:00:49 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:00:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: mary_raidy@medscape.com, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: The Myth of Fingerprints Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:00:49 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2001 15:00:49.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[5327E8E0:01C0DFAB] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2498 Mary, Just a few comments about your latest post to the list. >This comment is about the use of dna for identification in the justice >system. >It is not about fingerprints from the hand. > >DNA typing uses STR's, short for 'short tandem repeats'. > >Alec Jeffreys, who is the originator of the idea of using these segments of >dna >in the justice system is from England. Dr. Jeffreys is indeed from England but he is the "father" of the RFLP type of DNA analysis - not the originator of the STR type of analysis. > >He suggested using 13 areas of the STR's for matching purposes. The thirteen STR loci (as used by CODIS) were developed by the FBI, the kit manufacturers and about 20 forensic labs around the country. These loci were chosen from about 20+ suggested loci following extensive testing - they were not suggested by a British scientist. > >In the U.S. today, only 4 areas of the STR's are used in dna profile >testing. In the USA today the use of thirteen STR loci is recommended by all the agencies I have had contact with (FBI, ASCLD etc). > >In my opinion, his theory may have been somewhat applicable in England, >a small country with a relatively homogenous population. I do not agree >that the same kind of testing is valid in a large country with such a >heterogenous >population as the U.S. BRITAIN is indeed a small country (area wise) with a population (approx 60 million) drawn from the old Empire (at one time covering approx 25% of the world's surface), the present day Commonwealth and member countries of the EU (Total pop. over 250 million). This population cannot be considered "homogenous" in the way I suspect you are using the term. I do not understand the rest of this comment (what theory from Dr. Jeffreys?). > >So, because of the decrease in numbers of areas used for matching, and also >because of the large size and heterogeneity of the U.S., I do not think >that the >use of STR's is useful or valid in the U.S. Already explained. > >There are also other reasons that I think make the use of STR's >invalid for profile testing. I am willing to discuss in detail any area of >this topic. If you are going to post comments about STRs and foreign countries please do the list a favour and at least do some research first. > >Mary Raidy >ABCEV Institute. > What is ABCEV? Regards David Smith _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Fri May 18 11:43:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA04374 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04369 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 18 May 2001 15:43:12 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:33:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness (fwd) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:33:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFAF.D5B05D70" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3922 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_01C0DFAF.D5B05D70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, that of >>partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of DNA >>replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a means to >>distinguish between monozygotic twins. Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also >>Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my less than perfect >>discussion of this issue. > >2. Fingerprnts of Identical twins undergo the same development in the >foetus as anyone else. Level 1 detail (pattern types) are more likely to >be similar in twins but level 2 & 3 detail is unique. In fact study of >identical twins strongly supports the uniqueness of partail ridge skin. >Again partial ridged skin is unique - our ability to discern this >uniqueness is the issue. (As well as whether or not we could ever quantify >this in a statistical manner.) >That is why there are times where the conclusion must be: there is >insufficent detail to reach a conclusion. Yes, it is well established that fingerprints can distinguish between even "identical twins." I was talking about DNA analysis, which currently cannot distinguish between monozygotic twins, but one day may be able to based on random mutation during cellular replication (as Dr. Atkinson commented). ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFAF.D5B05D70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness (fwd)

>>Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my = post failed to mention, that of
>>partial prints (which may or may not be = unique), and that of DNA
>>replication mutations which could some day = potentially provide a means to
>>distinguish between monozygotic twins.  = Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also
>>Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions = of my less than perfect
>>discussion of this issue.
>
>2.      Fingerprnts of = Identical twins undergo the same development in the
>foetus as anyone else.  Level 1 detail = (pattern types) are more likely to
>be similar in twins but level 2 & 3 detail = is unique.  In fact study of
>identical twins strongly supports the uniqueness = of partail ridge skin.
>Again partial ridged skin is unique - our = ability to discern this
>uniqueness is the issue.  (As well as = whether or not we could ever quantify
>this in a statistical manner.)    =
>That is why there are times where the conclusion = must be: there is
>insufficent detail to reach a conclusion. =

Yes, it is well established that fingerprints can = distinguish between even "identical twins."  I was = talking about DNA analysis, which currently cannot distinguish between = monozygotic twins, but one day may be able to based on random mutation = during cellular replication (as Dr. Atkinson commented).

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DFAF.D5B05D70-- From MajorDomo Fri May 18 12:44:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA05187 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.truman.edu (gold.truman.edu [150.243.90.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05182 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from truman.edu (sh271001.truman.edu [150.243.68.148]) by gold.truman.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA3639452; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:44:52 -0500 Message-ID: <3B05513A.3AE40DB4@truman.edu> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:43:39 -0500 From: joy pugh X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Parsons CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FF9772776B98F1A9E3EC81FF" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 14507 --------------FF9772776B98F1A9E3EC81FF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob, When we "infer" individuality or "uniqueness" using statistics- guess how your average citizen (i.e. those who sit on juries, etc.) will interpret such statements of identity? I suspect that when they hear the word "unique" they will believe that it is impossible to see that trait associated with another person, ever, in spite of any thorough, competent, statistical explanation and/or caveat given by the analyst. Is this the conclusion we want them to reach? Maybe that's just fine, given the current discriminating ability of DNA typing- maybe more discrimination will never be needed, and maybe the technology will never evolve beyond where it is now- maybe 10-20 years from now we will never have to offer explanations as to why statements about identity or uniqueness we made in 2001 weren't really about "true uniqueness." As you probably have guessed, I am a fan of a more conservative use of the words "unique" and "individual." And for reasons best expressed in a post by John Turner, friction ridge skin patterns are one of a very few types of evidence that fit this description. Respectfully, Joy Pugh, Criminalist Truman State University Robert Parsons wrote: > > > I am not certain whether Dr. Atchison was replying to my post or > simply continuing this discussion. In case he was replying to my > post, I wish to make it clear that I pretty much agree with all he > said, and did NOT at any time support the proposition that DNA > profiles (as currently produced with current technology), are > necessarily unique. I took pains to point out that this is not so. I > did speculate that we might one day be able to routinely type enough > of the genome to establish true uniqueness, but that day is not here > yet. I also pointed out while very low match probabilities were very > strong evidence supporting commonality of source, they were still not > absolute and did not constitute "uniqueness" or "identification" > (though they may infer it with a high degree of probability). As Dr. > Atchinson says, it "is clearly a statistical issue." We also are in > agreement about the uniqueness of fingerprints, i.e., that the issue > in question (as far as scientists are concerned - lawyers are another > matter) is not whether fingerprints are unique but rather whether the > examiner correctly identified a given print in a given case. > > Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, > that of partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of > DNA replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a > means to distinguish between monozygotic twins. Thank you, Dr. > Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my > less than perfect discussion of this issue. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au] > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 19:58 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness > > It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a > DNA > profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match probabilities. > The > concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a > reading > of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law > Review > 2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify > this issue. > > Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA > bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell > division. It is a question of what technique is used to detect the > differences. If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA, > then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical > purposes, > identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile. > > It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA > profile, given a sibling's profile, is several orders of magnitude > higher than the "random" person. Hence, Balding takes relatives into > account in his article "When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?" > > (Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260). Taking relatives into > account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but, > without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is easily given. > > When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that > identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. However, you > should > consider what is actually meant by such a statement. Medicos commonly > > use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar > fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not > whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they > > can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a > difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with > > partial prints at crime scenes. > > Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis > that > no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the > assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the > > testing. I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly > titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence"(Crim law Review > 1994, > pp711 -721). This article points out the problem of ignoring error > rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result. It is > also > called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic circles. In essence, the > > lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease, > fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for > significant > weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish > to > make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then > > they have to be infallible. > > It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to > consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a database. Such > matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime > > samples. > > Dr. Bentley Atchison > Manager, Molecular Biology > Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine > Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University. --------------FF9772776B98F1A9E3EC81FF Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob,

When we "infer" individuality or "uniqueness" using statistics- guess how your average citizen (i.e. those who sit on juries, etc.) will interpret such statements of identity?  I suspect that when they hear the word "unique" they will believe that it is impossible to see that trait associated with another person, ever, in spite of any thorough, competent, statistical explanation and/or caveat given by the analyst.  Is this the conclusion we want them to reach?

Maybe that's just fine, given the current discriminating ability of DNA typing- maybe more discrimination will never be needed, and maybe the technology will never evolve beyond where it is now- maybe 10-20 years from now we will never have to offer explanations as to why statements about identity or uniqueness we made in 2001 weren't really about "true uniqueness."

As you probably have guessed, I am a fan of a more conservative use of the words "unique" and "individual."  And for reasons best expressed in a post by John Turner, friction ridge skin patterns are one of a very few types of evidence that fit this description.
 

Respectfully,

Joy Pugh, Criminalist
Truman State University
 

Robert Parsons wrote:

 

I am not certain whether Dr. Atchison was replying to my post or simply continuing this discussion.  In case he was replying to my post, I wish to make it clear that I pretty much agree with all he said, and did NOT at any time support the proposition that DNA profiles (as currently produced with current technology), are necessarily unique.  I took pains to point out that this is not so.  I did speculate that we might one day be able to routinely type enough of the genome to establish true uniqueness, but that day is not here yet.  I also pointed out while very low match probabilities were very strong evidence supporting commonality of source, they were still not absolute and did not constitute "uniqueness" or "identification" (though they may infer it with a high degree of probability).  As Dr. Atchinson says, it "is clearly a statistical issue."  We also are in agreement about the uniqueness of fingerprints, i.e., that the issue in question (as far as scientists are concerned - lawyers are another matter) is not whether fingerprints are unique but rather whether the examiner correctly identified a given print in a given case.

Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, that of partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of DNA replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a means to distinguish between monozygotic twins.  Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my less than perfect discussion of this issue.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 19:58
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness

It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a DNA
profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match probabilities.  The
concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a reading
of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law Review
2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify
this issue.

Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA
bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell
division.  It is a question of what technique is used to detect the
differences.  If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA,
then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical purposes,
identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile.

It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA
profile, given a sibling's profile, is several orders of magnitude
higher than the "random" person.  Hence, Balding takes relatives into
account in his article "When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?"
(Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260).  Taking relatives into
account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but,
without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is easily given.

When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that
identical twins do not have the same fingerprints.  However, you should
consider what is actually meant by such a statement.  Medicos commonly
use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar
fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not
whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they
can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a
difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with
partial prints at crime scenes.

Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis that
no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the
assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the
testing.  I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly
titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence"(Crim law Review 1994,
pp711 -721).  This article points out the problem of ignoring error
rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result.  It is also
called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic circles. In essence, the
lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease,
fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for significant
weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish to
make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then
they have to be infallible.

It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to
consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a database.  Such
matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime
samples.

Dr. Bentley Atchison
Manager, Molecular Biology
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine
Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University.

--------------FF9772776B98F1A9E3EC81FF-- From MajorDomo Fri May 18 22:24:45 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA11140 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA11135 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:24:44 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.c4.147ab103 (4231) for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 22:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:24:32 EDT Subject: Fwd: Peltier To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_c4.147ab103.28373360_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 37682 --part1_c4.147ab103.28373360_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable << http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=3D9410 =20= =20 Rumor Mill News Read Only Forum LEONARD PELTIER=20 STATEMENT ON FBI ABUSES =20= =20 Posted By: Terra =20= =20 Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, 11:20 a.m. In Response To: NPR FREEH REMEMBERED= =20 FOR REMEMBERING HOLO. MUSEUM (RogueButterfly) This is a statement from Leonard Peltier addressing the actions of= =20 the FBI, not just in his case, but throughout recent history. http://www.freepeltier.org/abuses_fbi_peltier.htm#top Peltier Statement on FBI Abuses Greetings Brothers, Sisters, Friends and Supporters: I am writing this statement in the midst of controversy=20 surrounding the FBI's withholding of 3000 documents pertaining to the case=20 of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. This incident is only one of many=20 revelations of grave FBI misconduct in recent weeks, all of which expose=20 very serious violations of the Constitution and severe abuse of power by the=20 FBI. In Boston, what started with suspicions that FBI Agent, John=20 Connolly was involved in money laundering and racketeering led to the=20 exposure of much more. As it turned out, almost the entire Boston office was=20 involved in a heavy scheme, which protected notorious gangsters, who were=20 allowed to murder with impunity in exchange for information. That office even put=20 two innocent men, men they knew were innocent and who they very purposefully= =20 framed, in prison in order to keep their informants free from prosecution.= =20 These innocent men served thirty years in prison and were only released=20 after previously hidden FBI documentation was uncovered. What is worse is, it all could have been prevented. FBI agent=20 Robert Fitzpatrick says he reported the misconduct early on, and was=20 ignored. How much time will the agents responsible serve in prison? What will be=20 done to prevent this type of official criminal behavior from reoccurring? If= =20 history is any clue, not too much at all unless we take a firm stand against=20 these types of FBI abuses. Meanwhile, media coverage of Thomas Blanton's conviction for the=20 racist murder of four young girls, which occurred some 38 years ago, is=20 widespread. Since 1965 the FBI knew exactly who the murderers were, and they=20 hid the information. They protected KKK members who murdered children. What=20 will happen to these former agents? How will the FBI be held=20 accountable for their complicit role in such heinous activities? These violations are most serious. There can be no due process,=20 there can be no such thing as an open government, there can be no real=20 justice or democracy when an agency as powerful as the FBI can, decade after=20 decade, break the laws it vows to uphold with no repercussions. The cases=20 covered in the media lately are only the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more well documented incidences of FBI=20 abuses. It is up to the public to hold the FBI accountable. Clearly, no=20 system of checks and balances is in place and the media rarely reports FBI misconduct=20 unless politicians and judges condemn it first, in which case it is usually=20 too little too late. Don't let these latest disclosures deteriorate into "flash in the=20 pan" news stories. An effort must be forged to stop FBI abuses, and to gain=20 recognition that these are continuations of an all too common pattern. The FBI unfairly targeted Wen Ho Lee, withheld evidence about=20 Waco, and botched its handling of the Ruby Ridge incident. In 1998 the Los=20 Angeles FBI crime lab was exposed for it's routine tampering of evidence,=20 especially in high profile cases. In 1997 Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt was released= =20 after 27 long years of unjust imprisonment - yet another FBI frame-up. In=20 1990 Judi Bari's car was bombed, and again, the FBI hid evidence proving the= =20 bomb had been planted. Instead of finding the perpetrators, they criminally=20 charged the Earth First! activist, who was left crippled for life. (Find out=20 more about the Judi Bari case in this issue). Of course, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation the FBI allowed,=20 and further supported, the murderous GOON squads. Year after year I sit=20 through meaningless parole hearings where I am told that I must take=20 responsibility for a crime I did not commit. All the while, the faces of my=20 brothers and sisters who were killed during that era, loom in my head, as I=20 suppress my bitterness over such blatant discrimination and injustice. One day= =20 I know, this too will be recognized and exposed as a result of the efforts= =20 of the people. Officials will likely act surprised and outraged, even though= =20 we have been telling them all along about what we have experienced and=20 witnessed. Friends, I am not writing this statement out of bitterness, but=20 out of alarm. When will these kinds of abuses be stopped? When will we=20 overcome our fear of the FBI and say, never again. Not one more innocent person in=20 prison, not one more political prisoner, not one more unnecessary death? If=20 the FBI thought that Martin Luther King was a threat to the "American way=20 of life" then we must ask, what way of life do they defend, and do the=20 American people want the FBI to act on their behalf? In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier =A0 Copyright =A9 2000 LPDC The International Office of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee All Rights Reserved. I remember distinctly watching the news events unfold after the=20 Oklahoma City bombing. My first response was a very deep horror at the loss=20 and extreme violence, sadness for the families, despair. My next thoughts were= =20 of Wounded Knee. I don't know why I made the correlation then, but it=20 happened. The two events seemed to be a repeating message in loss of innocence,=20 two useless acts of hatred that seemed to stike the same chord. The=20 insidious result of bad trades and broken promises. What was traded for OKC? A brief history reads well in the words of Paul Berg, a=20 schoolteacher who was working at Pine Ridge during the second seige at=20 Wounded Knee in 1970: http://www.freepeltier.org/berg_letter.htm#top [Note: the entire letter represents a living history of those days= =20 in the 1970s known as the Reign of Terror, its devastation and effect on the= =20 people at Pine Ridge.] "The Sioux and the 7th Calvary clashed in the Battle of the Little= =20 Big Horn in 1876. Subsequently the participating bands of Sioux were hunted=20 down and confined in conditions of squalor on Federal Reservations. In 1890= =20 the Sioux were broken as a culture and as individuals. They collectively=20 embraced the Ghost Dance, a form of cultural hysteria. Government agents at=20 Pine Ridge incorrectly interpreted the Ghost Dance as an aggressive threat=20 to non-Indians and called in the army. As fate would have it, the responding army unit was the 7th=20 Calvary, an Army unit with a score to settle with the Sioux. At Wounded Knee= =20 Creek on a cold winter day, the 7th Calvary extracted revenge by massacring over=20 200 old men, women, and children. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Battle of Little Big Horn=20 was a battle between armed soldiers on both sides. Wounded Knee, in=20 contrast, was a massacre of mostly unarmed people by a military unit bent on=20 revenge. Women, and children were found as far as two miles from the site.=20 The women had thrown blankets over the children so that they would not see their= =20 executioners. Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to several of the=20 soldiers in the massacre. These medals have never been recalled. The people on= =20 Pine Ridge Reservation have lived with the collective cultural memory of a government massacre." (end quote) WHAT, I remember thinking, does this Oklahoma City bombing have to= =20 do with Wounded Knee? More armed offensive at totally helpless men, women, and children? At that point in time, the FBI had just begun=20 "investigating" the events in Oklahoma. Leonard Peltier was in jail for a=20 crime he did not commit. Somehow the Oklahoma murders seemed to mirror the 1890=20 Wounded Knee massacre of 200 people, including many children. Only this=20 time, everybody gasped in horror. History repeated, and made us scream=20 louder. To this day, no one has corrected that history from Pine Ridge, nor=20 have they acknowledged the horror and devastation that was unleashed that=20 day some 111 years ago in the minds and spirit of the people there. It was=20 the SAME THING, only most people forgot about Wounded Knee. Surely, the=20 killing of hundreds of Indians could get swept under the blanket of=20 "history" because the U.S. Government wanted to (and did) steal some more=20 gold-filled sacred land. Untold histories have a truly nasty way of=20 repeating themselves. The victim is always our innocence. Here we are now, at 2001. The world is appalled by the fact that=20 an admitted killer, McVeigh, is being granted a stay of execution; that his=20 case is being reinvestigated, and that the FBI would hide documents. Guess how=20 many sealed documents have not been released in Peltier's case? Answer: 6,000 from: http://www.freepeltier.org/remaining_avenues.htm#foi_act "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - 6000 FBI DOCUMENTS Because the courts only allow an issue to be litigated once, new=20 evidence is needed in order to obtain a retrial for Leonard Peltier. That=20 new evidence likely exists in the over 6,000 documents still being withheld by the=20 FBI. In the early 1980's, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act=20 Lawsuit, over 12,000 of these documents were released. But, the FBI=20 continued to withhold over 6,000 documents in their entirety and another 6,000 in part,=20 for reasons of "national security" and "ongoing" police investigations. The first batch of documents proved that: 1. Peltier did not fire the fatal shots. 2. The FBI intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the=20 defense. 3. The FBI agents had undeniably followed a red pickup (not a red=20 and white van) onto the ranch, a vehicle that could not be tied to Peltier. 4. The FBI had framed Peltier: Several other suspects with more=20 evidence against them existed, but were never indicted. One document stated=20 the FBI's intention to "develop evidence to lock Peltier into the case." 5. The prosecution colluded with the FBI and the Canadian=20 prosecutor to present falsified evidence to the Canadian court and obtain=20 Peltier's extradition. 6. Without justification, the FBI forewarned the trial judge, who=20 later warned the jury, of possible AIM violence, thus creating a prejudicial= =20 atmosphere in the courtroom. 7. The FBI had Peltier under surveillance for his AIM involvement=20 years prior to his arrest. 8. The FBI had been preparing for a paramilitary operation on the=20 Pine Ridge reservation weeks before the shoot out and had been closely=20 surveillancing AIM activities there. 9. The FBI considered AIM a threat to the United States and=20 covertly sought to destroy the movement. We can only imagine what might be contained in the rest of the=20 documents. Because 25 years have passed since the shoot-out, some of the=20 legal justifications available to the FBI for withholding documents are=20 no longer officially valid. Therefore, new Freedom of Information Act=20 requests have been filed and we can expect another lawsuit to take place in the=20 future. Meanwhile, we can also pressure the United States Congress to pass=20 an act to declassify the documents." (end quote) WHAT DOES PELTIER HAVE TO DO WITH MCVEIGH, OKC, AND THE ORIGINAL=20 MASSACRE OF WOUNDED KNEE? Peltier's plight is profoundly attached to the spiritual loss that= =20 occurred at Wounded Knee in 1890. The collective memory of an entire nation=20 has suffered deeply from the unresolved massacre. The seeds of injustice were=20 planted then. If the devastation and horror of OKC is not somehow balanced=20 by "justice" and life-affirming action, then the same horror and=20 self-deprecating mind-eating worm will feed itself into the lives and truths= =20 of the people who lived to experience Oklahoma City. The purveyors of pain and terror are the= =20 same as those from 111 years ago. Let history be the lesson. Several=20 positive steps include: telling the whole story of OKC correctly now, without=20 lies; telling the history of Wounded Knee, and its relevance to the terror=20 and devastation of the Lakota at Pine Ridge in 1970; reinvestigate the Peltier case,=20 and investigate the unresolved deaths of 57 other victims in the 1970=20 Wounded Knee Reign of Terror. If McVeigh gets a reprieve (and he already admits HIS=20 part in the crime) then why does Peltier have to remain imprisioned for an=20 act HE DID NOT COMMIT? If the FBI can be held unaccountable all-of-a-sudden=20 for some 3000 lost files, then why, OH WHY, does Peltier sit in jail with=20 some 6,000 withheld files? If the conspiracy theories about McVeigh are correct, and his=20 death determines the onset of some NWO, there still remains the fact that=20 one cold day, not so long ago, a mirror sent out a reflection of death. That ghost gets= =20 magnified over time. I do believe that Peltier is the final statement in=20 this somehow. His freedom will vindicate the spirits of all those killed at Wounded=20 Knee two times in history. If McVeigh gets off on a "technicality", the=20 disaster at Oklahoma City will act like Wounded Knee in the hearts and minds=20 of a people. If McVeigh gets another trial, while Peltier remains in prison,= =20 then the seed of injustice will dig ever deeper to divide the heart and=20 spirit of what is becoming the amalgamated culture of this land. Like it or=20 not, we are all in this together. It is the actions of our ancestors and the=20 inequities of their plight that we direct to steer into a peaceful future. Additionally, Former President Clinton did not pardon Peltier. The= =20 FBI actually marched in protest (the only time ever on record), and secret=20 meetings were held to negotiate against the clemency. On that day, instead,= =20 Clinton made a deal that stopped further investigation into his perjury=20 trial. It was a bad trade for history. Too many bad trades have happened here. There=20 are no more promises to break. The following clip is from "Passing Over Peltier, part 1 of 2 Among the things Bill Clinton left behind are a broken promise and= =20 questions of a deal" Published=A0May 15th 2001 By MICHAEL A. de YOANNA =A0Colorado Daily Staff Writer http://co001.campusmotor.com/shell_story_news.html?ID=3D1382 "Peltier's supporters pointed out that unlike numerous pardons=20 that were granted, Peltier's application for executive clemency went through= =20 all the appropriate Justice Department channels and had been pending=20 throughout the Clinton presidency. The case has drawn the support of the 250 Indian tribes=20 represented by the National Congress of American Indians, Amnesty=20 International and renowned world leaders such as the D --part1_c4.147ab103.28373360_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (rly-ye01.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.198]) by air-ye03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.37) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:22:59 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f57.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.57]) by rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2001 14:22:20 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 May 2001 11:22:19 -0700 Received: from 165.247.214.14 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 17 May 2001 18:22:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [165.247.214.14] From: "L.D. Tumulty" To: KJohn39679@aol.com Subject: Peltier Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:22:19 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2001 18:22:19.0825 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F342210:01C0DEFE] X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=9410 Rumor Mill News Read Only Forum LEONARD PELTIER STATEMENT ON FBI ABUSES Posted By: Terra Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, 11:20 a.m. In Response To: NPR FREEH REMEMBERED FOR REMEMBERING HOLO. MUSEUM (RogueButterfly) This is a statement from Leonard Peltier addressing the actions of the FBI, not just in his case, but throughout recent history. http://www.freepeltier.org/abuses_fbi_peltier.htm#top Peltier Statement on FBI Abuses Greetings Brothers, Sisters, Friends and Supporters: I am writing this statement in the midst of controversy surrounding the FBI's withholding of 3000 documents pertaining to the case of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. This incident is only one of many revelations of grave FBI misconduct in recent weeks, all of which expose very serious violations of the Constitution and severe abuse of power by the FBI. In Boston, what started with suspicions that FBI Agent, John Connolly was involved in money laundering and racketeering led to the exposure of much more. As it turned out, almost the entire Boston office was involved in a heavy scheme, which protected notorious gangsters, who were allowed to murder with impunity in exchange for information. That office even put two innocent men, men they knew were innocent and who they very purposefully framed, in prison in order to keep their informants free from prosecution. These innocent men served thirty years in prison and were only released after previously hidden FBI documentation was uncovered. What is worse is, it all could have been prevented. FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick says he reported the misconduct early on, and was ignored. How much time will the agents responsible serve in prison? What will be done to prevent this type of official criminal behavior from reoccurring? If history is any clue, not too much at all unless we take a firm stand against these types of FBI abuses. Meanwhile, media coverage of Thomas Blanton's conviction for the racist murder of four young girls, which occurred some 38 years ago, is widespread. Since 1965 the FBI knew exactly who the murderers were, and they hid the information. They protected KKK members who murdered children. What will happen to these former agents? How will the FBI be held accountable for their complicit role in such heinous activities? These violations are most serious. There can be no due process, there can be no such thing as an open government, there can be no real justice or democracy when an agency as powerful as the FBI can, decade after decade, break the laws it vows to uphold with no repercussions. The cases covered in the media lately are only the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more well documented incidences of FBI abuses. It is up to the public to hold the FBI accountable. Clearly, no system of checks and balances is in place and the media rarely reports FBI misconduct unless politicians and judges condemn it first, in which case it is usually too little too late. Don't let these latest disclosures deteriorate into "flash in the pan" news stories. An effort must be forged to stop FBI abuses, and to gain recognition that these are continuations of an all too common pattern. The FBI unfairly targeted Wen Ho Lee, withheld evidence about Waco, and botched its handling of the Ruby Ridge incident. In 1998 the Los Angeles FBI crime lab was exposed for it's routine tampering of evidence, especially in high profile cases. In 1997 Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt was released after 27 long years of unjust imprisonment - yet another FBI frame-up. In 1990 Judi Bari's car was bombed, and again, the FBI hid evidence proving the bomb had been planted. Instead of finding the perpetrators, they criminally charged the Earth First! activist, who was left crippled for life. (Find out more about the Judi Bari case in this issue). Of course, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation the FBI allowed, and further supported, the murderous GOON squads. Year after year I sit through meaningless parole hearings where I am told that I must take responsibility for a crime I did not commit. All the while, the faces of my brothers and sisters who were killed during that era, loom in my head, as I suppress my bitterness over such blatant discrimination and injustice. One day I know, this too will be recognized and exposed as a result of the efforts of the people. Officials will likely act surprised and outraged, even though we have been telling them all along about what we have experienced and witnessed. Friends, I am not writing this statement out of bitterness, but out of alarm. When will these kinds of abuses be stopped? When will we overcome our fear of the FBI and say, never again. Not one more innocent person in prison, not one more political prisoner, not one more unnecessary death? If the FBI thought that Martin Luther King was a threat to the "American way of life" then we must ask, what way of life do they defend, and do the American people want the FBI to act on their behalf? In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier   Copyright © 2000 LPDC The International Office of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee All Rights Reserved. I remember distinctly watching the news events unfold after the Oklahoma City bombing. My first response was a very deep horror at the loss and extreme violence, sadness for the families, despair. My next thoughts were of Wounded Knee. I don't know why I made the correlation then, but it happened. The two events seemed to be a repeating message in loss of innocence, two useless acts of hatred that seemed to stike the same chord. The insidious result of bad trades and broken promises. What was traded for OKC? A brief history reads well in the words of Paul Berg, a schoolteacher who was working at Pine Ridge during the second seige at Wounded Knee in 1970: http://www.freepeltier.org/berg_letter.htm#top [Note: the entire letter represents a living history of those days in the 1970s known as the Reign of Terror, its devastation and effect on the people at Pine Ridge.] "The Sioux and the 7th Calvary clashed in the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876. Subsequently the participating bands of Sioux were hunted down and confined in conditions of squalor on Federal Reservations. In 1890 the Sioux were broken as a culture and as individuals. They collectively embraced the Ghost Dance, a form of cultural hysteria. Government agents at Pine Ridge incorrectly interpreted the Ghost Dance as an aggressive threat to non-Indians and called in the army. As fate would have it, the responding army unit was the 7th Calvary, an Army unit with a score to settle with the Sioux. At Wounded Knee Creek on a cold winter day, the 7th Calvary extracted revenge by massacring over 200 old men, women, and children. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Battle of Little Big Horn was a battle between armed soldiers on both sides. Wounded Knee, in contrast, was a massacre of mostly unarmed people by a military unit bent on revenge. Women, and children were found as far as two miles from the site. The women had thrown blankets over the children so that they would not see their executioners. Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to several of the soldiers in the massacre. These medals have never been recalled. The people on Pine Ridge Reservation have lived with the collective cultural memory of a government massacre." (end quote) WHAT, I remember thinking, does this Oklahoma City bombing have to do with Wounded Knee? More armed offensive at totally helpless men, women, and children? At that point in time, the FBI had just begun "investigating" the events in Oklahoma. Leonard Peltier was in jail for a crime he did not commit. Somehow the Oklahoma murders seemed to mirror the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre of 200 people, including many children. Only this time, everybody gasped in horror. History repeated, and made us scream louder. To this day, no one has corrected that history from Pine Ridge, nor have they acknowledged the horror and devastation that was unleashed that day some 111 years ago in the minds and spirit of the people there. It was the SAME THING, only most people forgot about Wounded Knee. Surely, the killing of hundreds of Indians could get swept under the blanket of "history" because the U.S. Government wanted to (and did) steal some more gold-filled sacred land. Untold histories have a truly nasty way of repeating themselves. The victim is always our innocence. Here we are now, at 2001. The world is appalled by the fact that an admitted killer, McVeigh, is being granted a stay of execution; that his case is being reinvestigated, and that the FBI would hide documents. Guess how many sealed documents have not been released in Peltier's case? Answer: 6,000 from: http://www.freepeltier.org/remaining_avenues.htm#foi_act "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - 6000 FBI DOCUMENTS Because the courts only allow an issue to be litigated once, new evidence is needed in order to obtain a retrial for Leonard Peltier. That new evidence likely exists in the over 6,000 documents still being withheld by the FBI. In the early 1980's, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit, over 12,000 of these documents were released. But, the FBI continued to withhold over 6,000 documents in their entirety and another 6,000 in part, for reasons of "national security" and "ongoing" police investigations. The first batch of documents proved that: 1. Peltier did not fire the fatal shots. 2. The FBI intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. 3. The FBI agents had undeniably followed a red pickup (not a red and white van) onto the ranch, a vehicle that could not be tied to Peltier. 4. The FBI had framed Peltier: Several other suspects with more evidence against them existed, but were never indicted. One document stated the FBI's intention to "develop evidence to lock Peltier into the case." 5. The prosecution colluded with the FBI and the Canadian prosecutor to present falsified evidence to the Canadian court and obtain Peltier's extradition. 6. Without justification, the FBI forewarned the trial judge, who later warned the jury, of possible AIM violence, thus creating a prejudicial atmosphere in the courtroom. 7. The FBI had Peltier under surveillance for his AIM involvement years prior to his arrest. 8. The FBI had been preparing for a paramilitary operation on the Pine Ridge reservation weeks before the shoot out and had been closely surveillancing AIM activities there. 9. The FBI considered AIM a threat to the United States and covertly sought to destroy the movement. We can only imagine what might be contained in the rest of the documents. Because 25 years have passed since the shoot-out, some of the legal justifications available to the FBI for withholding documents are no longer officially valid. Therefore, new Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed and we can expect another lawsuit to take place in the future. Meanwhile, we can also pressure the United States Congress to pass an act to declassify the documents." (end quote) WHAT DOES PELTIER HAVE TO DO WITH MCVEIGH, OKC, AND THE ORIGINAL MASSACRE OF WOUNDED KNEE? Peltier's plight is profoundly attached to the spiritual loss that occurred at Wounded Knee in 1890. The collective memory of an entire nation has suffered deeply from the unresolved massacre. The seeds of injustice were planted then. If the devastation and horror of OKC is not somehow balanced by "justice" and life-affirming action, then the same horror and self-deprecating mind-eating worm will feed itself into the lives and truths of the people who lived to experience Oklahoma City. The purveyors of pain and terror are the same as those from 111 years ago. Let history be the lesson. Several positive steps include: telling the whole story of OKC correctly now, without lies; telling the history of Wounded Knee, and its relevance to the terror and devastation of the Lakota at Pine Ridge in 1970; reinvestigate the Peltier case, and investigate the unresolved deaths of 57 other victims in the 1970 Wounded Knee Reign of Terror. If McVeigh gets a reprieve (and he already admits HIS part in the crime) then why does Peltier have to remain imprisioned for an act HE DID NOT COMMIT? If the FBI can be held unaccountable all-of-a-sudden for some 3000 lost files, then why, OH WHY, does Peltier sit in jail with some 6,000 withheld files? If the conspiracy theories about McVeigh are correct, and his death determines the onset of some NWO, there still remains the fact that one cold day, not so long ago, a mirror sent out a reflection of death. That ghost gets magnified over time. I do believe that Peltier is the final statement in this somehow. His freedom will vindicate the spirits of all those killed at Wounded Knee two times in history. If McVeigh gets off on a "technicality", the disaster at Oklahoma City will act like Wounded Knee in the hearts and minds of a people. If McVeigh gets another trial, while Peltier remains in prison, then the seed of injustice will dig ever deeper to divide the heart and spirit of what is becoming the amalgamated culture of this land. Like it or not, we are all in this together. It is the actions of our ancestors and the inequities of their plight that we direct to steer into a peaceful future. Additionally, Former President Clinton did not pardon Peltier. The FBI actually marched in protest (the only time ever on record), and secret meetings were held to negotiate against the clemency. On that day, instead, Clinton made a deal that stopped further investigation into his perjury trial. It was a bad trade for history. Too many bad trades have happened here. There are no more promises to break. The following clip is from "Passing Over Peltier, part 1 of 2 Among the things Bill Clinton left behind are a broken promise and questions of a deal" Published May 15th 2001 By MICHAEL A. de YOANNA  Colorado Daily Staff Writer http://co001.campusmotor.com/shell_story_news.html?ID=1382 "Peltier's supporters pointed out that unlike numerous pardons that were granted, Peltier's application for executive clemency went through all the appropriate Justice Department channels and had been pending throughout the Clinton presidency. The case has drawn the support of the 250 Indian tribes represented by the National Congress of American Indians, Amnesty International and renowned world leaders such as the Dalai Lama and South African Archbishop and Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu. Even one of the judges who heard Peltier's case at the U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis advocates clemency. Advocates of clemency for Peltier had been encouraged since last November, when Clinton made his first public statement about the case in an unexpected call to New York radio station WBAI. In a 30-minute conversation with hosts Amy Goodman and Gonzalo Aburto, broadcast nationally on Nov. 12 by the Pacifica radio network on Goodman's syndicated show "Democracy Now!," Clinton promised he would give Peltier an answer one way or the other. While the hopes of Peltier's supporters ran high following Clinton's statement, FBI agents and a handful of their political allies in Washington, D.C., scrambled to prevent the president from letting loose the man they say is a cop killer. In the end, Clinton didn't keep his promise to give Peltier an answer. He passed the file over to incoming President George W. Bush -- who some say is unlikely to ever consider it -- leaving several questions seething beneath the surface. Did Peltier's supporters know that a secret team was dispatched to Washington just days before Clinton left office, to argue the merits of the Peltier case with White House Deputy Counsel Bruce Lindsey and others? Did his supporters know that the team, which included a lawyer, the author of a renowned book on Peltier and a top Hollywood film producer, were also asked to write a speech that Clinton could read explaining why he granted Peltier clemency? Just how influential was South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow, the man who takes credit for convincing Clinton in a mid-December Oval Office meeting to leave Peltier behind bars? Why, on Dec. 15, did hundreds of FBI agents launch an "unprecedented" picket against clemency in front of the White House? And why has Peltier spun a theory that may never be substantiated? In the only in-depth interview with Peltier to be granted by Leavenworth Penitentiary to a newspaper since last October, Peltier told the Colorado Daily that he believes Clinton passed over his file in exchange for the deal that allowed the former president to put behind him a charge of perjury stemming from his testimony to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "He traded his freedom for mine," Peltier alleged." (end quote) McVeigh is becoming the next Bad Trade, a broken promise. Will we return to our innocence? Or will we give it up as lost or stolen or TRADED? Messages In This Thread NEW: NPR FREEH REMEMBERED FOR REMEMBERING HOLO. MUSEUM (views: 86) RogueButterfly -- Thursday, 17 May 2001, 9:18 a.m. NEW: LEONARD PELTIER STATEMENT ON FBI ABUSES (views: 67) Terra -- Thursday, 17 May 2001, 11:20 a.m. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. --part1_c4.147ab103.28373360_boundary-- From MajorDomo Sun May 20 00:30:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA18488 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 20 May 2001 00:30:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.127]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18483 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 00:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 19 May 2001 21:30:27 -0700 Received: from 168.191.72.108 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 20 May 2001 04:30:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [168.191.72.108] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Ballistics Info Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 04:30:27 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2001 04:30:27.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[984D4FB0:01C0E0E5] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 317 I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound ballistics of this type of bullet? Shaun _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Sun May 20 13:37:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA23367 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:37:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from out-mx1.crosswinds.net (out-mx1.crosswinds.net [209.208.163.38]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23359 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from member-mx1.crosswinds.net (member-mx1.crosswinds.net [209.208.163.43]) by out-mx1.crosswinds.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB545DE58; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dialup (659999-171.dialup.surnet.ru [212.57.156.171]) by member-mx1.crosswinds.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 26AF74CB9B; Sun, 20 May 2001 13:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004301c0e153$1d1192c0$ab9c39d4@chel.su> From: "Alex & Anna" To: Cc: Subject: Intraparenchymous hemorrhage Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:20:02 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C0E17B.0544DD00" 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 Content-Length: 4673 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C0E17B.0544DD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear colleagues! I am a forensic pathologist from Russia. I have a = question for you. Here in Russia the majority of intraparenchymous hemorrhages (hematomas) = are considered to be caused by brain vessels disease, and the traumatic = cerebral hemorrhages are very rare. Does anyone know the statistics = about the causes of intraparenchymous (intracerebral) hemorrhage? And = how to evaluate the hemorrhage in the brain parenchyma if there are = signs of body injuries like bruises, scratches etc.?=20 Thanks in advance. Alex Reshetun-Belikov, MD =A0E-mail address: alexrb@crosswinds.net =A0=A0=A0=A0=20 ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C0E17B.0544DD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear colleagues! I = am a=20 forensic pathologist from Russia. I have a question for=20 you.

Here in Russia the = majority of=20 intraparenchymous hemorrhages (hematomas) are considered to be caused by = brain=20 vessels disease, and the traumatic cerebral hemorrhages are very rare. = Does=20 anyone know the statistics about the causes of intraparenchymous = (intracerebral)=20 hemorrhage? And how to evaluate the hemorrhage in the brain parenchyma = if there=20 are signs of body injuries like bruises, scratches etc.?=20

Thanks in=20 advance.

Alex = Reshetun-Belikov,=20 MD

=A0E-mail address: alexrb@crosswinds.net

=A0=A0=A0=A0=20

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C0E17B.0544DD00-- From MajorDomo Sun May 20 18:59:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA25347 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 20 May 2001 18:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from coyote.goldnet.com.br ([200.230.109.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25342 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 18:59:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from testedem (leao52.goldnet.com.br [200.230.109.52]) by coyote.goldnet.com.br (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f4KN0D726804 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 20:00:18 -0300 Message-ID: <00df01c0e180$b56f2f00$276de6c8@testedem> From: "Jorge Paulete Vanrell" To: Subject: To Alex Reshetun-Belikov, MD - Intraparenchymous hemorrhage Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 20:00:42 -0300 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 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1567 Dear Dr. Alex: Sorry by my poor english ! I am Forensic Examiner just in Brazil. Here we have a very large number of traumatic intra and extratecal hemorrhages, caused by accidents (car and others) or by human attaks (blunt). Notwithstanding, the number of intraparenchymous hemorrhages we find during necropsy is not very large (perhaps some 2 for each 100 cases of sudden death by brain vessels accident). Obviously, the most complicated cases are those exhibiting external body injuries like bruises, scratches etc. and, internally, intraparenchymous hemorrhage. In order to stablish the ethiology, we consider that for obtaining an intraparenchymous hemorrhage by means of external trauma, the body injuries would be of significative extension and would include not only dermal, but also galeal hematomas, skull bone injuries and so on. Since cerebral parenchyma where intraparenchymous hemorrhage occurs is deeply located, it is necessary that tissues "before" and "behind" the hemorrhage's locus suffered injuries also, either direct ones ("before"), or indirect ones ("behind", like counter-shock). In our experience, external body injuries like bruises, scratches etc. are frequently due to the fall down, the drop of the body after brain vessels accident. Hope this may help. Kind regards, Prof. Dr. Jorge Paulete Vanrell Forensic Examiner Professor de Medicina Forense - UNIRP Professor de Odontologia Legal - UNIP Caixa Postal, 179 Sao Jose do Rio Preto, SP - Brasil pericias@goldnet.com.br http://www.pericias-forenses.com.br UIN (ICQ) # 15114027 From MajorDomo Sun May 20 22:47:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA26996 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 20 May 2001 22:47:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.rollanet.org (mailsrv.rollanet.org [192.55.114.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA26991 for ; Sun, 20 May 2001 22:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 14244 invoked from network); 21 May 2001 02:46:57 -0000 Received: from access-6-27.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.194) by mx.rollanet.org with SMTP; 21 May 2001 02:46:57 -0000 Message-ID: <0a4d01c0e19a$12ee6380$4c419783@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Ballistics Info Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:02:21 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 689 Probably not in people, but the FBI may have included them in one of their periodic evaluations of handgun ammo, gelatin blocks being one of their series of tests. Don't remember the exact name of the publication (which is in the office) and my most recent one was about 92 or 3, but I think it was available from GPO. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:30 PM Subject: Ballistics Info I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound ballistics of this type of bullet? Shaun From MajorDomo Mon May 21 00:11:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA27489 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27484 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:11:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vifp.monash.edu.au (pc_haem_1 [130.194.124.124]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02090 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:11:11 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3B089725.EAE5E498@vifp.monash.edu.au> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:18:45 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Organization: VIFM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3003 The replies on this line raise some interesting points for discussion about “uniqueness”. Probable Cause (see Jeff Sailus’ reply) The term “probable cause” seems to imply that the matching DNA result is important information for the police to act on. Clearly, if the result had been due to an error then the police have been misled. The problem is defining when we have made an error. As it is not known when an error has occurred (if you do then you correct it!), we have to approach the analysis as an exercise in statistics when assessing how much weight to be applied to the evidence of a matching profile. Balding and Donnelly give the example of disease. Imagine we have a test for a disease which is known to be 99% reliable. That is, the probability of a positive test result from an uninfected individual is 1/100 and the probability of a negative result from someone actually infected in also 1/00. A man is chosen at random and the test result is positive. We want to ask, what is the probability the man is uninfected given the test result is positive? Some might say 1% because the accuracy of the testing is 99%. However, to answer this we need to know the incidence of the disease in the population. Say it is 1 in 1000. What is the correct answer to the question above? (see below). This approach can be used to evaluate the weight of the positive match in DNA testing. Say we cite a match probability of 1 in 90 billion but concede a positive error rate of 1 in 1 million (fairly low rate you might say). You might now work out the probability analogous to the one above. Database Hits Regarding finding a hit on a database. When Jeff Sailus says “a new sample is tested for confirmation”. This is an interesting policy. Presumably, the re-test is done because of the remote possibility of error in the laboratory. I assume that this means a completely new test of the crime sample as well as the suspect’s sample is done. Clearly, it would not be logical to assume there is no possibility of error when processing the crime sample. Error rates and frequency of alleles Jeff Sailus says “My personal error rate does not change the frequency of alleles. Indeed not (only slightly if there are errors in the database). However, the error rate does affect how you should react to a positive match. “Partial Fingerprints are unique” If often hear these types of statements, but I personally cannot find articles testing this idea. Could the members on the list please cite articles published in scientific journals which have tested this hypothesis? I would like to see how this very definite seemingly irrefutable conclusion was reached – perhaps DNA testing could use the same approach. Answer to Balding and Donnelly’s disease question About 91% ie the probability the person does not have the disease even though a positive result was obtained by the testing. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine From MajorDomo Mon May 21 00:11:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA27520 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:11:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com (imo-m10.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.165]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27515 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:11:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.d3.14fec632 (4466) for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 00:11:36 EDT Subject: ALS for under $100 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 Content-Length: 1731 Hi all... If you have multiple examination areas and want to equip each with an alternative light source, but find that you can't afford that many, then this idea is for you: Hie yourself down to the local pet store and get a blacklight, specially merchandised for finding pet stains. I recommend the one called Nature's Miracle Urine Odor Source Locator Blacklite. This model uses standard US 110V AC current, as opposed to other models which are battery-operated. I prefer the greater and uniform power output over portability, but the battery-operated models would be great for crime scenes. Apparently, exterminators use the portables for finding rodent urine. Either should be available for less than $40. One problem that I have is that the Nature's Miracle model is simply an 18" long fluorescent bulb in a plastic housing. There is no stand and the bulb has no shield. Thus, to examine evidence, you'd need one hand to hold it and, if you drop it, well, that would be... "bad." My solution is to get a fluorescent desk lamp, one that uses an 18" bulb (about $20-$30). Swap out the bulbs and you're done. You could also mount the included housing, but the light output isn't very effective beyond two or three feet. And, of course, they work for urine, semen, saliva, and what-have-you. While you could go down to a shop like Spencer's Gifts and get a blacklight for $10, I don't recommend this. These blacklights are meant for posters and other glow-in-the-dark stuff, which is active on a wider range of wavelengths. Unfortunately, urine, semen, and other physiological fluids aren't in that range. Arthur Young Acadiana Crime Lab somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana... From MajorDomo Mon May 21 00:37:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA27792 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CDCSRV1 (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA27787 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:37:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105210437.AAA27787@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:38:00 +1300 From: "Walsh, Kevan" Subject: RE: Ballistics Info To: SHAUN WHEELER Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1653 Shaun The answer to your question is......... "it depends" ....what projectile/calibre you're referring to, ....what firearm, ....and what you mean by 'document the wound ballistics'. Trying to be more constructive, there is at least one study done - by Martin Fackler (185 grain Silvertip Winchester 45 ACP). It certainly seems to be one of the simpler wound profiles that can be obtained. See; http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45%20ACP%20WW%20ST HP.jpg I think the only other Winchester Silvertip in 45 calibre is a 45 Colt load. A quick search through the contents of the International Wound Ballistics Association (http://www.iwba.com/index.html) didn't reveal any articles on this projectile but it may have been published elsewhere. Your best bet would be to contact an expert in the field, such as Dr Fackler. A possible source from which contact information for Dr Fackler might be obtained, is via the membership secretary of AFTE (http://www.afte.org), Raymond Cooper MemSec@afte.org Kevan Walsh ESR Private Bag 92021 Auckland NEW ZEALAND Ph: #64-9-8153903 Fax: #64-9-8496046 Email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz ---------- From: SHAUN WHEELER[SMTP:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2001 16:30 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Ballistics Info I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound ballistics of this type of bullet? Shaun _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Mon May 21 00:39:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA27818 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:39:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27813 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nt_exchange.brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (nt_exchange [130.194.124.121]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05932; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:38:59 +1000 (EST) Received: by nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2KSGW2GZ>; Mon, 21 May 2001 14:44:07 +1000 Message-ID: <07A064EA6042D4118A62009027F70E770518CC@nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> From: Morris Odell To: "Forens-L (E-mail)" , "Drug Recognition List (E-mail)" Subject: Alcohol odour threshold Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:44:07 +1000 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 Content-Length: 504 Hi all, I have been asked about a case which involves someone smelling alcohol on a person's breath. Is anyone aware of any research or publications concerning any correlation between BAC and the perceived smell of alcohol? At what lavel of BAC is the smell evident and what factors affect it?? For what it's worth, I personally have observed a wide disparity between what I (and others) can perceive and what the breath test reveals. Thanks, Dr Morris Odell Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine From MajorDomo Mon May 21 00:54:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA28017 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web9504.mail.yahoo.com (web9504.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.134]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA28012 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 00:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010521045452.13427.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.14.245.101] by web9504.mail.yahoo.com; Sun, 20 May 2001 21:54:52 PDT Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:54:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Brenna Primrose Subject: Re: Alcohol odour threshold To: Morris Odell , "Forens-L \(E-mail\)" , "Drug Recognition List \(E-mail\)" In-Reply-To: <07A064EA6042D4118A62009027F70E770518CC@nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1320 Can't Ketone acidosis (not for sure on the spelling of this) give a person sweet smelling breath that some perceive to be an "alcoholic" smell? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think I've heard of something like that happening before. Brenna --- Morris Odell wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been asked about a case which involves > someone smelling alcohol on a > person's breath. Is anyone aware of any research or > publications concerning > any correlation between BAC and the perceived smell > of alcohol? At what > lavel of BAC is the smell evident and what factors > affect it?? > > For what it's worth, I personally have observed a > wide disparity between > what I (and others) can perceive and what the breath > test reveals. > > Thanks, > > Dr Morris Odell > Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine ===== http://www.geocities.com/h_primrose/ - My homepage http://profiles.yahoo.com/absolut_contagion/ - My Yahoo! Profile http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/amazongirls - AmazonGIRLS Club http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/greenparty2004 - Green Party Club "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n." - John Milton, Paradise Lost (Book 1) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From MajorDomo Mon May 21 09:13:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA01120 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.nist.gov (email.nist.gov [129.6.2.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01115 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goodpaster (h179112.nist.gov [129.6.179.112]) by email.nist.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25583 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010521090116.00a3ce70@mailserver.nist.gov> X-Sender: jgoodpas@mailserver.nist.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 09:13:41 -0400 To: Forensic Science Mailing List From: John Goodpaster Subject: Peltier Letter In-Reply-To: <200105190359.XAA11597@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1791134625==_.ALT" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2795 --=====================_1791134625==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greetings, Without making any other comments or judgements, I wanted to correct what I believe to be a factual error in the forwarded letter from Leonard Peltier: > > In 1998 the Los Angeles FBI crime lab was exposed for it's routine tampering > of evidence, especially in high profile cases. This sounds like a reference to the O.J. Simpson case. To be fair, the FBI does not have a laboratory in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Police Department Laboratory was the target of defense accusations of contamination and incompetence. My recollection of the FBI Laboratory's involvement in the case was duplicating some of the DNA analyses (as did Cellmark Laboratories in MD) and providing an expert opinion on fiber evidence. Over and Out. John Goodpaster ***************************************************************************** John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Division National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8392 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8392 Phone: 301-975-3142 FAX: 301-977-0685 e-mail: john.goodpaster@nist.gov ******************************************************************************* --=====================_1791134625==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Greetings,

Without making any other comments or judgements, I wanted to correct what I believe to be a factual error in the forwarded letter from Leonard Peltier:

In 1998 the Los Angeles FBI crime lab was exposed for it's routine tampering of evidence, especially in high profile cases.

This sounds like a reference to the O.J. Simpson case.  To be fair, the FBI does not have a laboratory in Los Angeles.  The Los Angeles Police Department Laboratory was the target of defense accusations of contamination and incompetence.  My recollection of the FBI Laboratory's involvement in the case was duplicating some of the DNA analyses (as did Cellmark Laboratories in MD) and providing an expert opinion on fiber evidence.

Over and Out.

John Goodpaster



*****************************************************************************
John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D.
Analytical Chemistry Division
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8392
Gaithersburg, MD  20899-8392

Phone:  301-975-3142
FAX:     301-977-0685
e-mail:  john.goodpaster@nist.gov
******************************************************************************* --=====================_1791134625==_.ALT-- From MajorDomo Mon May 21 10:58:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA02315 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02310 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:58:19 -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 ESMTP id KAA22288; Mon, 21 May 2001 10:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 10:54:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Morris Odell cc: "Forens-L (E-mail)" , "Drug Recognition List (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Alcohol odour threshold In-Reply-To: <07A064EA6042D4118A62009027F70E770518CC@nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3195 Well, I was taught not to put too much faith in it, but I don't have references. For a couple of years I kept a tally for myself on cases I did, and I didn't find any good correlation. My conclusion was that I was mostly smelling other stuff in the booze and that I was greatly influenced by what was in the stomach. To me, a person with a belly full of beer but a low blood ethanol level smelled more than someone coming down from a binge, but three or four hours post the last drink. Similarly, a car accident that lacerated the stomach and spread a belly full of beer all over the serosal surfaces of the viscera smelled more than one which had an intact stomach. A quick search of MEDLINE reveals two interesting articles, neither of which I have handy: Rosenblatt Y, Phan P, Desandre P, Lobon L, Hsu C. Diagnostic odor recognition Acad Emerg Med 2000 Oct;7(10):1168-9 >From the abstract, these guys simply took ER docs and let them sniff tubes of stuff before and after training. They did better after training, but often confused etoh and acetone. The other interesting one (which leads into my comment) is Rocha S, Coutinho P, Barros A, Coimbra MA, Delgadillo I, Dias Cardoso A. Aroma potential of two bairrada white grape varieties: Maria Gomes and Bical. J Agric Food Chem 2000 Oct;48(10):4802-7 In which they noted that the primary odors were not etoh, but were terpenoids. The literature is much more complete when it comes to the variability of the human sense of smell, and that's why I doubt that it is a good test. Things which affect the ability to recognize an odor include: age sex experience (children of alcoholics are better perceivers) disease (chronic sinusitis, brain tumors, etc.) hormonal status other things in the environment adaptation genetics (many perceptual abilities are directly genetic) habits (etoh use, smoking, etc) allergies In addition, different alchohol-containing substances contain different other additives which may interfere or enhance perception. The grape article above noted 59 compounds in one grape which have perceivable odors. Vodka and beer smell different. So, you have two huge areas of variability. You have variability in the perceiver and you have variability in the source. It would likely be possible to calibrate on person or selected cohort against a given set of odors under controlled conditions. Extending those findings to a random person with a random alcohol exposure under random environmental conditions would make me skeptical. billo On Mon, 21 May 2001, Morris Odell wrote: > From: Morris Odell > > Hi all, > > I have been asked about a case which involves someone smelling alcohol on a > person's breath. Is anyone aware of any research or publications concerning > any correlation between BAC and the perceived smell of alcohol? At what > lavel of BAC is the smell evident and what factors affect it?? > > For what it's worth, I personally have observed a wide disparity between > what I (and others) can perceive and what the breath test reveals. > > Thanks, > > Dr Morris Odell > Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine > From MajorDomo Mon May 21 11:59:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA03144 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phila.gov (mrfreeze.phila.gov [170.115.249.15]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03139 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:59:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Lew.Brenner@phila.gov Received: from mailer.phila.gov (mailer.phila.gov [170.115.101.229]) by phila.gov (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA99238 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:59:37 -0400 Subject: dna databases To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:58:37 -0400 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on PHLNSMTP01/SRV/Phila(Release 5.0.4a |July 24, 2000) at 05/21/2001 12:05:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 469 does anyone have a non-CODIS internal DNA database?. We are investigating a 3 year old homicide, along with 5 other sexual assaults, all matched by DNA. We have Polymarker/HLADQA1 data, CODIS markers on rflp and str's are available also. Any help would be greatly appreciated. For more info, please call me: Lewis Brenner Philadelphia Police Dept. DNA Ident. Lab 215-686-1258 or 1181 From MajorDomo Mon May 21 13:29:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA04184 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r12.mx.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04179 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 13:29:02 -0400 (EDT) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Received: from SkipnCar@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id n.be.14ddd78e (4224); Mon, 21 May 2001 13:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 13:28:44 EDT Subject: Re: Peltier Letter To: john.goodpaster@nist.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_be.14ddd78e.283aaa4c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 643 --part1_be.14ddd78e.283aaa4c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the OJ case, the FBI also tested the level of EDTA, an anticoagulant used in vacutainer tubes, in blood, much to their chagrin. Carla Noziglia --part1_be.14ddd78e.283aaa4c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In the OJ case, the FBI also tested the level of EDTA, an anticoagulant used
in vacutainer tubes, in blood, much to their chagrin.

Carla Noziglia --part1_be.14ddd78e.283aaa4c_boundary-- From MajorDomo Mon May 21 17:36:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA07491 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07486 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:36:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 21 May 2001 21:36:47 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:26:32 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "Forens-L (E-mail)" , "Drug Recognition List (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Alcohol odour threshold Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:26:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E23C.B3FD9730" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4008 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_01C0E23C.B3FD9730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Unless the person just took a swig a few minutes ago, you probably aren't smelling alcohol. Since ethanol dissipates very rapidly, in most cases the "alcoholic odor" people describe smelling on other people's breath isn't alcohol at all - it's the other congeners in the alcoholic beverage. This is especially true for beer. To answer your question, I know of no study that correlates perceived smell of breath alcohol with BAC. I tend to doubt any such correlation is possible. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Morris Odell [mailto:MorrisO@vifp.monash.edu.au] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 00:44 To: Forens-L (E-mail); Drug Recognition List (E-mail) Subject: Alcohol odour threshold Hi all, I have been asked about a case which involves someone smelling alcohol on a person's breath. Is anyone aware of any research or publications concerning any correlation between BAC and the perceived smell of alcohol? At what lavel of BAC is the smell evident and what factors affect it?? For what it's worth, I personally have observed a wide disparity between what I (and others) can perceive and what the breath test reveals. Thanks, Dr Morris Odell Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E23C.B3FD9730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Alcohol odour threshold

Unless the person just took a swig a few minutes ago, = you probably aren't smelling alcohol.  Since ethanol dissipates = very rapidly, in most cases the "alcoholic odor" people = describe smelling on other people's breath isn't alcohol at all - it's = the other congeners in the alcoholic beverage.  This is especially = true for beer.  To answer your question, I know of no study that = correlates perceived smell of breath alcohol with BAC.  I tend to = doubt any such correlation is possible.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Morris Odell [mailto:MorrisO@vifp.monash.ed= u.au]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 00:44
To: Forens-L (E-mail); Drug Recognition List = (E-mail)
Subject: Alcohol odour threshold


Hi all,

I have been asked about a case which involves someone = smelling alcohol on a
person's breath. Is anyone aware of any research or = publications concerning
any correlation between BAC and the perceived smell = of alcohol? At what
lavel of BAC is the smell evident and what factors = affect it??

For what it's worth, I personally have observed a = wide disparity between
what I (and others) can perceive and what the breath = test reveals.

Thanks,

Dr Morris Odell
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E23C.B3FD9730-- From MajorDomo Mon May 21 17:40:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA07581 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07568 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 21 May 2001 21:40:11 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 17:29:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'joy pugh'" Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:29:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E23D.2CBED440" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 22581 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_01C0E23D.2CBED440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Joy, Aye there's the rub, twice over. First, no one (IMHO) should be using the terms "unique" or "identification" (or similar terms) in relation to DNA typing in any formal way - not in reports, not to the media, and not on the stand. I know the biologists in my lab don't. When they do DNA profiles, they report what the profiles are and with what frequency they appear in the relevant population, that's all. When they testify, if asked to explain the significance of those frequencies, they'll talk about the statistical probabilities involved, which might include discussion of the odds against someone other than the defendant contributing the evidence; but never will you here them say that a given profile is "unique." My comment was that a sufficiently low frequency (one in 10 billion, for example) might statistically infer, but still did not prove, uniqueness, so no definitive statement about "identification" or "uniqueness" was justified. What I meant was that from a practical standpoint, the possibility of more than one person which such a rare profile being physically close enough to the crime scene to have committed the crime was virtually nil, and so the jury might justifiably conclude that the defendant's matching profile constituted proof well beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence came from the defendant. In such a case, the profile may as well have constituted an "absolute identification" because the effects on the trial were the same, and rightly so, but it still would be an overstatement to say that the profile was factually an ID - it effectively was as good as one, but still wasn't one. Secondly, while virtually everyone accepts the uniqueness of fingerprints, the proficiency of fingerprint identification by examiners has been called into question, sometimes with good reason; and fingerprints, despite their almost universal acceptance as an absolute basis for unique identification, largely lack the statistical validation studies that were done for DNA testing from the very beginning. This makes fingerprint analysis vulnerable to attack as being "unscientific" or "unproven." Of course, the attorneys making such charges are either ignorant of, or are simply ignoring, the fact that empirical evidence can often constitute scientifically valid support for a premise, and fingerprint identification is supported by a huge amount of empirical evidence. The completion of rigorous validation studies will eventually silence the current attacks on the scientific basis for fingerprint analysis, but there will always be the issue of examiner proficiency. Each examiner will always have to justify his/her opinions through a combination of thorough proper training, experience, and successful proficiency testing. Well designed and administered certification programs can help the examiner establish that more efficiently and effectively. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: joy pugh [mailto:jpugh@truman.edu] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:44 To: Robert Parsons Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness Bob, When we "infer" individuality or "uniqueness" using statistics- guess how your average citizen (i.e. those who sit on juries, etc.) will interpret such statements of identity? I suspect that when they hear the word "unique" they will believe that it is impossible to see that trait associated with another person, ever, in spite of any thorough, competent, statistical explanation and/or caveat given by the analyst. Is this the conclusion we want them to reach? Maybe that's just fine, given the current discriminating ability of DNA typing- maybe more discrimination will never be needed, and maybe the technology will never evolve beyond where it is now- maybe 10-20 years from now we will never have to offer explanations as to why statements about identity or uniqueness we made in 2001 weren't really about "true uniqueness." As you probably have guessed, I am a fan of a more conservative use of the words "unique" and "individual." And for reasons best expressed in a post by John Turner, friction ridge skin patterns are one of a very few types of evidence that fit this description. Respectfully, Joy Pugh, Criminalist Truman State University Robert Parsons wrote: I am not certain whether Dr. Atchison was replying to my post or simply continuing this discussion. In case he was replying to my post, I wish to make it clear that I pretty much agree with all he said, and did NOT at any time support the proposition that DNA profiles (as currently produced with current technology), are necessarily unique. I took pains to point out that this is not so. I did speculate that we might one day be able to routinely type enough of the genome to establish true uniqueness, but that day is not here yet. I also pointed out while very low match probabilities were very strong evidence supporting commonality of source, they were still not absolute and did not constitute "uniqueness" or "identification" (though they may infer it with a high degree of probability). As Dr. Atchinson says, it "is clearly a statistical issue." We also are in agreement about the uniqueness of fingerprints, i.e., that the issue in question (as far as scientists are concerned - lawyers are another matter) is not whether fingerprints are unique but rather whether the examiner correctly identified a given print in a given case. Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, that of partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of DNA replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a means to distinguish between monozygotic twins. Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my less than perfect discussion of this issue. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bentley Atchison [ mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au ] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 19:58 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a DNA profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match probabilities. The concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a reading of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law Review 2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify this issue. Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell division. It is a question of what technique is used to detect the differences. If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA, then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical purposes, identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile. It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA profile, given a sibling's profile, is several orders of magnitude higher than the "random" person. Hence, Balding takes relatives into account in his article "When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?" (Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260). Taking relatives into account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but, without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is easily given. When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. However, you should consider what is actually meant by such a statement. Medicos commonly use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with partial prints at crime scenes. Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis that no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the testing. I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence"(Crim law Review 1994, pp711 -721). This article points out the problem of ignoring error rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result. It is also called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic circles. In essence, the lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease, fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for significant weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish to make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then they have to be infallible. It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a database. Such matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime samples. Dr. Bentley Atchison Manager, Molecular Biology Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E23D.2CBED440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Joy,
 
Aye there's the rub, twice over.  First, no one (IMHO) should be using the terms "unique" or "identification" (or similar terms) in relation to DNA typing in any formal way - not in reports, not to the media, and not on the stand.  I know the biologists in my lab don't.  When they do DNA profiles, they report what the profiles are and with what frequency they appear in the relevant population, that's all.  When they testify, if asked to explain the significance of those frequencies, they'll talk about the statistical probabilities involved, which might include discussion of the odds against someone other than the defendant contributing the evidence; but never will you here them say that  a given profile is "unique."  My comment was that a sufficiently low frequency (one in 10 billion, for example) might statistically infer, but still did not prove, uniqueness, so no definitive statement about "identification" or "uniqueness" was justified.  What I meant was that from a practical standpoint, the possibility of more than one person which such a rare profile being physically close enough to the crime scene to have committed the crime was virtually nil, and so the jury might justifiably conclude that the defendant's matching profile constituted proof well beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence came from the defendant.  In such a case, the profile may as well have constituted an "absolute identification" because the effects on the trial were the same, and rightly so, but it still would be an overstatement to say that the profile was factually an ID - it effectively was as good as one, but still wasn't one.
 
Secondly, while virtually everyone accepts the uniqueness of fingerprints, the proficiency of fingerprint identification by examiners has been called into question, sometimes with good reason; and fingerprints, despite their almost universal acceptance as an absolute basis for unique identification, largely lack the statistical validation studies that were done for DNA testing from the very beginning.  This makes fingerprint analysis vulnerable to attack as being "unscientific" or "unproven."  Of course, the attorneys making such charges are either ignorant of, or are simply ignoring, the fact that empirical evidence can often constitute scientifically valid support for a premise, and fingerprint identification is supported by a huge amount of empirical evidence.  The completion of rigorous validation studies will eventually silence the current attacks on the scientific basis for fingerprint analysis, but there will always be the issue of examiner proficiency.  Each examiner will always have to justify his/her opinions through a combination of thorough proper training, experience, and successful proficiency testing.  Well designed and administered certification programs can help the examiner establish that more efficiently and effectively.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: joy pugh [mailto:jpugh@truman.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:44
To: Robert Parsons
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints: uniqueness

Bob,

When we "infer" individuality or "uniqueness" using statistics- guess how your average citizen (i.e. those who sit on juries, etc.) will interpret such statements of identity?  I suspect that when they hear the word "unique" they will believe that it is impossible to see that trait associated with another person, ever, in spite of any thorough, competent, statistical explanation and/or caveat given by the analyst.  Is this the conclusion we want them to reach?

Maybe that's just fine, given the current discriminating ability of DNA typing- maybe more discrimination will never be needed, and maybe the technology will never evolve beyond where it is now- maybe 10-20 years from now we will never have to offer explanations as to why statements about identity or uniqueness we made in 2001 weren't really about "true uniqueness."

As you probably have guessed, I am a fan of a more conservative use of the words "unique" and "individual."  And for reasons best expressed in a post by John Turner, friction ridge skin patterns are one of a very few types of evidence that fit this description.
 

Respectfully,

Joy Pugh, Criminalist
Truman State University
 

Robert Parsons wrote:

 

I am not certain whether Dr. Atchison was replying to my post or simply continuing this discussion.  In case he was replying to my post, I wish to make it clear that I pretty much agree with all he said, and did NOT at any time support the proposition that DNA profiles (as currently produced with current technology), are necessarily unique.  I took pains to point out that this is not so.  I did speculate that we might one day be able to routinely type enough of the genome to establish true uniqueness, but that day is not here yet.  I also pointed out while very low match probabilities were very strong evidence supporting commonality of source, they were still not absolute and did not constitute "uniqueness" or "identification" (though they may infer it with a high degree of probability).  As Dr. Atchinson says, it "is clearly a statistical issue."  We also are in agreement about the uniqueness of fingerprints, i.e., that the issue in question (as far as scientists are concerned - lawyers are another matter) is not whether fingerprints are unique but rather whether the examiner correctly identified a given print in a given case.

Dr. Atchinson did point out two details my post failed to mention, that of partial prints (which may or may not be unique), and that of DNA replication mutations which could some day potentially provide a means to distinguish between monozygotic twins.  Thank you, Dr. Atchinson, and also Chris Basten, for your insightful expansions of my less than perfect discussion of this issue.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bentley Atchison [mailto:bentleya@vifp.monash.edu.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 19:58
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness

It is something of a worry that forensic scientists still talk of a DNA
profile being "unique" on the basis of the low match probabilities.  The
concept of uniqueness is clearly a statistical issue. Perhaps a reading
of the excellent articles by Ian Evett et al ( eg., Criminal Law Review
2000, pp 341-355) and by Professor David Balding will help to clarify
this issue.

Identical twins almost certainly do not have the same 3 billion DNA
bases due to mutations/replication errors occurring during cell
division.  It is a question of what technique is used to detect the
differences.  If we look at only a very small proportion of the DNA,
then the differences would not be seen. However, for practical purposes,
identical twins are considered to have the same DNA profile.

It should also be emphasized that the probability of seeing the DNA
profile, given a sibling's profile, is several orders of magnitude
higher than the "random" person.  Hence, Balding takes relatives into
account in his article "When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?"
(Science and Justice , 1999, vol 39,257-260).  Taking relatives into
account is not an approach favoured by some forensic scientists but,
without it, a false impression of "uniqueness" is easily given.

When considering friction ridge prints, it is often stated that
identical twins do not have the same fingerprints.  However, you should
consider what is actually meant by such a statement.  Medicos commonly
use fingerprints to evaluate twins/siblings as they have similar
fingerprints. Therefore, the question that is vital to ask is not
whether two people have the same set of fingerprints, but whether they
can possibly have the same partial print. Presumably, this is a
difficult issue for the fingerprint expert to evaluate when faced with
partial prints at crime scenes.

Regarding error rates and whether they can be ignored on the basis that
no one is infallible. In his article on uniqueness Balding states the
assumptions he is making, including that there is no error rate to the
testing.  I especially recommend an article by Balding and Donnelly
titled "The prosecutor's fallacy and DNA evidence"(Crim law Review 1994,
pp711 -721).  This article points out the problem of ignoring error
rates when evaluating the weight of a positive test result.  It is also
called the "Base Rate Effect" in non-forensic circles. In essence, the
lower the frequency something occurs (eg., DNA profile, disease,
fingerprint) the more error free that testing has to be for significant
weight to be attached to the positive result. Thus, if analysts wish to
make a claim that no two people have the same profile/fingerprint then
they have to be infallible.

It should be apparent that error rates are especially critical to
consider when evaluating a "hit" from a search of a database.  Such
matches may be the result of error rather than true matches with crime
samples.

Dr. Bentley Atchison
Manager, Molecular Biology
Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine
Hon. Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, Monash University.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E23D.2CBED440-- From MajorDomo Mon May 21 18:56:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA08081 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA08076 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 18:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nt_exchange.brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (nt_exchange [130.194.124.121]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19349; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2KSGW2HB>; Tue, 22 May 2001 09:01:18 +1000 Message-ID: <07A064EA6042D4118A62009027F70E770518CF@nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> From: Morris Odell To: "'Bill Oliver'" , "Forens-L (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Alcohol odour threshold Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:01:17 +1000 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 Content-Length: 1102 billo, > Well, I was taught not to put too much faith in it, but > I don't have references. For a couple of years I kept > a tally for myself on cases I did, and I didn't find > any good correlation. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I have also had many years of dealing with drunks (usually before thay get to a pathologist) and have not found any useful correlation. As you say, there are a lot of variables which will affect perception. I think that congeners in drinks such as beer contribute the most to the perceived smell and that ethanol itself probably doesn't contribute much. I was pointed towards one interesting reference which I am in the process of obtaining: TI: Police officers' detection of breath odors from alcohol ingestion. AU: Moskowitz,-Herbert; Burns,-Marcelline; Ferguson,-Susan SO: Accident-Analysis-and-Prevention. 1999 May; Vol 31(3): 175-180. >From a reading of the abstract, this study found that perception and "nasal" BAC estimates were quite unreliable under laboratory conditions and were likely to be even worse under field conditions. Morris From MajorDomo Mon May 21 19:45:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA08458 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 19:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.inland.net (ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08453 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 19:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from user (iii-pm3-3-24.inland.net [209.85.112.135]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA19032; Mon, 21 May 2001 16:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000d01c0e250$efe1fd40$877055d1@inland.net> From: "M. Horton" To: "Brenna Primrose" , "Morris Odell" , "Forens-L (E-mail)" , "Drug Recognition List (E-mail)" References: <20010521045452.13427.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Alcohol odour threshold Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:51:19 -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 Content-Length: 1880 As a diabetic myself, I've always heard it referred to as a "fruity" smell or a sweet smell. I've never heard anyone refer to it as resembling alcohol. Mike Horton ----- Original Message ----- From: Brenna Primrose To: Morris Odell ; Forens-L (E-mail) ; Drug Recognition List (E-mail) Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 9:54 PM Subject: Re: Alcohol odour threshold > Can't Ketone acidosis (not for sure on the spelling of > this) give a person sweet smelling breath that some > perceive to be an "alcoholic" smell? Perhaps I'm > wrong, but I think I've heard of something like that > happening before. > > Brenna > --- Morris Odell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have been asked about a case which involves > > someone smelling alcohol on a > > person's breath. Is anyone aware of any research or > > publications concerning > > any correlation between BAC and the perceived smell > > of alcohol? At what > > lavel of BAC is the smell evident and what factors > > affect it?? > > > > For what it's worth, I personally have observed a > > wide disparity between > > what I (and others) can perceive and what the breath > > test reveals. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dr Morris Odell > > Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine > > > ===== > http://www.geocities.com/h_primrose/ - My homepage > http://profiles.yahoo.com/absolut_contagion/ - My Yahoo! Profile > http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/amazongirls - AmazonGIRLS Club > http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/greenparty2004 - Green Party Club > > "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n." - John Milton, Paradise Lost (Book 1) > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > From MajorDomo Mon May 21 21:19:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA09592 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:19:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09587 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:19:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Sabs729UF@aol.com Received: from Sabs729UF@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.ff.6a0cca7 (4237) for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 21:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 21:19:45 EDT Subject: Forensic Grad School Question 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 138 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 349 Hello everyone- I'm a junior in college and am looking for grad schools that offer forensic programs for criminalistics or to become a crime-lab analyst. If any of you have suggestions for schools or masters degrees I should work for in order to become a crime-lab analyst / criminalist, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. -Sabrina :) From MajorDomo Mon May 21 23:37:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA10264 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.rollanet.org (mailsrv.rollanet.org [192.55.114.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA10259 for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 23:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 2996 invoked from network); 22 May 2001 03:37:09 -0000 Received: from access-4-5.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.74) by mx.rollanet.org with SMTP; 22 May 2001 03:37:09 -0000 Message-ID: <005d01c0e270$79e8fa60$4a7237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: Subject: Fw: Ballistics Info Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:37:06 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3446 Assuming James meant this actually to go to the list, rather than to me alone. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Roberts" To: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:12 PM Subject: Re: Ballistics Info The FBI testing following the Miami incident is, as Dr. Hause has suggested below, probably the best material you will find. It is quite unclear in your question if you are asking about Winchester Silvertip which in some calibers has an aluminum jacket, in others a nickel plated copper jacket. I'm guessing you are as those are the only common Aluminum hollow points out there. In handgun bullets it is a hollow point in rifle bullets usually a softpoint (ST) or ballistic tip (BST-plastic, silver in color). 45 Auto is one caliber that had Al jackets, it was one of the two original rounds loaded in this line. I think the 45 Colt cartridge loads may have been Al in the Silvertip line, also. Both are loaded in the Silvertip line and these are the only two 45 caliber cartridges loaded in that line that I'm aware of. The 45 Auto is a 185 gr. bullet the 45 Colt is a 225 gr. bullet in this product line. Originally all bullets in that line were Al but they found that the Al jacket could not take higher velocity so anything over about 1000 or 1100 fps went to Nickel plated Cu. I know the 9mm that was originally Al switched to Cu with the Nickel platting. The catalog doesn't specify Al or Cu. just Silvertip and they are all basically the same color in a catalog photo. There are several "studies" in the popular literature (gun magazines) and books that do include the Silvertips in several calibers but there are good reasons not to trust them. In the case of the Marshall & Sanow "data base" see Wound Ballistics Review Vol 4 #2 (fall 1999) article by Maarten van Maanen and follow up comments by Dr. M. Fackler and D. MacPherson. This will give you a good concept of the quality of the gun magazine "literature" out there on this subject. I'd stick to that published in the professional literature and this does not include the gun magazines. There is unfortunately a lot of poor information on wound ballistics. The old LEAA "Computer Man" studies have been proven false also. The Silvertip was one of the first generation of the "controlled expansion" handgun bullets and much more work has been done with the later generations. I'm not sure I've provided much in the way of an answer but I hope I've helped you refine your question and where you may find some answers. James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "Dave Hause" 05/20/01 07:02PM >>> Probably not in people, but the FBI may have included them in one of their periodic evaluations of handgun ammo, gelatin blocks being one of their series of tests. Don't remember the exact name of the publication (which is in the office) and my most recent one was about 92 or 3, but I think it was available from GPO. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:30 PM Subject: Ballistics Info I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound ballistics of this type of bullet? Shaun From MajorDomo Tue May 22 00:13:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA10637 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp07.iafrica.com (smtp07.iafrica.com [196.2.51.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10632 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 00:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ta ([196.31.185.25]) by smtp07.iafrica.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with SMTP id <0GDP0033JYEXA0@smtp07.iafrica.com> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 22 May 2001 06:13:47 +0200 (SAT) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 06:13:27 +0200 From: biored Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <000c01c0e275$8e84e920$5f6c640a@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 References: <3B089725.EAE5E498@vifp.monash.edu.au> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4842 Hi Bentley Your "Disease" argument is sound but it is not really relevant to DNA testing. The disease test has only two answers- i.e. Positive or Negative and not getting a positive result, implies a negative result and vice versa. A DNA result has as many answers as the number of permutations of possible genotypes across all loci tested (Billions). This means that even though an error could occur, the "wrong result" will be a "useless" result rather than wrongly accuse a person. I use the general term "useless" as it applies to both situations : 1. Casework suspect samples and evidence received 2. Cold hit In the first case the "error" will be good for the supect - he/she will be excluded - useless as evidence If the "error" results in a cold hit, it will be highly/extremely(whichever you think is statistically more conservative!) coincidental that the person was possibly capable of committing the crime (right place, time, motive etc.) - useless as evidence. Another important aspect is the natural law that governs the frequency of alleles in a population. An error would not follow these rules, generally resulting in an extremely low profile match probability. Test this for yourself - create an "error DNA profile" simply by randomly choosing genotypes accross 9 or more loci; the match probability for this "error profile" will most likely be ridiculously low - (be sure to not bias the created profile by using the most common alleles!!) Stewart Allen SITA / SAPS FSL, South Africa ----- Original Message ----- From: Bentley Atchison To: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:18 AM Subject: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness > The replies on this line raise some interesting points for discussion > about "uniqueness". > > > Probable Cause (see Jeff Sailus' reply) > > The term "probable cause" seems to imply that the matching DNA result is > important information for the police to act on. Clearly, if the result > had been due to an error then the police have been misled. The problem > is defining when we have made an error. As it is not known when an > error has occurred (if you do then you correct it!), we have to approach > the analysis as an exercise in statistics when assessing how much weight > to be applied to the evidence of a matching profile. > > Balding and Donnelly give the example of disease. > Imagine we have a test for a disease which is known to be 99% reliable. > That is, the probability of a positive test result from an uninfected > individual is 1/100 and the probability of a negative result from > someone actually infected in also 1/00. A man is chosen at random and > the test result is positive. > > We want to ask, what is the probability the man is uninfected given the > test result is positive? > > Some might say 1% because the accuracy of the testing is 99%. > > However, to answer this we need to know the incidence of the disease in > the population. Say it is 1 in 1000. What is the correct answer to the > question above? (see below). > > This approach can be used to evaluate the weight of the positive match > in DNA testing. Say we cite a match probability of 1 in 90 billion but > concede a positive error rate of 1 in 1 million (fairly low rate you > might say). You might now work out the probability analogous to the one > above. > > > Database Hits > > Regarding finding a hit on a database. When Jeff Sailus says "a new > sample is tested for confirmation". This is an interesting policy. > Presumably, the re-test is done because of the remote possibility of > error in the laboratory. I assume that this means a completely new test > of the crime sample as well as the suspect's sample is done. Clearly, > it would not be logical to assume there is no possibility of error when > processing the crime sample. > > Error rates and frequency of alleles > > Jeff Sailus says "My personal error rate does not change the frequency > of alleles. Indeed not (only slightly if there are errors in the > database). However, the error rate does affect how you should react to > a positive match. > > "Partial Fingerprints are unique" > > If often hear these types of statements, but I personally cannot find > articles testing this idea. Could the members on the list please cite > articles published in scientific journals which have tested this > hypothesis? I would like to see how this very definite seemingly > irrefutable conclusion was reached - perhaps DNA testing could use the > same approach. > > Answer to Balding and Donnelly's disease question > > About 91% ie the probability the person does not have the disease even > though a positive result was obtained by the testing. > > > > Dr. Bentley Atchison > Manager, Molecular Biology > Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine > > > > > From MajorDomo Tue May 22 08:15:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA13914 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:15:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cvmgwise.cvm.msu.edu (cvmgwise.cvm.msu.edu [35.8.209.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA13909 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from VetMedicine-Message_Server by cvmgwise.cvm.msu.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:18:54 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:18:40 -0400 From: "Chadwyck Douglass" To: "<" Subject: question 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 sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id IAA13910 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 277 Hi all. I am doing a for one of my college classes in how to isolate DNA from a small amount (1ml or less) of blood. I was wondering if anyone could give me any feedback on where I might find some protocols for this. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks very much. Chad From MajorDomo Tue May 22 08:49:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA14386 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.nist.gov (email.nist.gov [129.6.2.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14381 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goodpaster (h179112.nist.gov [129.6.179.112]) by email.nist.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA14898; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:49:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010522084353.00a38510@mailserver.nist.gov> X-Sender: jgoodpas@mailserver.nist.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:49:18 -0400 To: Forensic Science Mailing List , Sabs729UF@aol.com From: John Goodpaster Subject: Forensic Grad School Question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1124 Sabrina: A Biased Answer: Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI http://www.cj.msu.edu/~academic/forenhome.html An Unbiased Answer: American Academy of Forensic Sciences List of Educational Programs http://www.aafs.org/education/schools.htm Hope this helps, John >From: Sabs729UF@aol.com >Subject: Forensic Grad School Question >Content-Length: 349 > >Hello everyone- > >I'm a junior in college and am looking for grad schools that offer forensic >programs for criminalistics or to become a crime-lab analyst. If any of you >have suggestions for schools or masters degrees I should work for in order to >become a crime-lab analyst / criminalist, I would greatly appreciate it. >Thank you. > >-Sabrina :) ***************************************************************************** John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Division National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8392 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8392 Phone: 301-975-3142 FAX: 301-977-0685 e-mail: john.goodpaster@nist.gov ******************************************************************************* From MajorDomo Tue May 22 15:36:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA18527 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from postal1.lbl.gov (postal1.lbl.gov [128.3.7.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18522 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 15:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SpamWall.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postal1.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MJact12076 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.3.183.142] ([128.3.183.142]) by SpamWall.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MJabF12067 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:36:04 -0700 Subject: Unusual request From: "T. J. Wilkinson" To: Forensics Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1768 Dear List Members, I have an unusual and *unofficial* request. I am a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. I am currently working on new techniques to characterize, identify and determine the relative age of ink samples on questioned documents. Our methods are very fast and are totally nondestructive. Our methods involve the use of synchrotron-based FTIR and synchrotron-based X-ray fluorescent microprobes. We have had tremendous success with our methods in-house, but I need some "real" samples to test. What I am looking for are documents that can be tested using our methods. These documents (or multiple documents) need to have at least two entries made with the same pen or ink over a long period of time (at least a year, preferably several years) with the dates of the entries known, at least within a time range. Knowledge of the pen or ink would also be helpful, but is not necessary if you are sure all entries are made with the same pen or ink. I am willing to arrange for shipping of the documents via FedEx, and they will be returned in the same condition we receive them in. However, the lab does not wish to get into issues of chain of custody at this time, so these cannot be evidentiary documents that require chain of custody. I am also interested in documents, without or without dating, that were written using iron-gallotanate inks, or any document that appears to be corroding around the ink. I would appreciate any help you could provide. Please feel free to contact me via email or phone. T. J. Wilkinson -- T. J. Wilkinson, Research Fellow Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory One Cyclotron Road, MS 70A-3317 Berkeley, CA 94720 USA tjwilkinson@lbl.gov (510) 486-6509 (510) 486-7152 FAX From MajorDomo Tue May 22 17:25:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA19467 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA19462 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:25:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 22 May 2001 21:25:27 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:15:08 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: My inexpert DNA analysis knowledge Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:15:08 -0400 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C0E304.4746A3C0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 11639 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_01C0E304.4746A3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To the list, I've been advised by my lab's bone-fide DNA experts that I might want to avoid commenting too much on DNA issues in the future as I know not entirely of which I speak. My lack of personal expertise with the subject matter has apparently led me to overstate or understate the true nature of some of the issues being discussed, innocently but nonetheless inaccurately. I'm told that NRC guidelines do indeed endorse the use of the term "unique" in DNA profiling, and that such use is perfectly justified when the meaning is properly explained and understood. I also should not have referred to how our biology folks "do" STRs, since we are still building our database and validating our STR technique, and are not yet "on-line" with it. We're still learning, and it's clear I personally have a LOT to learn about the topic. As someone whose academic background includes a degree in biology the topic does appeal to my interests, despite my work in analytical chemistry, but I should be more wary about discussing an area I have not personally mastered. Having all this explained to me, I now see the light and so must experience the taste of my own shoe leather (certainly neither the first nor the last time). I first would like to make it clear that all my comments on this list have been, are, and will continue to be solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, official or unofficial, in my own lab or elsewhere. I hesitate to say too much further for fear of making another boo-boo, but I feel I should try to correct the areas where I now know I went astray. Webster gives two different definitions for the word "unique." One is "being the only one of its kind," the other is the more general "unusual; rare." My comments about the use of the term were intended with the former definition in mind, but the term as used by forensic biologists (and NRC recommendations) applies to the latter definition. Further, DNA analysis statistics are usually applied to a given, limited population (e.g., the USA population, or the British population, as opposed to the world population). So for a given population, the profile may in fact be so rare as to essentially constitute uniqueness (by one definition or the other) within that given population. For example, one reported evidence profile was searched against several different national DNA databases, and was found to exist in only one of them - the US database, where it matched the profile of a previous offender. Now, we don't have a database for the population of mainland China, for example, so it's possible that the profile also exists within the population of the People's Republic of China; but since the assailant's description was not that of a Chinese, and the percentage of the PRC's population which visits the US is exceedingly miniscule, the PRC's population base really isn't relevant to the case at hand (the chances of someone living in China entering the US and committing this specific crime while disguised as a non-Chinese are ridiculously nil). The profile from the evidence was so rare within the US database that a statement of uniqueness for the profile in the US population is logically justified, and so the match to the suspect's profile is very, very powerful evidence, to the point of being able to accurately say that no one else in the US could reasonably have deposited that evidence. This reinforces my previous conclusion that even though a profile is not an identification in the absolute sense, when a high degree of rareness is established and considered in the light of a limited possible population, it effectively amounts to the same thing. As more of the world's various populations are tested and databases established for them, DNA analysts in the future may be able to make more definitive statements about "uniqueness," perhaps even on a global scale. I'd like to apologize for any misunderstanding my inexact previous discussions of this topic may have caused, and any consternation I may have caused those who really know what they're talking about. From now on, I think I'm going to stick to chemistry and general forensic issues for which I have sufficiently significant personal knowledge. For DNA, I'd best let those who have actual expertise with the subject matter handle future discussions and/or debates. At the very least I will ask those "in the know" before opining on my own. Thanks to all those who corresponded with me off-line on this topic - I enjoyed discussing it with you and learned more in the process. As a wise person once said, the more I learn, the better I understand how much more I yet do not know. My best to all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist (NOT DNA analyst) Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL Shoe leather - "The Other Dark Meat" Promotes humility and strong mandibular musculature (It's very chewy!) ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0E304.4746A3C0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgkVAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0QcFABYAEQAPAAgAAgAdAQEggAMADgAAANEHBQAW ABEADwAIAAIAHQEBCYABACEAAAAwQTkwMEM1QkMyNEVENTExODFCRDEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQAHBwEE gAEAIwAAAE15IGluZXhwZXJ0IEROQSBhbmFseXNpcyBrbm93bGVkZ2UArAwBDYAEAAIAAAACAAIA AQOQBgBMEQAALwAAAAMA3j+vbwAAAwABbgAAAAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAA P3EBAB4ABIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADkuMAALAA2ACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAACwABgAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAALAAaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAA AAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA EYUAAAAAAAADAAiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAFwwAABMMAADG FAAATFpGddJWUtoDAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQEDAff/CoACpAPkBxMCgA/zAFAEVj8IVQey ESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwRMwjvCfe2OxgfDjA1ESIMYGMAUDMLCQFk MzYWUAumIFSAbyB0aGUgbAQAHHQsCqIKhAqASSd2hR1AYgnhIGFkdgQAYwmAHrB5IG0foAtgYgYn BCAG4G5lLWZpQQEAIEROQSAOwHCtBJB0BCAdIGEFQEkfsGhpZ2gFQHcAcAVAdFEdAGF2byCwIAWg bbcHgAIwC4BnIsEdAG0a0PxoIAIgIOMEAQpQBCALgLEdE2Z1dAhwHUBhBCDxIgBrbm8H4CbABUAj oqUYIGwfoG9mInBoDeALJIAiAHMhUGFrLiCzBdAf0mNrJ8IhUXMCIO8HQCElH0EicGkdIB0TJTD8 YmoFkAVAAMACQBKBE+C5BCBhcAqxI6EnoWwfYfsHgCLCbx6QFAABkA6wJJA5BcB1bgSBLjQdInRy /wpQJvAh0CYiJ9Ep4C2RJ9EvHSIlFR7AI9JkBABjdVsEEAmALCVxJsBjLPRi/yYAJvEgcB0hLVAE EQuAANC9MmByLlEnoCjRHnBtIsEGbB9wIbNOUkMgZ951ILEdYCBwBCBkHQALgP8BAB9hCfA3UBQB HRMycDDXSywhNaAiLsBpcQpQIrslciDycANgIKA28WcywH8AcDX1JTAkcTiyBAApomb7K7EnoWoy cCPAIKAfYSgA/x7hHSIHgABwI9I8ggNgIVF/J6EhMQtiH2E7Yi7FJCBk2zVSHwBsKeAocGgIYDXh 3ycCE+AekRggPOByGCEiwq9B8AfgCGEesGkXoWcfoGkCEGxrBCAiN1A6IFPYVFJzMsAAkG4zICJw 9yZBJjE9cWwDIDOQAxAyMPsj4UPiZCHQAaAmYCZBO3H+dgdAILAh0Ec2RVE5URPQ7znTO0RGQicC eRQgOaACID4tNvI6ICrjKvAo0Vdl/idGVy1QCsA+sjtEKvAgIT5jTWIh8Sm2J6FCk2Eg+ExPVCLC TWMfAAbgM6HvL3M/UA3gKNFBBCAwoiBhVSfxb0gSYx8QZSIgY/8esClBCcAIYE4SRdAKQAEA+yyB MiBlCcIlckQmUWc3Qf9U0iywKKADICLRH8ELgCwhfweQIYAywFTBUcAuYR/Bd98FsClgJYEAcAdA eSPAU0DPAyAT0FNxHYByeTLAM5L/KGFB9B7AH7AFsCrBCsAfoP9RBDI1I9IDkSzRUBAiAEKTvycC TxkAwB2AWDFBMkgjAP9ds0axHSA8gT/IV6JKMSIA/ybCFBAvVB1gIkI7YkGxJFD/HYAhJAiQRdIv c1/iJ8IfwX8m0AOgQeEdQSigHSEFwCj/MyAAIAtxJ6EgcCrxEoEls/8ncGRhJsBoZAtgZGEjwAeA fCkuHbtotVlgQhIdYGv/LaMAwGwRKvBOhSGzYPIfwf8jZQQgJKFhMx1iQoQewjtB/xggO0QD8Eax BaAjsi/RItH/XBEp4C1QX6JmJDtiN1EnAv8gcDMgBBAKwAMQH6AYIDqw/weQI6EdEx8wB9BugSfg AHB+eVKSJ5AUEDLAJ9AgoGP/BzEuhHaGMsJmBh/xLoJ2In898RggQUMdMACQLyRBwWH/ViEkJiXw ACBnEgIQe+FOsj9l4iiwXbQnEGcSBuBvLf99sVsmPOAnkFt4WvEiwgWh/xggK8EdIl4iBCB5U2KF JrN/IgBGECKhX+E08DVCTKBi+1/yNpBpHpAhkVlgMiEBIP9YMSKhAQELgCrwRDAGMXwCLx0iWWEf cDm1LjogIE/7UqE8gSIx1B0iAiAnolKh/yfRKvAEIHzhMrA6IIgDZwP3PIE+Q1xSZwnwBJAqETmx /TJwdREBQtAs0YbiKQFuF/9RCDi+RhAmMVgCLtFwkisF/3wBB4BHkYT3d/OJUjODOSf/JmE4sR9z fAEJ8A3RRBUdcf0EICg7YjZigCEjc0jChWH+KSySHWCD0h0FLASE6CjR/kZ7lDLAIPJZ4wCQUjEu Qf8dcQ3gLIEmMYvDJ6GWlENTf1AQg6Jv8R1gIiAOsB9wcJ8/UEIQlhNnQHmQZy4ywHkdIlVTOpGd Z3ZhaGRC/wUQKpEkgJ76JmE/UJ1QH1K/lxVZYTXhnVhqMCjgUx0A/3wCnEWe6x0iOrQ+YXrBJYH+ ZgDQBUBxw4wjJlIi0TRR/yOiT3NxAT1xJhAuYTnENxH/lNEfkVKSkPlpNX1TlnAq4l8lgyHRpF4o 0R26RnjiePxhbQtQdlJSoXRBF8E3wv8fMAEARdKltiKAUjFNcVqR/UBBZwtxZGEUEC4BKhGESP8w AYVRKhEg8ke2RYFwcyZh9wIQVDKn0nhvMiWBiEodIf01oC2eZUenMsCBFGzBK/H/shOlenWCOqGw gQhgdWI84Hsu0ijRTibQuUGqgQIgJ/9CdVUBR8aFpp1ZfJNnsTti+kOsYWEywHwCrydBsU5D/6Gx AJACYC9SIdGlekGTtpPvgPGsRr8OHSJQUoCvYSAh/lJ0UCuAHWBToCfRwJOMEP8zkkW0gHNzwQMQ IpEgIVTB/wUDkWKxkicCIbO7M8CSdIG/O0alkQSQMyKyYDDXUDZw/8IjnXcoBB8xiQK4VWFTMyD/ CYAj0V+ihREyUa9yzb+RYv9H814xT4IEAL1iJ4GwgCKV3x0iU0BIEkJyO3Eo1RPV0f9zoTBmUpId YGCjJYHAkycy/wZxh9W4kTtiI2Iq8CPEYUL/KIF2wHahI1AFEC2RKAGmAd8yMTahH1IscjPCLcvF RjN/BRAyMNGBu9Fn0gMQo4JU/6WJA1IdE7CHsZOnNcS5uJn/bUWaE1NwdKIn0al5vqelxf/iSJ1Z bvKUgVpRPSo7REGx/z5DugKXBiUw2uLCE+X2BCD/LgFbEewCnUGPESXwKiGwlf+eUR0EnVBYASfC MdQBoMKy/yLhNMd6pCHCJsCIg3Yi5ln/BaBCEoDCKfECYE+lAQChsf+dAyGzsIYo0d9RPIEYIAuA /3wB1rIfwbuHcQFUkQCQbqP/9IM+EwhgIkC7U+t3JwIDkf+woj2CU0CRVoBzg0AG8Kky/3SRuSUe 8SxQIjFVFifRjDL/qdNhUi4xx1FB4EA1qMIgsf9DMiWFY3S7M5zYwnWe+mzB/w8hK7GDsZtiFWAu wCGC6lX/r0AvUiPRUfRcQzD1ooMgIf9IgMog9vKdWJq0DrBf8UBE97TX/quFpW2ZOiGBJYymMv9c Ee9GbHNcQ5D2HpHj541W3zm1qdKJgSFRE+BwYWGkcv+d0ZxBF7BTwEbAygBIkHmQ7x28a9gsoJRj er6EdbEiEf8lMC7VLtAj0lfTryErwbuH/11GhWIw84pSVpOmMkKTU0D/kzJKRRXhqMNDELQEIfIa HH/4ciqyQfDTdiazKADDBHn/TMJH0ETA7wRRIZiS4DImwt+fcoFwrFIpYDWCZ+5hI/L/RnIpUX/C WqY7U4sWk7cxZX+j8igGQpMWMHaTMzTCgGf/3vD6ktSxKbceoi1RixCYkv+kAZlRYnEUQW/AZGEt UFFC/x22T8QXoIvhZISgUeHk6mX8YmqAMrnxg2LV0t/yDPT7GGo7YS+kAZDwU8AI8VHy/3TF7HJN YWRhgiFGorXQIyH9UuMiDHUeojogb8CTsqGB/4URR0J4Ft8z1KBE0ZwSYQP/HbZ/89rgndCPtwVR vBFLk59ul1aEuDCBcLDAam9LIN9y8V1YbMFMA3XQdcxDTWP/sFEOk8T2P0BzolH0y6BMAP83ISh0 EkGw4clBkgGKh4Fw/01jnlRvwJejgXAWSE+wISH/ezNApUsicxUeoryRjLEqk/c2hGpLroRCEsDG cHxgKKHBWIFGLUFCQ66Hk+S3wJBas2dATlBBC6kproTXxxDoACizQ9uDTFEB8AFtpAB5roTjkUkW wV3xUtuDsaQQQ4zxhoF0XMBOINsysFUwZa6FIIFQltDM8WVH4UxGHwpTZpq4MCK132JPZwNEfGAj IE1m4ToiroRQINFzUFcBaHX/kdDXoE6RY9Mj0J3QFwEWsv/IQHigpBBkQdGB45ANEa6EHChJwhLs Y7IRd3khBUrFfVlQAB4AcAABAAAAIwAAAE15IGluZXhwZXJ0IEROQSBhbmFseXNpcyBrbm93bGVk Z2UAAAMAJgAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAAALAAIAAQAAAAMA/T/kBAAAAwAJWQEAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAAB wOMFuOqOSfIOTpIR1Yc2EABrS7zjAABAADkAwKNGRwTjwAEDAPE/CQQAAB4AMUABAAAACQAAAFJQ QVJTT05TAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAAHgAwQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAZQAAAAAADAIAQ//// /wsA8hABAAAAAgFHAAEAAAA5AAAAYz1VUzthPSA7cD1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIgQ09NO2w9RVhDSDEt MDEwNTIyMjExNTA4Wi0xMjE5MzUAAAAAAgH5PwEAAABYAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIB AAAAAAAAAC9PPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT01NIENPTEwvT1U9SVJDQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NO PVJQQVJTT05TAB4A+D8BAAAADwAAAFJvYmVydCBQYXJzb25zAAAeADhAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09O UwAAAAACAfs/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFOIFJJ VkVSIENPTU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD6PwEAAAAP AAAAUm9iZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOUABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAEAABzAA1i5HBOPAAUAA CDDsNlBHBOPAAR4APQABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAB0OAQAAACMAAABNeSBpbmV4cGVydCBETkEgYW5h bHlzaXMga25vd2xlZGdlAAAeADUQAQAAAD8AAAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMxMTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0 Qjg1N0EwMjQzQ0FGNkBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAACwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMABhAE kbm/AwAHELwPAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAVE9USEVMSVNULElWRUJFRU5B RFZJU0VEQllNWUxBQlNCT05FLUZJREVETkFFWFBFUlRTVEhBVElNSUdIVFdBTlRUT0FWT0lEQ09N TUVOVElOR1RPT01VQ0hPTkROQUlTU1VFUwAAAAACAX8AAQAAAD8AAAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMx MTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1N0EwMjQzQ0FGNkBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAF70= ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0E304.4746A3C0-- From MajorDomo Tue May 22 17:46:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA19925 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:46:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from postal1.lbl.gov (postal1.lbl.gov [128.3.7.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19920 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 17:46:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SpamWall.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postal1.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MLkVE01933 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.3.183.142] ([128.3.183.142]) by SpamWall.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4MLkTF01912; Tue, 22 May 2001 14:46:29 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:45:54 -0700 Subject: Re: My inexpert DNA analysis knowledge From: "T. J. Wilkinson" To: Robert Parsons , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5389 Don't feel bad, Bob. I have learned from great experience that the shoe leather starts tasting better and better over time. There is a quote that says "It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission." T. J. Wilkinson on 5/22/01 2:15 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > To the list, > > I've been advised by my lab's bone-fide DNA experts that I might want to > avoid commenting too much on DNA issues in the future as I know not entirely > of which I speak. My lack of personal expertise with the subject matter has > apparently led me to overstate or understate the true nature of some of the > issues being discussed, innocently but nonetheless inaccurately. I'm told > that NRC guidelines do indeed endorse the use of the term "unique" in DNA > profiling, and that such use is perfectly justified when the meaning is > properly explained and understood. I also should not have referred to how > our biology folks "do" STRs, since we are still building our database and > validating our STR technique, and are not yet "on-line" with it. We're > still learning, and it's clear I personally have a LOT to learn about the > topic. As someone whose academic background includes a degree in biology > the topic does appeal to my interests, despite my work in analytical > chemistry, but I should be more wary about discussing an area I have not > personally mastered. Having all this explained to me, I now see the light > and so must experience the taste of my own shoe leather (certainly neither > the first nor the last time). > > I first would like to make it clear that all my comments on this list have > been, are, and will continue to be solely my own and do not necessarily > represent the views of anyone else, official or unofficial, in my own lab or > elsewhere. I hesitate to say too much further for fear of making another > boo-boo, but I feel I should try to correct the areas where I now know I > went astray. Webster gives two different definitions for the word "unique." > One is "being the only one of its kind," the other is the more general > "unusual; rare." My comments about the use of the term were intended with > the former definition in mind, but the term as used by forensic biologists > (and NRC recommendations) applies to the latter definition. Further, DNA > analysis statistics are usually applied to a given, limited population > (e.g., the USA population, or the British population, as opposed to the > world population). So for a given population, the profile may in fact be so > rare as to essentially constitute uniqueness (by one definition or the > other) within that given population. > > For example, one reported evidence profile was searched against several > different national DNA databases, and was found to exist in only one of them > - the US database, where it matched the profile of a previous offender. > Now, we don't have a database for the population of mainland China, for > example, so it's possible that the profile also exists within the population > of the People's Republic of China; but since the assailant's description was > not that of a Chinese, and the percentage of the PRC's population which > visits the US is exceedingly miniscule, the PRC's population base really > isn't relevant to the case at hand (the chances of someone living in China > entering the US and committing this specific crime while disguised as a > non-Chinese are ridiculously nil). The profile from the evidence was so > rare within the US database that a statement of uniqueness for the profile > in the US population is logically justified, and so the match to the > suspect's profile is very, very powerful evidence, to the point of being > able to accurately say that no one else in the US could reasonably have > deposited that evidence. This reinforces my previous conclusion that even > though a profile is not an identification in the absolute sense, when a high > degree of rareness is established and considered in the light of a limited > possible population, it effectively amounts to the same thing. As more of > the world's various populations are tested and databases established for > them, DNA analysts in the future may be able to make more definitive > statements about "uniqueness," perhaps even on a global scale. > > I'd like to apologize for any misunderstanding my inexact previous > discussions of this topic may have caused, and any consternation I may have > caused those who really know what they're talking about. From now on, I > think I'm going to stick to chemistry and general forensic issues for which > I have sufficiently significant personal knowledge. For DNA, I'd best let > those who have actual expertise with the subject matter handle future > discussions and/or debates. At the very least I will ask those "in the > know" before opining on my own. Thanks to all those who corresponded with > me off-line on this topic - I enjoyed discussing it with you and learned > more in the process. As a wise person once said, the more I learn, the > better I understand how much more I yet do not know. My best to all. > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist (NOT DNA analyst) > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > Shoe leather - "The Other Dark Meat" > Promotes humility and strong mandibular musculature > (It's very chewy!) > From MajorDomo Tue May 22 19:32:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA20691 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20686 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 19:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vifp.monash.edu.au (pc_haem_1 [130.194.124.124]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26539 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:32:48 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3B0AF8DD.BC95DF8C@vifp.monash.edu.au> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:40:13 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Organization: VIFM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DEE19FBCB537D6886972AA13" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4282 --------------DEE19FBCB537D6886972AA13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Robert Parsons: I found your discussion extremely interesting and I would have thought the purpose of the Foren-L was to stimulate discussion. To: Stewart Allen I'm afraid I have to disagree. You seem to be saying that an "error", ie., a false match, can only arise from the random occurrence of alleles which happens to produce a profile which matches. This is one source of false match error. But, presumably you are asking questions about the crime sample and not just the DNA being analysed. Therefore, you need to consider all ways you can get DNA apparently from a crime sample which matches the accused. Apart from the "random" match, one obvious way is through contaminating the crime samples with other DNA. You might say this can never occur. The fact of the matter is such a situation has been reported in an accredited laboratory (case of Mr. N in New Zealand where a person's DNA apparently contaminated three crime samples). Perhaps you have procedures in place which cover the whole of the handling of exhibits and control samples which definitely eliminate this source of error. You might not wish to claim infallibility when handling crime samples but if you are citing match probabilities of the order of 1 in 100 billion then you need be as near to perfect as to be infallible. I don't know what you mean by "natural law". Perhaps you mean the population genetics models often used. These do not affect the above argument about the source of the error. It would be very useful to get a comment from the statisticians out there. I am asking, given a cited match probability of 1 in 90 billion and a laboratory error rate of a false match of 1 in 1 million, what is the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile? These figures were cited in a recent case. Bentley Atchison Victorina Institute of Forensic Science --------------DEE19FBCB537D6886972AA13 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Robert Parsons:  I found your discussion extremely interesting and I would have thought the purpose of the Foren-L was to stimulate discussion.

To: Stewart Allen

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  You seem to be saying that an "error", ie., a false match, can only arise from the random occurrence of alleles which happens to produce a profile which matches.   This is one source of false match error.  But, presumably you are asking questions about the crime sample and not just the DNA being analysed.  Therefore, you need to consider all ways you can get DNA apparently from a crime sample which matches the accused.  Apart from the "random" match, one obvious way is through contaminating the crime samples with other DNA.   You might say this can never occur.    The fact of the matter is such a situation has been reported in an accredited laboratory (case of Mr. N in New Zealand where a person's DNA apparently contaminated three crime samples).  Perhaps you have procedures in place which cover the whole of the handling of exhibits and control samples which definitely eliminate this source of error.

You might not wish to claim infallibility when handling crime samples but if you are citing match probabilities of the order of 1 in 100 billion then you need be as near to perfect as to be infallible.

I don't know what you mean by "natural law".  Perhaps you mean the population genetics models often used.  These do not affect the above argument about the source of the error.

It would be very useful to get a comment from the statisticians out there.  I am asking, given a cited  match probability of 1 in 90 billion and a laboratory error rate of a false match of 1 in 1 million, what is the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile?  These figures were cited in a recent case.

Bentley Atchison
Victorina Institute of Forensic Science
  --------------DEE19FBCB537D6886972AA13-- From MajorDomo Tue May 22 22:23:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA22015 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:23:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp05.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA22010 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8021 invoked from network); 23 May 2001 02:22:41 -0000 Received: from dialup422.sccol-tnt-1.usit.net (HELO ken) ([216.80.162.167]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp05.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 23 May 2001 02:22:41 -0000 Message-ID: <003b01c0e32f$0f7d1e80$a7a250d8@ken> From: "K. Habben" To: "Robert Parsons" , "Forens-L (E-mail)" , "Drug Recognition List (E-mail)" References: Subject: Re: Alcohol odour threshold Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:21:20 -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 Content-Length: 155 The last research project I gave non-etoh beer - vs- etoh beer - said they needed a breath test - under arrest for their smell -vs- their congeners Ken From MajorDomo Wed May 23 02:52:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id CAA24286 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 02:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24281 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 02:52:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pdb ([63.203.73.146]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0GDS00FL20FWG0@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:52:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:49:46 -0700 From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Alcohol odour threshold In-reply-to: <003b01c0e32f$0f7d1e80$a7a250d8@ken> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net To: "K. Habben" , Robert Parsons , "Forens-L (E-mail)" , "Drug Recognition List (E-mail)" Message-id: <0GDS00FL30FWG0@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 337 At 10:21 PM 5/22/2001 -0400, K. Habben wrote: >The last research project I gave non-etoh beer - vs- etoh beer - said they >needed a breath test - under arrest for their smell -vs- their congeners Huh?? Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From MajorDomo Wed May 23 03:02:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id DAA24491 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 03:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24486 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 03:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from johnturn (p51-max8.wlg.ihug.co.nz [203.173.231.243]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id TAA03883 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 19:02:05 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p51-max8.wlg.ihug.co.nz [203.173.231.243] claimed to be johnturn Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20010523190211.007c6d60@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: jturner@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:02:11 +1200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: john turner Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness 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 sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id DAA24487 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1203 >“Partial Fingerprints are unique” > >If often hear these types of statements, but I personally cannot find >articles testing this idea. Could the members on the list please cite >articles published in scientific journals which have tested this >hypothesis? I would like to see how this very definite seemingly >irrefutable conclusion was reached – perhaps DNA testing could use the >same approach. > Try the site www.onin.com/fp/ Obviously not a scientific journal that you have asked for but this site has info on the following: >The Court also agreed to take judicial notice in the case that : 1) Human Friction Ridges are Unique and Permanent throughout the area of the friction ridge skin including small friction ridge areas, and 2) Human Friction Ridge Skin Arrangements are Unique and Permanent. The site has a great deal of info on Daubert fingerprint hearings and fingerprints in general. Ed German (the site author) gave evidence in a Daubert hearing on studies of identical twins. Some of the other witnesses also gave evidence on the uniqueness of partial fingerprints. (refer to site -Daubert Hearing #1)) Regards John Turner FFS, CLPE Senior Fingerprint Officer New Zealand From MajorDomo Wed May 23 19:23:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA01627 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 19:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01622 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 19:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (sdn-ar-001caoaklP309.dialsprint.net [168.191.203.175]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4NNNCB05071 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 16:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010522165549.00b38690@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:25:32 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness In-Reply-To: <3B0AF8DD.BC95DF8C@vifp.monash.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_14930200==_.ALT" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3121 --=====================_14930200==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 09:40 AM 5/23/01 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote: >...you need to consider all ways you can get DNA apparently from a crime >sample which matches the accused. Apart from the "random" match, one >obvious way is through contaminating the crime samples with other DNA. >It would be very useful to get a comment from the statisticians out >there. I am asking, given a cited match probability of 1 in 90 billion >and a laboratory error rate of a false match of 1 in 1 million, what is >the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile? These >figures were cited in a recent case. If we assume the prosecution has the right man, then the probability would be 100% that the crime sample has the profile of the suspect. Even if cross-contamination occurred it wouldn't have affected the result. On the other hand, if we assume the prosecution has the wrong man, then the chance that the crime sample has the same profile would be about the ratio between the matching probability and the error probability -- 1/90000. Neither of these figures seems to be particularly interesting. If the idea is to make the point that the chance of an error, small as it is, nonetheless vastly dominates and overwhelms the random match probability, maybe a different question is necessary. Charles Brenner http://dna-view.com --=====================_14930200==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 09:40 AM 5/23/01 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote:

...you need to consider all ways you can get DNA apparently from a crime sample which matches the accused.  Apart from the "random" match, one obvious way is through contaminating the crime samples with other DNA.

It would be very useful to get a comment from the statisticians out there.  I am asking, given a cited  match probability of 1 in 90 billion and a laboratory error rate of a false match of 1 in 1 million, what is the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile?  These figures were cited in a recent case.

If we assume the prosecution has the right man, then the probability would be 100% that the crime sample has the profile of the suspect. Even if cross-contamination occurred it wouldn't have affected the result. On the other hand, if we assume the prosecution has the wrong man, then the chance that the crime sample has the same profile would be about the ratio between the matching probability and the error probability -- 1/90000.

Neither of these figures seems to be particularly interesting. If the idea is to make the point that the chance of an error, small as it is, nonetheless vastly dominates and overwhelms the random match probability, maybe a different question is necessary.

Charles Brenner
http://dna-view.com
--=====================_14930200==_.ALT-- From MajorDomo Wed May 23 21:05:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA02207 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:05:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA02202 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vifp.monash.edu.au (pc_haem_1 [130.194.124.124]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27830 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 11:05:16 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <3B0C602B.D5651345@vifp.monash.edu.au> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:13:15 +1000 From: Bentley Atchison Organization: VIFM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 944 Re: Charles Brenner's points: "If we assume the prosecution has the right man" then presumably we don't need any DNA testing. I would have thought that Charles' latter proposition is the relevant one. That is "assume that the prosection has the wrong man" and estimate the probability of the evidence (denominator of the likelihood ratio). If I was on the jury and was told (to quote) "the chance the crime sample has the same profile " is 1/90000 I would find this more than slightly interesting. I make 1/90000 a 0.001% chance that the crime sample actually has the same profile as the accused. Your last sentence is particularly interesting as there seems to be an idea that if we test more and more loci (15 now proposed) then we become more and more certain. If the error rate stays the same then surely the chance that the crime sample actually has the same profile as the accused becomes smaller and smaller. Bentley Atchison . From MajorDomo Wed May 23 23:40:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA02965 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 May 2001 23:40:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02960 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 23:40:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (sdn-ar-001caoaklP294.dialsprint.net [168.191.203.160]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4O3e1B14788 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 20:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010523190532.00b20d20@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:41:34 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness In-Reply-To: <3B0C602B.D5651345@vifp.monash.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_30341141==_.ALT" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6160 --=====================_30341141==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:13 AM 5/24/01 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote: >I would have thought that Charles' latter proposition is the relevant one. >That is "assume that the prosection has the wrong man" and estimate the >probability of the evidence (denominator of the likelihood ratio). Hi Bentley, It does seem like a relevant question, but not withstanding the phrase "that is", you have changed horses. Previously you asked "what is the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile" of the suspected donor. Given that the profile frequency is 1/90 billion, that the chance of contamination causing a false positive is 1/million, and assuming that the suspect is innocent, I noted that the answer is 1/90000. But now you propose a different question: What is the probability that the crime sample will appear to match the profile, assuming that the suspect is innocent. The answer different too; it is almost exactly 1/million -- i.e. it is essentially the error chance, and contrary to naive assumption is not equal to the profile frequency. In short, your new suggestion -- in effect, to look at the likelihood ratio (based on the probability of an apparent match, which is the real-world situation, rather than an actual match, which is less relevant) -- seems to be the right approach in order to make the desired pedagogic point. I assumed that your original approach was an effort to make the point without recourse to talking about likelihood ratios. I didn't want to say categorically that that's impossible, but it seems hard. >If I was on the jury and was told (to quote) "the chance the crime sample >has the same profile " is 1/90000 I would find this more than slightly >interesting. You are quoting rather carelessly. The context of that quote is that the suspect is assumed to be innocent. To mirror your own argument >"If we assume the prosecution has the right man" then presumably we don't >need any DNA testing. also if we assume the prosecution has the wrong man, we don't need any statistics. So you should not find them interesting. >Your last sentence is particularly interesting as there seems to be an >idea that if we test more and more loci (15 now proposed) then we become >more and more certain. My last sentence was >If the idea is to make the point that the chance of an error, small as it >is, nonetheless vastly dominates and overwhelms the random match >probability, maybe a different question is necessary. I hope if you read it again you won't think that I missed your intended point. Click to "laboratory error" on http://dna-view.com/profile.htm and see if you don't agree that we're on the same page. Best regards, Charles --=====================_30341141==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 11:13 AM 5/24/01 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote:
I would have thought that Charles' latter proposition is the relevant one. That is "assume that the prosection has the wrong man" and estimate the probability of the evidence (denominator of the likelihood ratio).

Hi Bentley,

It does seem like a relevant question, but not withstanding the phrase "that is", you have changed horses.

Previously you asked "what is the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile" of the suspected donor. Given that the profile frequency is 1/90 billion, that the chance of contamination causing a false positive is 1/million, and assuming that the suspect is innocent, I noted that the answer is 1/90000.

But now you propose a different question: What is the probability that the crime sample will appear to match the profile, assuming that the suspect is innocent. The answer different too; it is almost exactly 1/million -- i.e. it is essentially the error chance, and contrary to naive assumption is not equal to the profile frequency.

In short, your new suggestion -- in effect, to look at the likelihood ratio (based on the probability of an apparent match, which is the real-world situation, rather than an actual match, which is less relevant) -- seems to be the right approach in order to make the desired pedagogic point. I assumed that your original approach was an effort to make the point without recourse to talking about likelihood ratios. I didn't want to say categorically that that's impossible, but it seems hard.

If I was on the jury and was told (to quote) "the chance the crime sample has the same profile " is 1/90000 I would find this more than slightly interesting.

You are quoting rather carelessly. The context of that quote is that the suspect is assumed to be innocent. To mirror your own argument

"If we assume the prosecution has the right man" then presumably we don't need any DNA testing.

also if we assume the prosecution has the wrong man, we don't need any statistics. So you should not find them interesting.

Your last sentence is particularly interesting as there seems to be an idea that if we test more and more loci  (15 now proposed) then we become more and more certain.

My last sentence was

If the idea is to make the point that the chance of an error, small as it is, nonetheless vastly dominates and overwhelms the random match probability, maybe a different question is necessary.

I hope if you read it again you won't think that I missed your intended point. Click to "laboratory error" on
http://dna-view.com/profile.htm and see if you don't agree that we're on the same page.

Best regards,

Charles





--=====================_30341141==_.ALT-- From MajorDomo Thu May 24 00:01:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA03235 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 00:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03230 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 00:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:01:48 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [168.191.72.167] From: "Shaun Wheeler" To: "Dave Hause" Cc: References: <005d01c0e270$79e8fa60$4a7237c0@dwhause> Subject: Re: Ballistics Info Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:31:47 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2001 04:01:48.0663 (UTC) FILETIME=[41864870:01C0E406] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4672 Dave and List: The case in question is that of Phillip Workman. I found troubling the vascillating opinions of Dr. Kris Sperry, of the Georgia State Crime Laboratory. At first, Dr. Sperry offered that the wounds the victim suffered could only have some from a weapon other than the appellants. After expressing this opinion, Dr. Sperry changed his opinion to the extent that "I cannot say to a degree of medical certainty that Ron Oliver did *not* die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip Workman", the defendant, which of course renders his opinion sufficiently in question as to beg the issue of why he offered he first under sworn deposition. A person of reliable authority offered that Kris Sperry has refused categorically to offer an opinion in a capital case which was favorable to the prosecution. I invite someone to provide an exemplar which proves that wrong for my benefit. Shaun Wheeler ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Hause" To: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:37 PM Subject: Fw: Ballistics Info > Assuming James meant this actually to go to the list, rather than to me > alone. > Dave Hause > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Roberts" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:12 PM > Subject: Re: Ballistics Info > > > The FBI testing following the Miami incident is, as Dr. Hause has suggested > below, probably the best material you will find. > > It is quite unclear in your question if you are asking about Winchester > Silvertip which in some calibers has an aluminum jacket, in others a nickel > plated copper jacket. I'm guessing you are as those are the only common > Aluminum hollow points out there. In handgun bullets it is a hollow point in > rifle bullets usually a softpoint (ST) or ballistic tip (BST-plastic, > silver in color). 45 Auto is one caliber that had Al jackets, it was one of > the two original rounds loaded in this line. I think the 45 Colt > cartridge loads may have been Al in the Silvertip line, also. Both are > loaded in the Silvertip line and these are the only two 45 caliber > cartridges loaded in that line that I'm aware of. The 45 Auto is a 185 gr. > bullet the 45 Colt is a 225 gr. bullet in this product line. Originally all > bullets in that line were Al but they found that the Al jacket could not > take higher velocity so anything over about 1000 or 1100 fps went to Nickel > plated Cu. I know the 9mm that was originally Al switched to Cu with the > Nickel platting. The catalog doesn't specify Al or Cu. just Silvertip and > they are all basically the same color in a catalog photo. > > There are several "studies" in the popular literature (gun magazines) and > books that do include the Silvertips in several calibers but there are good > reasons not to trust them. In the case of the Marshall & Sanow "data base" > see Wound Ballistics Review Vol 4 #2 (fall 1999) article by Maarten van > Maanen and follow up comments by Dr. M. Fackler and D. MacPherson. This will > give you a good concept of the quality of the gun magazine "literature" out > there on this subject. I'd stick to that published in the professional > literature and this does not include the gun magazines. There is > unfortunately a lot of poor information on wound ballistics. The old LEAA > "Computer Man" studies have been proven false also. > > The Silvertip was one of the first generation of the "controlled expansion" > handgun bullets and much more work has been done with the later generations. > > I'm not sure I've provided much in the way of an answer but I hope I've > helped you refine your question and where you may find some answers. > > James L. Roberts > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > (805) 654-2308 > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > >>> "Dave Hause" 05/20/01 07:02PM >>> > Probably not in people, but the FBI may have included them in one of their > periodic evaluations of handgun ammo, gelatin blocks being one of their > series of tests. Don't remember the exact name of the publication (which is > in the office) and my most recent one was about 92 or 3, but I think it was > available from GPO. > Dave Hause > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "SHAUN WHEELER" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:30 PM > Subject: Ballistics Info > > > I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. > > Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound ballistics > of this type of bullet? > > Shaun > > > > > > > From MajorDomo Thu May 24 09:04:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA06780 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA06774 for forens; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105241304.JAA06774@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> From: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu To: forens Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 29665 From: john turner Subject: RE: The myth of fingeprints: uniqueness (fwd) In-Reply-To: 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 sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id CAA11263 Content-Length: 1203 >“Partial Fingerprints are unique” > >If often hear these types of statements, but I personally cannot find >articles testing this idea. Could the members on the list please cite >articles published in scientific journals which have tested this >hypothesis? I would like to see how this very definite seemingly >irrefutable conclusion was reached – perhaps DNA testing could use the >same approach. > Try the site www.onin.com/fp/ Obviously not a scientific journal that you have asked for but this site has info on the following: >The Court also agreed to take judicial notice in the case that : 1) Human Friction Ridges are Unique and Permanent throughout the area of the friction ridge skin including small friction ridge areas, and 2) Human Friction Ridge Skin Arrangements are Unique and Permanent. The site has a great deal of info on Daubert fingerprint hearings and fingerprints in general. Ed German (the site author) gave evidence in a Daubert hearing on studies of identical twins. Some of the other witnesses also gave evidence on the uniqueness of partial fingerprints. (refer to site -Daubert Hearing #1)) Regards John Turner FFS, CLPE Senior Fingerprint Officer New Zealand >From cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Tue May 22 08:55:03 2001 -0400 Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14750 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 08:55:02 -0400 Message-ID: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4D750745@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> From: "Thompson, Roger" To: "'Sabs729UF@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Forensic Grad School Question Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:54:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0" Content-Length: 3386 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_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sabrina, I recently came across " new to me" a new Internet site that lists forensic and Criminalistics education programs in the U.S. It seems to be fairly comprehensive, and would be a good starting point for your search. -----Original Message----- From: Sabs729UF@aol.com [mailto:Sabs729UF@aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:20 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forensic Grad School Question Hello everyone- I'm a junior in college and am looking for grad schools that offer forensic programs for criminalistics or to become a crime-lab analyst. If any of you have suggestions for schools or masters degrees I should work for in order to become a crime-lab analyst / criminalist, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. -Sabrina :) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Forensic Grad School Question

Sabrina,

I recently came across " new to me" a new = Internet site that lists forensic and Criminalistics education programs = in the U.S.  It seems to be fairly comprehensive, and would be a = good starting point for your search.

       =20

-----Original Message-----
From: Sabs729UF@aol.com [mailto:Sabs729UF@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:20 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Forensic Grad School Question


Hello everyone-

I'm a junior in college and am looking for grad = schools that offer forensic
programs for criminalistics or to become a crime-lab = analyst.  If any of you
have suggestions for schools or masters degrees I = should work for in order to
become a crime-lab analyst / criminalist, I would = greatly appreciate it.
Thank you.

-Sabrina :)

  ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0-- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Crime Scene Investigation Training.url" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Crime Scene Investigation Training.url" [DEFAULT] BASEURL=http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/csi-training.html [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/csi-training.html Modified=40C81BF1BDE2C00174 ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0E2BE.66A9EDD0-- >From cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Tue May 22 23:40:33 2001 -0400 Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: Received: from [192.168.0.2] (mail.towersproductions.com [63.85.235.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA22677 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 23:40:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 192.168.0.92 by 192.168.0.2; Tue, 22 May 2001 21:41:42 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:41:31 -0500 Subject: The Matthew Shepard Story From: American Justice Message-ID: 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 sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id XAA22677 Content-Length: 2050 American Justice ­ The Matthew Shepard Story Premieres on A&E Wednesday, May 23rd 9 PM ET & PT / 8 PM CT / 7 PM MT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of all the factors that can motivate someone to kill, perhaps the most startling is bigotry. When a young gay man named Matthew Shepard was beaten and left to die --lashed to a fence outside Laramie, Wyoming--the shock reverberated around the country. "The Matthew Shepard Story" takes a close look at that crime, and at the impact it had on the people who became involved in it. They include two investigators who saw their lives and opinions transformed by the case; the Shepard family, who saw their son remade into a symbol for gay rights groups around the country; and a defense attorney whose controversial Śgay panicą defense may have saved his client from the death penalty. Please click here to view the ecard image: http://www.towersproductions.com/aj/shepard/shepardecard.html American Justice, a weekly series produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for A&E Network and hosted by renowned journalist Bill Kurtis, presents a balanced account of controversial cases, in order to shed light on the American justice system. For related sites, please click on the links below: Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrc.org/ American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org PFLAG http://www.pflag.org/ The Triangle Foundation http://www.tri.org/ Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (U.S. Hate Crimes: Definitions, information and legislation) http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat1.htm#procon GLAAD http://www.glaad.org/org/index.html * * * * * * * * * * * This program announcement is a service provided by Towers Productions, Inc. If you received this email via a third party and would like to join our mailing list, or have any questions regarding Towers Productions, please contact us at info@towersproductions.com. If you would like to discontinue this service, please contact us at unsubscribe@towersproductions.com. >From cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Wed May 23 03:00:43 2001 -0400 Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24473 for ; Wed, 23 May 2001 03:00:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from johnturn (p51-max8.wlg.ihug.co.nz [203.173.231.243]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id SAA03632; Wed, 23 May 2001 18:59:43 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p51-max8.wlg.ihug.co.nz [203.173.231.243] claimed to be johnturn Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20010523185949.007c6480@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: jturner@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:59:49 +1200 To: Bentley Atchison From: john turner Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness Cc: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3B0AF8DD.BC95DF8C@vifp.monash.edu.au> 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 sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id DAA24474 Content-Length: 1203 >“Partial Fingerprints are unique” > >If often hear these types of statements, but I personally cannot find >articles testing this idea. Could the members on the list please cite >articles published in scientific journals which have tested this >hypothesis? I would like to see how this very definite seemingly >irrefutable conclusion was reached – perhaps DNA testing could use the >same approach. > Try the site www.onin.com/fp/ Obviously not a scientific journal that you have asked for but this site has info on the following: >The Court also agreed to take judicial notice in the case that : 1) Human Friction Ridges are Unique and Permanent throughout the area of the friction ridge skin including small friction ridge areas, and 2) Human Friction Ridge Skin Arrangements are Unique and Permanent. The site has a great deal of info on Daubert fingerprint hearings and fingerprints in general. Ed German (the site author) gave evidence in a Daubert hearing on studies of identical twins. Some of the other witnesses also gave evidence on the uniqueness of partial fingerprints. (refer to site -Daubert Hearing #1)) Regards John Turner FFS, CLPE Senior Fingerprint Officer New Zealand >From cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Thu May 24 00:25:09 2001 -0400 Status: X-Status: X-Keywords: Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.95]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA03506 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 00:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 23 May 2001 21:25:07 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [168.191.72.167] From: "Shaun Wheeler" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: Peltier Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 23:55:04 -0500 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2001 04:25:07.0958 (UTC) FILETIME=[8391C160:01C0E409] Content-Length: 17299 KJohn and List: "From: To: Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:24 PM Subject: Fwd: Peltier" A true saint, a hell of a pal, and a generally all around wonderful guy, right? et/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=9410 Rumor Mill News Read Only Forum LEONARD PELTIER STATEMENT ON FBI ABUSES Posted By: Terra Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, 11:20 a.m. In Response To: NPR FREEH REMEMBERED FOR REMEMBERING HOLO. MUSEUM (RogueButterfly) "This is a statement from Leonard Peltier addressing the actions of the FBI, not just in his case, but throughout recent history." Great. Let's not forget that according to the trial record, as well as the numerous appeals of Leonard Peltier, whose hatred for those whose aims he did not agree with, he simply murdered, wound up with a bad case of dead. "http://www.freepeltier.org/abuses_fbi_peltier.htm#top Peltier Statement on FBI Abuses" I'll say it for you, KJohn, It's long since time to execute Peltier. "Greetings Brothers, Sisters, Friends and Supporters:" Yeah, kiss my politically correct ass, my friends ass, and their friends asses. "I am writing this statement in the midst of controversy surrounding the FBI's withholding of 3000 documents pertaining to the case of Timothy McVeigh" No, you are writing to save your ass. If it was somebody elses ass, you wouldn't say a word. That pretty well sums it up, doesn't it? "and the Oklahoma City bombing." You meant to say the murders of a few hundred innocent people who suffered because an ignorant asshole couldn't distinguish between the aims of a people v. the aims of a fragment, right? " This incident is only one of many revelations of grave FBI misconduct in recent weeks," If you rated 'misconduct', how would the murder of a couple hundred victims rate with that of a murder on par with you? Or are we supposed to ignore that altogether? " all of which expose very serious violations of the Constitution and severe abuse of power by the FBI." All, so they could gang up on you, right? "In Boston, what started with suspicions that FBI Agent, John Connolly was involved in money laundering and racketeering led to the exposure of much more." Yeah, Leonard, you really got them there. I *always* find it suspicious when somebody takes an interest in my kids....don't you? "As it turned out, almost the entire Boston office was involved in a heavy scheme, which protected notorious gangsters, who were allowed to murder with impunity in exchange for information." How fortunate that a brain trust member like you, could uncover this. Imagine where we would be if everybody kept their mouth shut? " That office even put two innocent men, men they knew were innocent and who they very purposefully framed, in prison in order to keep their informants free from prosecution. These innocent men served thirty years in prison and were only released after previously hidden FBI documentation was uncovered. What is worse is, it all could have been prevented. FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick says he reported the misconduct early on, and was ignored. How much time will the agents responsible serve in prison? What will be done to prevent this type of official criminal behavior from reoccurring? If history is any clue, not too much at all unless we take a firm stand against these types of FBI abuses. Meanwhile, media coverage of Thomas Blanton's conviction for the racist murder of four young girls, which occurred some 38 years ago, is widespread. Since 1965 the FBI knew exactly who the murderers were, and they hid the information. They protected KKK members who murdered children. What will happen to these former agents? How will the FBI be held accountable for their complicit role in such heinous activities? These violations are most serious. There can be no due process, there can be no such thing as an open government, there can be no real justice or democracy when an agency as powerful as the FBI can, decade after decade, break the laws it vows to uphold with no repercussions. The cases covered in the media lately are only the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more well documented incidences of FBI abuses. It is up to the public to hold the FBI accountable. Clearly, no system of checks and balances is in place and the media rarely reports FBI misconduct unless politicians and judges condemn it first, in which case it is usually too little too late. Don't let these latest disclosures deteriorate into "flash in the pan" news stories. An effort must be forged to stop FBI abuses, and to gain recognition that these are continuations of an all too common pattern. The FBI unfairly targeted Wen Ho Lee, withheld evidence about Waco, and botched its handling of the Ruby Ridge incident. In 1998 the Los Angeles FBI crime lab was exposed for it's routine tampering of evidence, especially in high profile cases. In 1997 Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt was released after 27 long years of unjust imprisonment - yet another FBI frame-up. In 1990 Judi Bari's car was bombed, and again, the FBI hid evidence proving the bomb had been planted. Instead of finding the perpetrators, they criminally charged the Earth First! activist, who was left crippled for life. (Find out more about the Judi Bari case in this issue). Of course, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation the FBI allowed, and further supported, the murderous GOON squads. Year after year I sit through meaningless parole hearings where I am told that I must take responsibility for a crime I did not commit. All the while, the faces of my brothers and sisters who were killed during that era, loom in my head, as I suppress my bitterness over such blatant discrimination and injustice. One day I know, this too will be recognized and exposed as a result of the efforts of the people. Officials will likely act surprised and outraged, even though we have been telling them all along about what we have experienced and witnessed. Friends, I am not writing this statement out of bitterness, but out of alarm. When will these kinds of abuses be stopped? When will we overcome our fear of the FBI and say, never again. Not one more innocent person in prison, not one more political prisoner, not one more unnecessary death? If the FBI thought that Martin Luther King was a threat to the "American way of life" then we must ask, what way of life do they defend, and do the American people want the FBI to act on their behalf? In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, Leonard Peltier Copyright © 2000 LPDC The International Office of the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee All Rights Reserved. I remember distinctly watching the news events unfold after the Oklahoma City bombing. My first response was a very deep horror at the loss and extreme violence, sadness for the families, despair. My next thoughts were of Wounded Knee. I don't know why I made the correlation then, but it happened. The two events seemed to be a repeating message in loss of innocence, two useless acts of hatred that seemed to stike the same chord. The insidious result of bad trades and broken promises. What was traded for OKC? A brief history reads well in the words of Paul Berg, a schoolteacher who was working at Pine Ridge during the second seige at Wounded Knee in 1970: http://www.freepeltier.org/berg_letter.htm#top [Note: the entire letter represents a living history of those days in the 1970s known as the Reign of Terror, its devastation and effect on the people at Pine Ridge.] "The Sioux and the 7th Calvary clashed in the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876. Subsequently the participating bands of Sioux were hunted down and confined in conditions of squalor on Federal Reservations. In 1890 the Sioux were broken as a culture and as individuals. They collectively embraced the Ghost Dance, a form of cultural hysteria. Government agents at Pine Ridge incorrectly interpreted the Ghost Dance as an aggressive threat to non-Indians and called in the army. As fate would have it, the responding army unit was the 7th Calvary, an Army unit with a score to settle with the Sioux. At Wounded Knee Creek on a cold winter day, the 7th Calvary extracted revenge by massacring over 200 old men, women, and children. It cannot be emphasized enough that the Battle of Little Big Horn was a battle between armed soldiers on both sides. Wounded Knee, in contrast, was a massacre of mostly unarmed people by a military unit bent on revenge. Women, and children were found as far as two miles from the site. The women had thrown blankets over the children so that they would not see their executioners. Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to several of the soldiers in the massacre. These medals have never been recalled. The people on Pine Ridge Reservation have lived with the collective cultural memory of a government massacre." (end quote) WHAT, I remember thinking, does this Oklahoma City bombing have to do with Wounded Knee? More armed offensive at totally helpless men, women, and children? At that point in time, the FBI had just begun "investigating" the events in Oklahoma. Leonard Peltier was in jail for a crime he did not commit. Somehow the Oklahoma murders seemed to mirror the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre of 200 people, including many children. Only this time, everybody gasped in horror. History repeated, and made us scream louder. To this day, no one has corrected that history from Pine Ridge, nor have they acknowledged the horror and devastation that was unleashed that day some 111 years ago in the minds and spirit of the people there. It was the SAME THING, only most people forgot about Wounded Knee. Surely, the killing of hundreds of Indians could get swept under the blanket of "history" because the U.S. Government wanted to (and did) steal some more gold-filled sacred land. Untold histories have a truly nasty way of repeating themselves. The victim is always our innocence. Here we are now, at 2001. The world is appalled by the fact that an admitted killer, McVeigh, is being granted a stay of execution; that his case is being reinvestigated, and that the FBI would hide documents. Guess how many sealed documents have not been released in Peltier's case? Answer: 6,000 from: http://www.freepeltier.org/remaining_avenues.htm#foi_act "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - 6000 FBI DOCUMENTS Because the courts only allow an issue to be litigated once, new evidence is needed in order to obtain a retrial for Leonard Peltier. That new evidence likely exists in the over 6,000 documents still being withheld by the FBI. In the early 1980's, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit, over 12,000 of these documents were released. But, the FBI continued to withhold over 6,000 documents in their entirety and another 6,000 in part, for reasons of "national security" and "ongoing" police investigations. The first batch of documents proved that: 1. Peltier did not fire the fatal shots. 2. The FBI intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. 3. The FBI agents had undeniably followed a red pickup (not a red and white van) onto the ranch, a vehicle that could not be tied to Peltier. 4. The FBI had framed Peltier: Several other suspects with more evidence against them existed, but were never indicted. One document stated the FBI's intention to "develop evidence to lock Peltier into the case." 5. The prosecution colluded with the FBI and the Canadian prosecutor to present falsified evidence to the Canadian court and obtain Peltier's extradition. 6. Without justification, the FBI forewarned the trial judge, who later warned the jury, of possible AIM violence, thus creating a prejudicial atmosphere in the courtroom. 7. The FBI had Peltier under surveillance for his AIM involvement years prior to his arrest. 8. The FBI had been preparing for a paramilitary operation on the Pine Ridge reservation weeks before the shoot out and had been closely surveillancing AIM activities there. 9. The FBI considered AIM a threat to the United States and covertly sought to destroy the movement. We can only imagine what might be contained in the rest of the documents. Because 25 years have passed since the shoot-out, some of the legal justifications available to the FBI for withholding documents are no longer officially valid. Therefore, new Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed and we can expect another lawsuit to take place in the future. Meanwhile, we can also pressure the United States Congress to pass an act to declassify the documents." (end quote) WHAT DOES PELTIER HAVE TO DO WITH MCVEIGH, OKC, AND THE ORIGINAL MASSACRE OF WOUNDED KNEE? Peltier's plight is profoundly attached to the spiritual loss that occurred at Wounded Knee in 1890. The collective memory of an entire nation has suffered deeply from the unresolved massacre. The seeds of injustice were planted then. If the devastation and horror of OKC is not somehow balanced by "justice" and life-affirming action, then the same horror and self-deprecating mind-eating worm will feed itself into the lives and truths of the people who lived to experience Oklahoma City. The purveyors of pain and terror are the same as those from 111 years ago. Let history be the lesson. Several positive steps include: telling the whole story of OKC correctly now, without lies; telling the history of Wounded Knee, and its relevance to the terror and devastation of the Lakota at Pine Ridge in 1970; reinvestigate the Peltier case, and investigate the unresolved deaths of 57 other victims in the 1970 Wounded Knee Reign of Terror. If McVeigh gets a reprieve (and he already admits HIS part in the crime) then why does Peltier have to remain imprisioned for an act HE DID NOT COMMIT? If the FBI can be held unaccountable all-of-a-sudden for some 3000 lost files, then why, OH WHY, does Peltier sit in jail with some 6,000 withheld files? If the conspiracy theories about McVeigh are correct, and his death determines the onset of some NWO, there still remains the fact that one cold day, not so long ago, a mirror sent out a reflection of death. That ghost gets magnified over time. I do believe that Peltier is the final statement in this somehow. His freedom will vindicate the spirits of all those killed at Wounded Knee two times in history. If McVeigh gets off on a "technicality", the disaster at Oklahoma City will act like Wounded Knee in the hearts and minds of a people. If McVeigh gets another trial, while Peltier remains in prison, then the seed of injustice will dig ever deeper to divide the heart and spirit of what is becoming the amalgamated culture of this land. Like it or not, we are all in this together. It is the actions of our ancestors and the inequities of their plight that we direct to steer into a peaceful future. Additionally, Former President Clinton did not pardon Peltier. The FBI actually marched in protest (the only time ever on record), and secret meetings were held to negotiate against the clemency. On that day, instead, Clinton made a deal that stopped further investigation into his perjury trial. It was a bad trade for history. Too many bad trades have happened here. There are no more promises to break. The following clip is from "Passing Over Peltier, part 1 of 2 Among the things Bill Clinton left behind are a broken promise and questions of a deal" Published May 15th 2001 By MICHAEL A. de YOANNA Colorado Daily Staff Writer http://co001.campusmotor.com/shell_story_news.html?ID=1382 "Peltier's supporters pointed out that unlike numerous pardons that were granted, Peltier's application for executive clemency went through all the appropriate Justice Department channels and had been pending throughout the Clinton presidency. The case has drawn the support of the 250 Indian tribes represented by the National Congress of American Indians, Amnesty International and renowned world leaders such as the D From MajorDomo Thu May 24 09:14:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA07417 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07412 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:14:38 -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 ESMTP id JAA11891; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:14:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:14:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Shaun Wheeler cc: Dave Hause , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, stiffdoc@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: Ballistics Info In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7000 Well, that sounds pretty much like BS to me. Unnamed accusers are a dime a dozen. *My* experience with Kris is that he has not been one to shirk from telling it like he sees it, regardless of who does or does not like it. That has certainly been evident in his clashes with me in other forums. As to changing an opinion, hey, I've done it. Everybody who admits to error or has the capacity to learn enjoys that trait. It's *not* a failing. It takes me 30 seconds to write an addendum, and it is trivial to do. Even at my age I can learn things which change my opinion (not about adult male human testicular atrophy and marijuana, mind you, but about a lot of things). And if Kris came upon something he didn't notice before or some knowledge he didn't have, then more power to him. I gather you haven't bothered actually asking Kris about this directly before smearing him in a public forum. Perhaps that might be a good idea. Some years ago, a few people tried to turn this list into a forum for systematically making personal attacks on non-list members on the grounds of trumped up "ethical" complaints. It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now. I couldn't care less if you want to engage in a personal pissing contest with another list member -- hey, I even enjoy it now and then. At least that list member can defend himself or herself. However, to use this list as a soapbox for personally attacking folk behind their backs is pretty low. Few people here know enough about any given case to have an informed opinion about it. Unless someone has sat down and gone through the autopsy report, photos, etc. they are not in a position to judge whether or not Kris' or my or anybody's opinion is supported. This forum does not lend itself to the review of hundreds of pages of findings, and any one-sentence accusation is empty and third party accusations, particularly anonymous ones, are gross and inappropriate hearsay. billo On Wed, 23 May 2001, Shaun Wheeler wrote: > From: Shaun Wheeler > > Dave and List: > > The case in question is that of Phillip Workman. > > I found troubling the vascillating opinions of Dr. Kris Sperry, of the > Georgia State Crime Laboratory. > > At first, Dr. Sperry offered that the wounds the victim suffered could only > have some from a weapon other than the appellants. > > After expressing this opinion, Dr. Sperry changed his opinion to the extent > that "I cannot say to a degree of medical certainty that Ron Oliver did > *not* die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip Workman", the defendant, > which of course renders his opinion sufficiently in question as to beg the > issue of why he offered he first under sworn deposition. > > A person of reliable authority offered that Kris Sperry has refused > categorically to offer an opinion in a capital case which was favorable to > the prosecution. > > I invite someone to provide an exemplar which proves that wrong for my > benefit. > > Shaun Wheeler > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Hause" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:37 PM > Subject: Fw: Ballistics Info > > > > Assuming James meant this actually to go to the list, rather than to me > > alone. > > Dave Hause > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "James Roberts" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:12 PM > > Subject: Re: Ballistics Info > > > > > > The FBI testing following the Miami incident is, as Dr. Hause has > suggested > > below, probably the best material you will find. > > > > It is quite unclear in your question if you are asking about Winchester > > Silvertip which in some calibers has an aluminum jacket, in others a > nickel > > plated copper jacket. I'm guessing you are as those are the only common > > Aluminum hollow points out there. In handgun bullets it is a hollow point > in > > rifle bullets usually a softpoint (ST) or ballistic tip (BST-plastic, > > silver in color). 45 Auto is one caliber that had Al jackets, it was one > of > > the two original rounds loaded in this line. I think the 45 Colt > > cartridge loads may have been Al in the Silvertip line, also. Both are > > loaded in the Silvertip line and these are the only two 45 caliber > > cartridges loaded in that line that I'm aware of. The 45 Auto is a 185 gr. > > bullet the 45 Colt is a 225 gr. bullet in this product line. Originally > all > > bullets in that line were Al but they found that the Al jacket could not > > take higher velocity so anything over about 1000 or 1100 fps went to > Nickel > > plated Cu. I know the 9mm that was originally Al switched to Cu with the > > Nickel platting. The catalog doesn't specify Al or Cu. just Silvertip and > > they are all basically the same color in a catalog photo. > > > > There are several "studies" in the popular literature (gun magazines) and > > books that do include the Silvertips in several calibers but there are > good > > reasons not to trust them. In the case of the Marshall & Sanow "data base" > > see Wound Ballistics Review Vol 4 #2 (fall 1999) article by Maarten van > > Maanen and follow up comments by Dr. M. Fackler and D. MacPherson. This > will > > give you a good concept of the quality of the gun magazine "literature" > out > > there on this subject. I'd stick to that published in the professional > > literature and this does not include the gun magazines. There is > > unfortunately a lot of poor information on wound ballistics. The old LEAA > > "Computer Man" studies have been proven false also. > > > > The Silvertip was one of the first generation of the "controlled > expansion" > > handgun bullets and much more work has been done with the later > generations. > > > > I'm not sure I've provided much in the way of an answer but I hope I've > > helped you refine your question and where you may find some answers. > > > > James L. Roberts > > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > > (805) 654-2308 > > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > > > >>> "Dave Hause" 05/20/01 07:02PM >>> > > Probably not in people, but the FBI may have included them in one of their > > periodic evaluations of handgun ammo, gelatin blocks being one of their > > series of tests. Don't remember the exact name of the publication (which > is > > in the office) and my most recent one was about 92 or 3, but I think it > was > > available from GPO. > > Dave Hause > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "SHAUN WHEELER" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:30 PM > > Subject: Ballistics Info > > > > > > I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. > > > > Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound > ballistics > > of this type of bullet? > > > > Shaun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From MajorDomo Thu May 24 09:40:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA08172 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ARWSHKHN42 (ARWSHKHN42.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.47]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08167 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 09:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil BY ARWSHKHN42 ; Thu May 24 08:38:02 2001 -0500 Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 24 May 2001 08:37:03 -0500 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439815@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Ballistics Info Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:40:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E457.08911F30" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 18409 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_01C0E457.08911F30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This actually sounds to me like testimony beyond the scope of one's expertise, unless there is a pretty elaborate hypothetical description to which this is a response. (Something like: Q: Assuming Defendant was in possession only of a .25 caliber pistol, could this wound have been caused by it? A: Since I recovered only a .45 caliber bullet, no.) From a forensic path viewpoint, we see evidence of the type of weapon which was used to inflict a particular wound. Unless the pathologist was also a fact witness and observed the crime, who wielded the weapon is indeterminable, although there may be circumstances under which one might say that a particular wound is consistent with a very strong/tall/right-handed/etc. wielder. Specifically for gunshot wounds, assuming recovery of a bullet, it is possible to say that "this bullet was the instrument of the fatal wound." What gun it came from is the area of the firearm & toolmark examiner. Given that Dr. Sperry works for GBI, he may be permitted to testify to findings of other analysts in his organization (typically we do testify about toxicology results, even though most forensic pathologists do not do their own toxicology.) "I cannot say to a degree of medical certainty that Ron Oliver did *not* die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip Workman" sounds like obfuscation to me, calling for follow up by the questioning attorney: Dr., eliminating the double negative in your answer, do you actually mean that you CAN say to a degree of medical certainty that Ron Oliver DID die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip Workman or did you mean that you actually were unable to determine a cause of death? Last, if the capital case/refusal of opinion is a single incident, so what? If this is generic, due to opposition to death penalty, that seems to be an internal personnel problem for GBI, possibly indicating a need for a change of employer. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Shaun Wheeler [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:32 PM To: Dave Hause Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Ballistics Info Dave and List: The case in question is that of Phillip Workman. I found troubling the vascillating opinions of Dr. Kris Sperry, of the Georgia State Crime Laboratory. At first, Dr. Sperry offered that the wounds the victim suffered could only have some from a weapon other than the appellants. After expressing this opinion, Dr. Sperry changed his opinion to the extent that "I cannot say to a degree of medical certainty that Ron Oliver did *not* die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip Workman", the defendant, which of course renders his opinion sufficiently in question as to beg the issue of why he offered he first under sworn deposition. A person of reliable authority offered that Kris Sperry has refused categorically to offer an opinion in a capital case which was favorable to the prosecution. I invite someone to provide an exemplar which proves that wrong for my benefit. Shaun Wheeler ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Hause" To: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:37 PM Subject: Fw: Ballistics Info > Assuming James meant this actually to go to the list, rather than to me > alone. > Dave Hause > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Roberts" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:12 PM > Subject: Re: Ballistics Info > > > The FBI testing following the Miami incident is, as Dr. Hause has suggested > below, probably the best material you will find. > > It is quite unclear in your question if you are asking about Winchester > Silvertip which in some calibers has an aluminum jacket, in others a nickel > plated copper jacket. I'm guessing you are as those are the only common > Aluminum hollow points out there. In handgun bullets it is a hollow point in > rifle bullets usually a softpoint (ST) or ballistic tip (BST-plastic, > silver in color). 45 Auto is one caliber that had Al jackets, it was one of > the two original rounds loaded in this line. I think the 45 Colt > cartridge loads may have been Al in the Silvertip line, also. Both are > loaded in the Silvertip line and these are the only two 45 caliber > cartridges loaded in that line that I'm aware of. The 45 Auto is a 185 gr. > bullet the 45 Colt is a 225 gr. bullet in this product line. Originally all > bullets in that line were Al but they found that the Al jacket could not > take higher velocity so anything over about 1000 or 1100 fps went to Nickel > plated Cu. I know the 9mm that was originally Al switched to Cu with the > Nickel platting. The catalog doesn't specify Al or Cu. just Silvertip and > they are all basically the same color in a catalog photo. > > There are several "studies" in the popular literature (gun magazines) and > books that do include the Silvertips in several calibers but there are good > reasons not to trust them. In the case of the Marshall & Sanow "data base" > see Wound Ballistics Review Vol 4 #2 (fall 1999) article by Maarten van > Maanen and follow up comments by Dr. M. Fackler and D. MacPherson. This will > give you a good concept of the quality of the gun magazine "literature" out > there on this subject. I'd stick to that published in the professional > literature and this does not include the gun magazines. There is > unfortunately a lot of poor information on wound ballistics. The old LEAA > "Computer Man" studies have been proven false also. > > The Silvertip was one of the first generation of the "controlled expansion" > handgun bullets and much more work has been done with the later generations. > > I'm not sure I've provided much in the way of an answer but I hope I've > helped you refine your question and where you may find some answers. > > James L. Roberts > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > (805) 654-2308 > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > >>> "Dave Hause" 05/20/01 07:02PM >>> > Probably not in people, but the FBI may have included them in one of their > periodic evaluations of handgun ammo, gelatin blocks being one of their > series of tests. Don't remember the exact name of the publication (which is > in the office) and my most recent one was about 92 or 3, but I think it was > available from GPO. > Dave Hause > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "SHAUN WHEELER" > To: > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:30 PM > Subject: Ballistics Info > > > I have a few questions regarding aluminum tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints. > > Are there any reliable studies published that document the wound ballistics > of this type of bullet? > > Shaun > > > > > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E457.08911F30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Ballistics Info

This actually sounds to me like testimony beyond the = scope of one's expertise, unless there is a pretty elaborate = hypothetical description to which this is a response.  (Something = like: Q:  Assuming Defendant was in possession only of a .25 = caliber pistol, could this wound have been caused by it?  A:  = Since I recovered only a .45 caliber bullet, no.)  From a forensic = path viewpoint, we see evidence of the type of weapon which was used to = inflict a particular wound.  Unless the pathologist was also a = fact witness and observed the crime, who wielded the weapon is = indeterminable, although there may be circumstances under which one = might say that a particular wound is consistent with a very = strong/tall/right-handed/etc. wielder.

Specifically for gunshot wounds, assuming recovery of = a bullet, it is possible to say that "this bullet was the = instrument of the fatal wound."  What gun it came from is the = area of the firearm & toolmark examiner.  Given that Dr. = Sperry works for GBI, he may be permitted to testify to findings of = other analysts in his organization (typically we do testify about = toxicology results, even though most forensic pathologists do not do = their own toxicology.)

"I cannot say to a degree of medical certainty = that Ron Oliver did *not* die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip = Workman" sounds like obfuscation to me, calling for follow up by = the questioning attorney:  Dr., eliminating the double negative in = your answer, do you actually mean that you CAN say to a degree of = medical certainty that Ron Oliver DID die as a result of the weapon = used by Phillip Workman or did you mean that you actually were unable = to determine a cause of death?

Last, if the capital case/refusal of opinion is a = single incident, so what?  If this is generic, due to opposition = to death penalty, that seems to be an internal personnel problem for = GBI, possibly indicating a need for a change of employer.

Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaun Wheeler [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.c= om]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:32 PM
To: Dave Hause
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Ballistics Info


Dave and List:

The case in question is that of Phillip = Workman.

I found troubling the vascillating opinions of Dr. = Kris Sperry, of the
Georgia State Crime Laboratory.

At first, Dr. Sperry offered that the wounds the = victim suffered could only
have some from a weapon other than the = appellants.

After expressing this opinion, Dr. Sperry changed his = opinion to the extent
that "I cannot say to a degree of medical = certainty that Ron Oliver did
*not* die as a result of the weapon used by Phillip = Workman", the defendant,
which of course renders his opinion sufficiently in = question as to beg the
issue of why he offered he first under sworn = deposition.

A person of reliable authority offered that Kris = Sperry has refused
categorically to offer an opinion in a capital case = which was favorable to
the prosecution.

I invite someone to provide an exemplar which proves = that wrong for my
benefit.

Shaun Wheeler




----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Hause" = <dwhause@rollanet.org>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Fw: Ballistics Info


> Assuming James meant this actually to go to the = list, rather than to me
> alone.
> Dave Hause
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Roberts" = <James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us>
> To: <dwhause@rollanet.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Ballistics Info
>
>
> The FBI testing following the Miami incident = is, as Dr. Hause has
suggested
> below, probably the best material you will = find.
>
> It is quite unclear in your question if you are = asking about Winchester
> Silvertip which in some calibers has an = aluminum jacket, in others a
nickel
> plated copper jacket. I'm guessing you are as = those are the only common
> Aluminum hollow points out there. In handgun = bullets it is a hollow point
in
> rifle bullets usually a softpoint (ST)  or = ballistic tip (BST-plastic,
> silver in color).  45 Auto is one caliber = that had Al jackets, it was one
of
> the two original rounds loaded in this = line.   I think  the 45 Colt
> cartridge loads may have been Al in the = Silvertip line, also. Both are
> loaded in the Silvertip line and these are the = only two 45 caliber
> cartridges loaded in that line that I'm aware = of. The 45 Auto is a 185 gr.
> bullet the 45 Colt is a 225 gr. bullet in this = product line. Originally
all
> bullets in that line were Al but they found = that the Al jacket could not
> take higher velocity so anything over about = 1000 or 1100 fps went to
Nickel
> plated Cu. I know the 9mm that was originally = Al switched to Cu with the
> Nickel platting. The catalog doesn't specify Al = or Cu. just Silvertip and
> they are all basically the same color in a = catalog photo.
>
> There are several "studies" in the = popular literature (gun magazines) and
> books that do include the Silvertips in several = calibers but there are
good
> reasons not to trust them. In the case of the = Marshall & Sanow "data base"
> see Wound Ballistics Review Vol 4 #2 (fall = 1999)  article by Maarten van
> Maanen and follow up comments by Dr. M. Fackler = and D. MacPherson. This
will
> give you a good concept of the quality of the = gun magazine "literature"
out
> there on this subject.  I'd stick to that = published in the professional
> literature and this does not include the gun = magazines. There is
> unfortunately a lot of poor information on = wound ballistics. The old LEAA
> "Computer Man" studies have been = proven false also.
>
> The Silvertip was one of the first generation = of the "controlled
expansion"
> handgun bullets and much more work has been = done with the later
generations.
>
> I'm not sure I've provided much in the way of = an answer but I hope I've
> helped you refine your question and where you = may find some answers.
>
> James L. Roberts
> Firearm and Toolmark Examiner
> Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab
> (805) 654-2308
> James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us
>
> >>> "Dave Hause" = <dwhause@rollanet.org> 05/20/01 07:02PM >>>
> Probably not in people, but the FBI may have = included them in one of their
> periodic evaluations of handgun ammo, gelatin = blocks being one of their
> series of tests.  Don't remember the exact = name of the publication (which
is
> in the office) and my most recent one was about = 92 or 3, but I think it
was
> available from GPO.
> Dave Hause
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SHAUN WHEELER" = <shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com>
> To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:30 PM
> Subject: Ballistics Info
>
>
> I have a few questions regarding aluminum = tipped .45 calibre hollowpoints.
>
> Are there any reliable studies published that = document the wound
ballistics
> of this type of bullet?
>
> Shaun
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E457.08911F30-- From MajorDomo Thu May 24 10:56:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA09275 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:56:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub.state.me.us (mailhub.state.me.us [141.114.122.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09267 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-email.ps.state.me.us by mailhub.state.me.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:53:09 -0400 Received: from [141.114.109.134] by dps-email.ps.state.me.us for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 24 May 2001 10:57:35 -0400 Message-Id: <001801c0e461$b6d8dc40$866d728d@pschelms.ps.state.me.us> From: "Gretchen D. Hicks" To: "Forens-l" Subject: Physical matching Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:56:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0E440.2FA5AA80" 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 Content-Length: 2319 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0E440.2FA5AA80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear list members, I have questions regarding physical matching in general. What section = in your laboratory does physical matching? Do more than one section = perform the examinations? What are your match criteria - visual, = microscopic, or both? What kind of training/testing do you require? = Any other pertinant information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Sincererly, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 30 Hospital St. Augusta, ME 04333 Gretchen.D.Hicks@state.me.us Tel: 207-624-7028 Fax: 207-624-7123 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0E440.2FA5AA80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear list members,
 
I have questions regarding physical matching in = general. =20 What section in your laboratory does physical matching?  Do more = than one=20 section perform the examinations?  What are your match criteria - = visual,=20 microscopic, or both?  What kind of training/testing do you = require? =20 Any other pertinant information would be greatly = appreciated.
 
Thank you in advance.
 
Sincererly,
 
Gretchen D. Hicks
Forensic = Chemist=20 II
Maine State Police Crime Laboratory
30 Hospital St.
Augusta, = ME  04333
Gretchen.D.Hicks@state.me.us=
Tel:=20 207-624-7028
Fax: 207-624-7123
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C0E440.2FA5AA80-- From MajorDomo Thu May 24 16:12:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA02587 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f19.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.19]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02582 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:12:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 24 May 2001 13:12:05 -0700 Received: from 208.181.242.166 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2001 20:12:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.181.242.166] From: "Tree Waters" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Suffocation: External Physical Signs Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:12:04 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2001 20:12:05.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD44E560:01C0E48D] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 672 Hi gang, Does anyone know of any external signs of intentional suffocation? Does a cut or bleeding at the lip/chin indicate or imply anything? Patient has cancer...how can you tell externally if a body has been intentionally suffocated or if it was due to the cancer? She was sleeping at the time of death but her mouth wide open as if gasping for air, although she had weak breathing (breathing shorter and shorter by the minute) causing her to also be bed-ridden. Anybody got any thoughts on it? Thanks in advance! -Theressa _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Thu May 24 16:20:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA02759 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02754 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:20:57 -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 ESMTP id QAA09581; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:20:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:20:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Tree Waters cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1091 True suffocation, as opposed to throttling or strangulation, often leaves no pathognomic physical signs. That her mouth was wide open is of no significance. The significance of "bleeding" from the mouth depends on its etiology. Many folk misdiagnose purging as "bleeding," for instance. billo On Thu, 24 May 2001, Tree Waters wrote: > From: Tree Waters > > Hi gang, > > Does anyone know of any external signs of intentional suffocation? Does a > cut or bleeding at the lip/chin indicate or imply anything? Patient has > cancer...how can you tell externally if a body has been intentionally > suffocated or if it was due to the cancer? She was sleeping at the time of > death but her mouth wide open as if gasping for air, although she had weak > breathing (breathing shorter and shorter by the minute) causing her to also > be bed-ridden. Anybody got any thoughts on it? Thanks in advance! > > -Theressa > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > From MajorDomo Thu May 24 17:04:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA03241 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp05.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03233 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:04:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 7830 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 21:04:11 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp05.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 24 May 2001 21:04:11 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for SMTP.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.70]) with SMTP; 24 May 2001 20:43:03 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Thu May 24 14:04:58 2001 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 24 May 2001 14:04:27 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:04:07 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Gretchen.D.Hicks@state.me.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Physical matching Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1320 Gretchen, Generally physical matching is conducted by the firearms and toolmarks section of our laboratory. However, the trace evidence section when dealing with hit and run issues such as paint chips or broken glass in burglaries also does this type of exam. Physical matches should be patently obvious. If microscopic they again must be visually supported. Training includes observing a trained examiner make a physical match as well as understanding that a physical match is the result of a random event. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Gretchen D. Hicks" 05/24 7:56 AM >>> Dear list members, I have questions regarding physical matching in general. What section in your laboratory does physical matching? Do more than one section perform the examinations? What are your match criteria - visual, microscopic, or both? What kind of training/testing do you require? Any other pertinant information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Sincererly, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 30 Hospital St. Augusta, ME 04333 Gretchen.D.Hicks@state.me.us Tel: 207-624-7028 Fax: 207-624-7123 From MajorDomo Thu May 24 17:32:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA03475 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay01.cablecom.net (relay01.cablecom.net [62.2.33.101]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03470 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 17:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.swissonline.ch (mail.swissonline.ch [62.2.32.83]) by relay01.cablecom.net (8.11.3/8.11.0/SOL/MXRELAY-1.03) with ESMTP id f4OLVxh37704 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:32:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [62.2.68.236] (client68-236.hispeed.ch [62.2.68.236]) by mail.swissonline.ch (8.11.1/8.11.0/MSOL-2.17) with ESMTP id f4OLVwD07380 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:31:59 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: mnswolf@mail.icemark.ch Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:31:55 +0200 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Wolf Schweitzer Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2644 In Austria, there was the case including a killing method that was nicknamed "mouth care" (Mundpflege) by the murders years ago, where, over a time span of years, retirement village nurses killed 40 old people they were supposed to care for. This case was in 1989 and it was known under the keyword "Wiener Mordschwestern" (Vienna Murderer Nurses). http://www.wienerzeitung.at/frameless/lexikon.htm?ID=222 http://student.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~mproske/standard/raw/19990326.57.HTM Among other methods, they also used a cup full of water. They did that to people with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses, as far as I am informed, and they just made them inhale all of that fluid by shoving it into their mouthes by pressing down their tongue with a spatula (English?), or by holding their mouthes shut by gentle pressure afterwards. These elderly people died shortly after the water had been filling their lungs, and the pathologists did not find anything suspicious at all. Nothing unusual for someone of that age with these illnesses. Pulmonary edema of course, yes. This technique was described after the people who commited these murders came forward and confessed. Maybe this is not what you wanted to hear under the topic of "suffocation", as this is more like "drowning". But then, I guess it answers the question in that there *can* be things happening to bedridden people with a short breath that not even the sun will bring to the daylight. Wolf Schweitzer Bern, Switzerland >True suffocation, as opposed to throttling or strangulation, often >leaves no pathognomic physical signs. That her mouth was >wide open is of no significance. The significance of "bleeding" >from the mouth depends on its etiology. Many folk misdiagnose >purging as "bleeding," for instance. > >billo > > >On Thu, 24 May 2001, Tree Waters wrote: > >> From: Tree Waters > > >> Hi gang, >> >> Does anyone know of any external signs of intentional suffocation? Does a >> cut or bleeding at the lip/chin indicate or imply anything? Patient has >> cancer...how can you tell externally if a body has been intentionally >> suffocated or if it was due to the cancer? She was sleeping at the time of >> death but her mouth wide open as if gasping for air, although she had weak > > breathing (breathing shorter and shorter by the minute) causing her to also >> be bed-ridden. Anybody got any thoughts on it? Thanks in advance! >> > > -Theressa >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com >> From MajorDomo Thu May 24 19:13:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA03954 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f119.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.119]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03949 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:13:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 24 May 2001 16:12:59 -0700 Received: from 208.181.242.8 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:12:58 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.181.242.8] From: "Tree Waters" To: wuff@swisswuff.ch Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 16:12:58 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2001 23:12:59.0143 (UTC) FILETIME=[12BD2170:01C0E4A7] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3718 In response to Wolf and Bill, Thank you for your prompt reply. With respect to Wolf's story, does that mean an autopsy may not guarantee a definate finding of suffocation? Had these individuals not come forward, there would have been no way of knowing. Hence, there is a possibility that there may be other techniques we are unaware of that pathologists may be unable to detect?? Or are pathologists so well advanced now that it would be rare for them to miss the cause of death? Is the only way to really find out what happened to request an autopsy done? With the Asian families, disturbing the body is not usual and to request them to do so would not be likely. Don't know what to do?? -T >From: Wolf Schweitzer >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs >Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:31:55 +0200 > >In Austria, there was the case including a killing method that was >nicknamed "mouth care" (Mundpflege) by the murders years ago, where, >over a time span of years, retirement village nurses killed 40 old >people they were supposed to care for. This case was in 1989 and it >was known under the keyword "Wiener Mordschwestern" (Vienna Murderer >Nurses). > >http://www.wienerzeitung.at/frameless/lexikon.htm?ID=222 >http://student.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~mproske/standard/raw/19990326.57.HTM > >Among other methods, they also used a cup full of water. They did >that to people with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular >illnesses, as far as I am informed, and they just made them inhale >all of that fluid by shoving it into their mouthes by pressing down >their tongue with a spatula (English?), or by holding their mouthes >shut by gentle pressure afterwards. > >These elderly people died shortly after the water had been filling >their lungs, and the pathologists did not find anything suspicious at >all. Nothing unusual for someone of that age with these illnesses. >Pulmonary edema of course, yes. > >This technique was described after the people who commited these >murders came forward and confessed. > >Maybe this is not what you wanted to hear under the topic of >"suffocation", as this is more like "drowning". But then, I guess it >answers the question in that there *can* be things happening to >bedridden people with a short breath that not even the sun will bring >to the daylight. > >Wolf Schweitzer >Bern, Switzerland > > > >>True suffocation, as opposed to throttling or strangulation, often >>leaves no pathognomic physical signs. That her mouth was >>wide open is of no significance. The significance of "bleeding" >>from the mouth depends on its etiology. Many folk misdiagnose >>purging as "bleeding," for instance. >> >>billo >> >> >>On Thu, 24 May 2001, Tree Waters wrote: >> >>> From: Tree Waters >> > >>> Hi gang, >>> >>> Does anyone know of any external signs of intentional suffocation? >>>Does a >>> cut or bleeding at the lip/chin indicate or imply anything? Patient >>>has >>> cancer...how can you tell externally if a body has been intentionally >>> suffocated or if it was due to the cancer? She was sleeping at the >>>time of >>> death but her mouth wide open as if gasping for air, although she had >>>weak >> > breathing (breathing shorter and shorter by the minute) causing her to >>also >>> be bed-ridden. Anybody got any thoughts on it? Thanks in advance! >>> >> > -Theressa >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com >>> > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Thu May 24 19:40:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA04184 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from corp4.cbn.net.id ([202.158.3.28]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04179 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:40:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pentium (ip30-175.cbn.net.id [202.158.30.175]) by corp4.cbn.net.id (Postfix) with SMTP id A7F9055450 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 06:39:54 +0700 (JAVT) Message-ID: <000201c0e4ab$c1fb8240$af1e9eca@cbn.net.id> From: "budisampurna" To: Subject: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 05:39:58 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01C0E4DD.227D0D60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1547 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C0E4DD.227D0D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I dont know whether one of you can help me to answer my question. I would like to know what are the health criteria for a person to be a = president (candidate)? Or may be what are the exclusion criteria in = health field (unfit or incompetent to be a president).=20 Thank you. Dr Budi Sampurna The Indonesian Medical Association ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C0E4DD.227D0D60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I dont know whether one of you can help = me to=20 answer my question.
I would like to know what are the = health criteria=20 for a person to be a president (candidate)? Or may be what are the = exclusion=20 criteria in health field (unfit or incompetent to be a president). =
Thank you.
Dr Budi Sampurna
The Indonesian Medical=20 Association
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C0E4DD.227D0D60-- From MajorDomo Thu May 24 19:49:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA04317 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CDCSRV1 (gatekeeper.esr.co.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04312 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:49:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105242349.TAA04312@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:50:00 +1300 From: "Elliot, Douglas" Subject: equidensitometry To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 392 Hi We have been having trouble finding information about a particular speciality, equidensitometry. It seems to be a method of getting information on footwear impressions from carpets and photographs of carpets. However, it might not be that all. Any suggestions that may be close to the truth would be welcome. Douglas Elliot ESR Ltd, Auckland, nz douglas.elliot@esr.cri.nz From MajorDomo Thu May 24 19:58:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA04453 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.rollanet.org (mailsrv.rollanet.org [192.55.114.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04448 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18866 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 23:58:30 -0000 Received: from access-4-29.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.98) by mx.rollanet.org with SMTP; 24 May 2001 23:58:30 -0000 Message-ID: <02a601c0e4ad$6ec12240$977237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 18:58:29 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4110 Actually, it means both suffocation and drowning are diagnoses of exclusion -- the circumstances are known, there are no contradictory findings, but positive signs do not exist. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tree Waters" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:12 PM Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs In response to Wolf and Bill, Thank you for your prompt reply. With respect to Wolf's story, does that mean an autopsy may not guarantee a definate finding of suffocation? Had these individuals not come forward, there would have been no way of knowing. Hence, there is a possibility that there may be other techniques we are unaware of that pathologists may be unable to detect?? Or are pathologists so well advanced now that it would be rare for them to miss the cause of death? Is the only way to really find out what happened to request an autopsy done? With the Asian families, disturbing the body is not usual and to request them to do so would not be likely. Don't know what to do?? -T >From: Wolf Schweitzer >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Suffocation: External Physical Signs >Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:31:55 +0200 > >In Austria, there was the case including a killing method that was >nicknamed "mouth care" (Mundpflege) by the murders years ago, where, >over a time span of years, retirement village nurses killed 40 old >people they were supposed to care for. This case was in 1989 and it >was known under the keyword "Wiener Mordschwestern" (Vienna Murderer >Nurses). > >http://www.wienerzeitung.at/frameless/lexikon.htm?ID=222 >http://student.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~mproske/standard/raw/19990326.57.HTM > >Among other methods, they also used a cup full of water. They did >that to people with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular >illnesses, as far as I am informed, and they just made them inhale >all of that fluid by shoving it into their mouthes by pressing down >their tongue with a spatula (English?), or by holding their mouthes >shut by gentle pressure afterwards. > >These elderly people died shortly after the water had been filling >their lungs, and the pathologists did not find anything suspicious at >all. Nothing unusual for someone of that age with these illnesses. >Pulmonary edema of course, yes. > >This technique was described after the people who commited these >murders came forward and confessed. > >Maybe this is not what you wanted to hear under the topic of >"suffocation", as this is more like "drowning". But then, I guess it >answers the question in that there *can* be things happening to >bedridden people with a short breath that not even the sun will bring >to the daylight. > >Wolf Schweitzer >Bern, Switzerland > > > >>True suffocation, as opposed to throttling or strangulation, often >>leaves no pathognomic physical signs. That her mouth was >>wide open is of no significance. The significance of "bleeding" >>from the mouth depends on its etiology. Many folk misdiagnose >>purging as "bleeding," for instance. >> >>billo >> >> >>On Thu, 24 May 2001, Tree Waters wrote: >> >>> From: Tree Waters >> > >>> Hi gang, >>> >>> Does anyone know of any external signs of intentional suffocation? >>>Does a >>> cut or bleeding at the lip/chin indicate or imply anything? Patient >>>has >>> cancer...how can you tell externally if a body has been intentionally >>> suffocated or if it was due to the cancer? She was sleeping at the >>>time of >>> death but her mouth wide open as if gasping for air, although she had >>>weak >> > breathing (breathing shorter and shorter by the minute) causing her to >>also >>> be bed-ridden. Anybody got any thoughts on it? Thanks in advance! >>> >> > -Theressa >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com >>> > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From MajorDomo Thu May 24 22:01:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA05158 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 22:01:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA05153 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 22:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c777340a ([24.22.204.87]) by femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010525020139.XLTD18894.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c777340a> for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:01:39 -0700 Message-ID: <003601c0e4be$e2e8ca40$57cc1618@grapid1.mi.home.com> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: References: <200105242349.TAA04312@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: Re: equidensitometry Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 22:03:25 -0400 Organization: Crime and Clues 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1220 Well, Back when I was a professional photographer, densitometry was the measurement of the density of a piece of film. Knowledge of the base level of density is important if one is working with zone system exposure. Ansel Adams and others of his school of photography were heavily into this sort of thing. equi-densitometry would seem to mean measurement of equal density, which I must admit doesn't make much sense to me. Regards, 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliot, Douglas" To: Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 7:50 PM Subject: equidensitometry > > Hi > > We have been having trouble finding information about a particular > speciality, equidensitometry. It seems to be a method of getting > information on footwear impressions from carpets and photographs of > carpets. However, it might not be that all. Any suggestions that may be > close to the truth would be welcome. > > Douglas Elliot > ESR Ltd, Auckland, nz > douglas.elliot@esr.cri.nz From MajorDomo Thu May 24 23:59:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA06047 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe60.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.195]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06042 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 23:59:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 24 May 2001 20:59:47 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [168.191.249.30] From: "Shaun Wheeler" To: "Bill Oliver" Cc: , References: Subject: Re: Ballistics Info Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:29:34 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 May 2001 03:59:47.0178 (UTC) FILETIME=[2386E4A0:01C0E4CF] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7233 Billo: Thanks for addressing the questions, I appreciate that. "> Well, that sounds pretty much like BS to me." His opinion? Yeah, that was the way I saw it. His opinion changed under questioning without the addition of new facts. This is inexplicable. I would be curious why, without changing the facts or information, somebody who is an expert on the subject matter being discuss would suddenly alter their opinion. I'm sure you can offer a reasonable explanation why and I'd be delighted to read it. " Unnamed accusers are a dime a dozen." And unanswered questions are still free. I guess you get what you pay for. " *My* experience with Kris is that he has not been > one to shirk from telling it like he sees it, regardless of >who does or does not like it. Unfortunately this is an anecdotal response not a conclusive one. Since you are obviously more familiar with his work than I am, I invite you to explain why he changed his mind so quickly. Is "medical certainty" that ambiguous? Or was it ever really that "certain" to begin with? >That has certainly been evident in his > clashes with me in other forums. Great, so I'll be delighted to hear a few examples in Georgia or anywhere else where he's testified in a capital case. I'm still looking for one and I haven't found it yet. Since you are obviously well ahead of me given your exchanges with him I'm sure you already have several and merely omitted them to avoid embarrasing me. > > As to changing an opinion, hey, I've done it. >Everybody who admits to error or has the capacity to >learn enjoys that trait. It's *not* a failing. Billo, a man's life was at stake here. Though you can downplay this all you want, the bottom line is he expressed an opinion than changed it, not just minor change, but a change that alters the possible outcomes drastically. Though his willingness to express an unfavorable opinion after the fact, when challenged, certainly is admirable, that he was willing to express an opinion and so quickly abandon it in the face of criticism makes me ask how he could be so certain and yet change so quickly? We aren't talking about a minor change here, we are completely excluding a particular cartridge or allowing that cartridge, which are hardly splitting hairs in this case. >It takes me 30 seconds to write an addendum, and it is > trivial to do. See above. I don't find that trivial. I am certain that in your example the changes were much more minor than completely excluding a particular persons weapon as being responsible for the death in question. If I am mistaken in that regard I am sure you'll correct me. > > Even at my age I can learn things which change my opinion (not about > adult male human testicular atrophy and marijuana, mind you, but > about a lot of things). And if Kris came upon something he didn't notice > before or some knowledge he didn't have, then more power to him. That's the funny thing, Billo, the way I understand it, he didn't volunteer this until his opinion was challenged by the prosecutors, two weeks after his favorable opinions were offered to the Tennessee Supreme Court. > > I gather you haven't bothered actually asking Kris about this > directly before smearing him in a public forum. Perhaps that > might be a good idea. You have many ideas, Billo, some of them excellent. Tell me what you think of this one: I'll pay for the GS/MS analysis of the re-sections if Dr. Sperry will ask the defense to actually move into the area of *real* science rather than conjecture on the basis of an X-ray. If you like, I'll even send you a copy of the results. > > Some years ago, a few people tried to turn this list into a forum > for systematically making personal attacks on non-list members > on the grounds of trumped up "ethical" complaints. It was bullshit > then, and it is bullshit now. I could care less about his person. It is his professional work that I am asking about. If he sky dives naked or sleeps wearing gravity boots it's fine with me. His opinion in a life or death matter changed with no explanation. Yet his earlier opinion used the precise words "medical certainty". What do those words mean to you? Do they have meaning or is it some secret nod and wink handshake thing that I've just missed? > I couldn't care less if you want to engage > in a personal pissing contest with another list member -- hey, I > even enjoy it now and then. At least that list member can defend > himself or herself. However, to use this list as a soapbox for > personally attacking folk behind their backs is pretty low. It was manifestly unfair of me not to check to see if he was subsribed to the list before asking the question. Clearly, nobody should ask critical questions before ensuring the person in question is subscribed to the list. I promise to do my level best to avoid doing this again. In the meantime your work as an apologist for him is admirable but falls short of the mark. Before I asked the question I took the time and trouble to become familiar with his work. Since you discussed everything but that I can only surmise that you had nothing that directly contradicted what I said, though perhaps it was an oversight on your part. > > Few people here know enough about any given case to have an > informed opinion about it. Unless someone has sat down > and gone through the autopsy report, photos, etc. they are > not in a position to judge whether or not Kris' or my or > anybody's opinion is supported. Sperry offered his opinion on the basis of 30 anecdotal examples which have never been published. Since they have never been published they can't, of course, be reviewed. Since they haven't been reviewed it's a bit difficult to challenge them directly. Though I would never in a million years suggest that unpublished unreviewed anecdotal examples are an improper basis for an opinion, perhaps it explains to some small degree why his reliance on mis-intrepreted dimensions on entry and exit wounds as well as a single x-ray lend themselves well to "not to a medical degree of certainty" when being deposed? Let me know where you'd like your copy shipped. >This forum does not lend > itself to the review of hundreds of pages of findings, and > any one-sentence accusation is empty and third party accusations, > particularly anonymous ones, are gross and inappropriate > hearsay. But unfortunately there are no easy answers are there? I'd like an easy answer as to why the defense expert in this case, Dr. Sperry, didn't ask if the tissue samples were preserved and if so, could they be tested to exhaust the facts. Dr. Sperry can claim his training and experience as readily as I can my ignorance and lack of education. I am sure you can understand how I, in my ignorance, would ask if the re-sections couldn't be tested to find out if it was a projectile whose composition matched those recovered from the appellant's weapon. Of course that is a question I asked in my ignorance. I can't help but wonder what somebody who had all the appropriate training and credentials who wasn't afraid of telling people how things are would ask. Maybe you can figure that one out and help me overcome my lack of knowledge. Shaun From MajorDomo Fri May 25 08:57:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA08877 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 08:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08872 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 08:57:49 -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 ESMTP id IAA12605; Fri, 25 May 2001 08:57:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:57:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Shaun Wheeler cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, stiffdoc@bellsouth.net Subject: Is medicine science? was: Re: Ballistics Info In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5592 On Thu, 24 May 2001, Shaun Wheeler wrote: > > " Unnamed accusers are a dime a dozen." > > And unanswered questions are still free. I guess you get what you pay for. Here's the trick, Shawn. If you have a question about what somebody does, ask *him* or *her.* Don't go to a third person or a forum the person is blind to and dis him. I have written in defense of challenging people. That requires three things, though. You have to have the cojones to face the person directly. You have to have the academic and intellectual integrity to make your questions and claims reasonable and tolisten and fairly analyze the response. You have to have the character to admit it when the other person is right, or at least reasonable. So far you have failed the first two, in this case. Going to a third party to complain fails the first. Quoting "anonymous" innuendo fails the second. And that, Gerry, is a better response to your "professional vs professionalism" quip. By the way, in the world of MEs, I'm a pussycat. > > Unfortunately this is an anecdotal response not a conclusive one. Since you > are obviously more familiar with his work than I am, I invite you to explain > why he changed his mind so quickly. > > Is "medical certainty" that ambiguous? Or was it ever really that "certain" > to begin with? "Medical certainty" is a *legal* term, not a medical one. In fact, most medical diagnosis, even in today's world, is a matter of craft, art and science. Pathology distills this. Sure, we craft guidelines which provide clear and unambiguous criteria. The very fact that such criteria are clear and unambiguous *means* that they often lead to misdiagnosis if followed to the letter. Most diagnostic criteria are *semi-quantitative* not quantitative. Consider the following criteria for the diagnosis of bladder cancer, from an accredited online CME course: begin excerpt: The epithelium of grade I urothelial carcinomas has an overall orderly appearance but with easily recognizable variations of architectural and cytologic features. In contrast to the papillary urothelial neoplasms of low malignant potential, it is easy to recognize variations of nuclear polarity, size, shape, and chromatin. Mitoses are infrequent, but may occur at any level of the epithelium, usually the basal third. Fronds should be evaluated where sectioned lengthwise through the core or when sectioned at right angles away from the base. Otherwise, there may be a misleading impression of increased cellularity and mitoses, or loss of polarity (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Grade II tumors exhibit an intermediate degree of abnormality. They are distinguished from grade I by a predominately disordered architectural pattern but with retention of some elements of organization, e.g., polarity and nuclear uniformity (Figure 3 and Figure 4). These elements are not seen in grade III. Grade III tumors present an impression of complete disorder or chaos with absence of polarity and, commonly, loss of superficial cells, marked variation of all nuclear parameters, and usually numerous irregularly distributed mitoses (Figure 5). end excerpt: Now, Shawn, how do you *measure* "an impression" of "chaos"? You can't, really. These are *perceptual* and qualitative descriptions meant for someone with a "trained eye," e.g. a person who has been perceptually trained to visually comprehend what these terms mean and understand what they imply. The problem with many legal approaches to medicine is that they attempt to apply standards derived for one discipline to another one altogether. This sleight of hand partially works because there *are* emprical criteria for *some* things. However, sometimes the drive for these empirical criteria make the resulting nosology *worse,* not better. The *fact* is that these perceptual criteria allow us to make useful diagnoses. However, since the criteria are fundamentally subjective, the degree of certainty is *also* fundamentally subjective. My "gut feeling" for my "impression of chaos" is not something that can be trivially quantified. It's a little like the difference between Goethe's and Newton's approach to optics. Newton took a prism and looked at how light spread out on a piece of paper. Goethe took a prism, put it to his eye, and noted how it made the world appear different. For centuries, Newtonian optics was considered "scientific" and Goethe was goofy. Now, folk recognize that Goethe was just as "scientific" as Newton, but was mapping *perceptual* color space, not the physics of optics. And guess what. Both are important. In many ways, pathologists are highly trained neural nets. You sit through a residency and fellowship and are presented with zillions of cases under zillions of conditions. When you get something right, you get a bannana. When you get something wrong, you get an electric shock. At the end of 10 or 12 total years of medical training, they let you out on the world. Is that scientific? Well, yes and no. That kind of perceptual training has been shown to work. That's why neural nets are so useful. Do they follow any particular legal construct which is developed as a one-size fits all committee definition? That's not my problem. > > >That has certainly been evident in his > > clashes with me in other forums. > > Great, so I'll be delighted to hear a few examples in Georgia or anywhere > else where he's testified in a capital case. I have sent your attack to Kris. He should be responding shortly. Next time take it to him first.. billo From MajorDomo Fri May 25 09:03:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA09125 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09120 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 09:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:03:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Kris Sperry's reply to Shawn Wheeler (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 13183 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:59:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Shaun Wheeler Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, stiffdoc@bellsouth.net Subject: Kris Sperry's reply to Shawn Wheeler I took the liberty of sending your original screed to Kris, so he could reply directly if he chose. He has chosen to. This is his reply: Dear Mr. Wheeler: Today, I was sent an email that you posted on a forensic science list, by a friend who is a subscriber to the list. I am sending this to you personally, and I am having it forwarded on to the list, as I would like to have it posted on the list you placed your comments on, as well. I don't know you, but I will be finding out who you are. And, from your comments, you obviously don't know me, much less anything about me or what I believe in with respect to forensic medicine and the philosophical approach to the work I have done for 16 years. I don't know what involvement you have had with the Workman case, other than armchair quarterbacking, and actually I really don't care. However, you are obviously not privy to a lot of significant information, such as the fact that last December, I informed Workman's defense team that I had nothing more to offer them or their client, and would not participate further because I had come to the limit of scientific reliability that was comfortable for me. I have not spoken with any of Workman's defense team since then, for any reason. Thus, anything you may have seen, heard or read since then regarding any opinions I am supposed to have in the case are probably purposeful misrepresentations. Do you see me on any witness list for the upcoming hearing? Look hard, now, because I am not there. And, you obviously do not know that, day before yesterday, I spent about 30 minutes on the phone with the Tennessee State prosecutor, who will be representing the State in the upcoming hearing, and we had a delightful chat. He understood my position and the opinions I have previously voiced completely, and had no problem with them whatsoever; he just wanted to hear what I thought from my own mouth, rather than believe what the Defense attorneys in the case have been propagating since, again, I won't be there. And, without my presence, their version of my supposed utterings become hearsay, no more. The prosecutor is completely clear on what I said and what I meant, and I was not even looking at the case on his behalf; so, what is your problem? I am not interested in engaging in any discussions regarding the facts of the case, as I have found that, a) such discussions with persons who are at best peripheral to the case via the internet are tedious, time-consuming and unrewarding, b) the facts of the case will speak for themselves in the courtroom, and c) I just don't have the time for mindless diatribes. If you want to waste your time in discussing things that you feel are important, go ahead---I am not interested in your opinions at all, as I have many, many other things to do that occupy my time which are more significant than debating minutiae in cyberspace. And, really, if you are going to comment on things I have said, please get your terminology right---I have never given a "sworn deposition" in the case, but did give sworn testimony at the clemency hearing, and signed several affidavits over a five year period in the matter. With respect to your rather salacious comment that, "A person of reliable authority offered that Kris Sperry has refused categorically to offer an opinion in a capital case which was favorable to the prosecution," I LAUGH OUT LOUD!!! No, I GUFFAW!!!. Such "anonymous" statements are pure crap, of course. And, again, neither you nor your "reliable authority" know me or what I do very well if at all. I have testified 481 times live in court, of which 90% have been in criminal matters, and of those, 95% have been on behalf of the prosecution! I have given testimony that has been either directly responsible, or provided assistance, in putting more than 25 men on death rows. Your innuendo is weak, my friend, and spineless. You have no idea who I am or what I do. I trust that you comprehend that I did not get to be the Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Georgia on my good looks or snappy dialogue, running an office that conducts ~2400 autopsies a year by 9 pathologists, with over 350 homicides and an ancillary staff of 60 people. While I am on the subject, my receipt of your email is rather timely. Could you possibly be the source who sent a remarkably similarly worded email to the comments page of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation web page a few days ago, under a pseudonym, and with a bogus return email address? Since the name and source were fabricated, of course I cannot infer that YOU actually did it, but the synchronicity is rather remarkable to me. I hope that, if nothing else, this message lets you know that you need to be really, really careful about what you post on internet sites, and what you say about people. One of my favorite sayings is, "Never piss someone off unless you have a really good reason for doing so, because things will never be the same again." However, you have not pissed me off, as your disrespectful comments, directed towards someone that you don't really know, are, in the final analysis, irrelevant and pointless. Kris Sperry, M. D. On Thu, 24 May 2001, Shaun Wheeler wrote: > From: Shaun Wheeler > > Billo: > > Thanks for addressing the questions, I appreciate that. > "> Well, that sounds pretty much like BS to me." > > His opinion? Yeah, that was the way I saw it. > > His opinion changed under questioning without the addition of new facts. > This is inexplicable. > > I would be curious why, without changing the facts or information, somebody > who is an expert on the subject matter being discuss would suddenly alter > their opinion. > > I'm sure you can offer a reasonable explanation why and I'd be delighted to > read it. > > " Unnamed accusers are a dime a dozen." > > And unanswered questions are still free. I guess you get what you pay for. > > " *My* experience with Kris is that he has not been > > one to shirk from telling it like he sees it, regardless of >who does or > does not like it. > > Unfortunately this is an anecdotal response not a conclusive one. Since you > are obviously more familiar with his work than I am, I invite you to explain > why he changed his mind so quickly. > > Is "medical certainty" that ambiguous? Or was it ever really that "certain" > to begin with? > > >That has certainly been evident in his > > clashes with me in other forums. > > Great, so I'll be delighted to hear a few examples in Georgia or anywhere > else where he's testified in a capital case. I'm still looking for one and I > haven't found it yet. Since you are obviously well ahead of me given your > exchanges with him I'm sure you already have several and merely omitted them > to avoid embarrasing me. > > > > > As to changing an opinion, hey, I've done it. >Everybody who admits to > error or has the capacity to >learn enjoys that trait. It's *not* a > failing. > > Billo, a man's life was at stake here. Though you can downplay this all you > want, the bottom line is he expressed an opinion than changed it, not just > minor change, but a change that alters the possible outcomes drastically. > > Though his willingness to express an unfavorable opinion after the fact, > when challenged, certainly is admirable, that he was willing to express an > opinion and so quickly abandon it in the face of criticism makes me ask how > he could be so certain and yet change so quickly? > > We aren't talking about a minor change here, we are completely excluding a > particular cartridge or allowing that cartridge, which are hardly splitting > hairs in this case. > > >It takes me 30 seconds to write an addendum, and it is > > trivial to do. > > See above. > > I don't find that trivial. I am certain that in your example the changes > were much more minor than completely excluding a particular persons weapon > as being responsible for the death in question. If I am mistaken in that > regard I am sure you'll correct me. > > > > > Even at my age I can learn things which change my opinion (not about > > adult male human testicular atrophy and marijuana, mind you, but > > about a lot of things). And if Kris came upon something he didn't notice > > before or some knowledge he didn't have, then more power to him. > > That's the funny thing, Billo, the way I understand it, he didn't volunteer > this until his opinion was challenged by the prosecutors, two weeks after > his favorable opinions were offered to the Tennessee Supreme Court. > > > > > > I gather you haven't bothered actually asking Kris about this > > directly before smearing him in a public forum. Perhaps that > > might be a good idea. > > You have many ideas, Billo, some of them excellent. Tell me what you think > of this one: > > I'll pay for the GS/MS analysis of the re-sections if Dr. Sperry will ask > the defense to actually move into the area of *real* science rather than > conjecture on the basis of an X-ray. If you like, I'll even send you a copy > of the results. > > > > > > Some years ago, a few people tried to turn this list into a forum > > for systematically making personal attacks on non-list members > > on the grounds of trumped up "ethical" complaints. It was bullshit > > then, and it is bullshit now. > > I could care less about his person. It is his professional work that I am > asking about. If he sky dives naked or sleeps wearing gravity boots it's > fine with me. > > His opinion in a life or death matter changed with no explanation. Yet his > earlier opinion used the precise words "medical certainty". What do those > words mean to you? Do they have meaning or is it some secret nod and wink > handshake thing that I've just missed? > > > > > I couldn't care less if you want to engage > > in a personal pissing contest with another list member -- hey, I > > even enjoy it now and then. At least that list member can defend > > himself or herself. However, to use this list as a soapbox for > > personally attacking folk behind their backs is pretty low. > > It was manifestly unfair of me not to check to see if he was subsribed to > the list before asking the question. Clearly, nobody should ask critical > questions before ensuring the person in question is subscribed to the list. > I promise to do my level best to avoid doing this again. > > In the meantime your work as an apologist for him is admirable but falls > short of the mark. > > Before I asked the question I took the time and trouble to become familiar > with his work. Since you discussed everything but that I can only surmise > that you had nothing that directly contradicted what I said, though perhaps > it was an oversight on your part. > > > > Few people here know enough about any given case to have an > > informed opinion about it. Unless someone has sat down > > and gone through the autopsy report, photos, etc. they are > > not in a position to judge whether or not Kris' or my or > > anybody's opinion is supported. > > Sperry offered his opinion on the basis of 30 anecdotal examples which have > never been published. Since they have never been published they can't, of > course, be reviewed. Since they haven't been reviewed it's a bit difficult > to challenge them directly. > > Though I would never in a million years suggest that unpublished unreviewed > anecdotal examples are an improper basis for an opinion, perhaps it explains > to some small degree why his reliance on mis-intrepreted dimensions on entry > and exit wounds as well as a single x-ray lend themselves well to "not to a > medical degree of certainty" when being deposed? > > Let me know where you'd like your copy shipped. > > >This forum does not lend > > itself to the review of hundreds of pages of findings, and > > any one-sentence accusation is empty and third party accusations, > > particularly anonymous ones, are gross and inappropriate > > hearsay. > > But unfortunately there are no easy answers are there? I'd like an easy > answer as to why the defense expert in this case, Dr. Sperry, didn't ask if > the tissue samples were preserved and if so, could they be tested to exhaust > the facts. > > Dr. Sperry can claim his training and experience as readily as I can my > ignorance and lack of education. > > I am sure you can understand how I, in my ignorance, would ask if the > re-sections couldn't be tested to find out if it was a projectile whose > composition matched those recovered from the appellant's weapon. > > Of course that is a question I asked in my ignorance. I can't help but > wonder what somebody who had all the appropriate training and credentials > who wasn't afraid of telling people how things are would ask. Maybe you can > figure that one out and help me overcome my lack of knowledge. > > Shaun > From MajorDomo Fri May 25 14:33:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA13102 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13097 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 14:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id 7.65.14e2a193 (4323); Fri, 25 May 2001 14:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <65.14e2a193.283fff75@aol.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:33:25 EDT Subject: Re: My inexpert DNA analysis knowledge To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_65.14e2a193.283fff75_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 14446 --part1_65.14e2a193.283fff75_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob A thought while you are eating the shoe leather. Maybe irrelevant. Having worked for a government lab in the past and having been a guest on this list for about three years, I feel that all of us realize that the opinions expressed on this list are personal opinions, not official government opinions. As for the mistakes, I have made my own on this list and enjoyed the benefit of being shown those mistakes. In other words, I have learned a great deal from fellow forensic scientists speaking candidly in exchange of opinions. I realize the "dangers" inherent with public statement returning to bite us later while in the courtroom but personally feel that neither you nor I nor others would ever get anywhere if we didn't just speak up and say what we believe. Wrong then corrected. But silent, then ignorant. You will appreciate the real autonomy of retirement and being able to speak what you think is right without being "warned". Because you have spoken candidly you have taught me, for one, and I appreciate your expertise. (Of course, my gratitude could be deadly to your career so we ought to keep it under wraps.) Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 5/22/01 5:28:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > Subj: My inexpert DNA analysis knowledge > Date: 5/22/01 5:28:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons) > Sender: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)) > > File:Unknown (4667 bytes) DL Time (28800 bps): < 1 minute > > > > To the list, > > I've been advised by my lab's bone-fide DNA experts that I might want to > avoid commenting too much on DNA issues in the future as I know not entirely > of which I speak. My lack of personal expertise with the subject matter has > apparently led me to overstate or understate the true nature of some of the > issues being discussed, innocently but nonetheless inaccurately. I'm told > that NRC guidelines do indeed endorse the use of the term "unique" in DNA > profiling, and that such use is perfectly justified when the meaning is > properly explained and understood. I also should not have referred to how > our biology folks "do" STRs, since we are still building our database and > validating our STR technique, and are not yet "on-line" with it. We're > still learning, and it's clear I personally have a LOT to learn about the > topic. As someone whose academic background includes a degree in biology > the topic does appeal to my interests, despite my work in analytical > chemistry, but I should be more wary about discussing an area I have not > personally mastered. Having all this explained to me, I now see the light > and so must experience the taste of my own shoe leather (certainly neither > the first nor the last time). > > I first would like to make it clear that all my comments on this list have > been, are, and will continue to be solely my own and do not necessarily > represent the views of anyone else, official or unofficial, in my own lab or > elsewhere. I hesitate to say too much further for fear of making another > boo-boo, but I feel I should try to correct the areas where I now know I > went astray. Webster gives two different definitions for the word "unique." > One is "being the only one of its kind," the other is the more general > "unusual; rare." My comments about the use of the term were intended with > the former definition in mind, but the term as used by forensic biologists > (and NRC recommendations) applies to the latter definition. Further, DNA > analysis statistics are usually applied to a given, limited population > (e.g., the USA population, or the British population, as opposed to the > world population). So for a given population, the profile may in fact be so > rare as to essentially constitute uniqueness (by one definition or the > other) within that given population. > > For example, one reported evidence profile was searched against several > different national DNA databases, and was found to exist in only one of them > - the US database, where it matched the profile of a previous offender. > Now, we don't have a database for the population of mainland China, for > example, so it's possible that the profile also exists within the population > of the People's Republic of China; but since the assailant's description was > not that of a Chinese, and the percentage of the PRC's population which > visits the US is exceedingly miniscule, the PRC's population base really > isn't relevant to the case at hand (the chances of someone living in China > entering the US and committing this specific crime while disguised as a > non-Chinese are ridiculously nil). The profile from the evidence was so > rare within the US database that a statement of uniqueness for the profile > in the US population is logically justified, and so the match to the > suspect's profile is very, very powerful evidence, to the point of being > able to accurately say that no one else in the US could reasonably have > deposited that evidence. This reinforces my previous conclusion that even > though a profile is not an identification in the absolute sense, when a high > degree of rareness is established and considered in the light of a limited > possible population, it effectively amounts to the same thing. As more of > the world's various populations are tested and databases established for > them, DNA analysts in the future may be able to make more definitive > statements about "uniqueness," perhaps even on a global scale. > > I'd like to apologize for any misunderstanding my inexact previous > discussions of this topic may have caused, and any consternation I may have > caused those who really know what they're talking about. From now on, I > think I'm going to stick to chemistry and general forensic issues for which > I have sufficiently significant personal knowledge. For DNA, I'd best let > those who have actual expertise with the subject matter handle future > discussions and/or debates. At the very least I will ask those "in the > know" before opining on my own. Thanks to all those who corresponded with > me off-line on this topic - I enjoyed discussing it with you and learned > more in the process. As a wise person once said, the more I learn, the > better I understand how much more I yet do not know. My best to all. > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist (NOT DNA analyst) > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > Shoe leather - "The Other Dark Meat" > Promotes humility and strong mandibular musculature > (It's very chewy!) > > --part1_65.14e2a193.283fff75_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob

A thought while you are eating the shoe leather.  Maybe irrelevant.  Having
worked for a government lab in the past and having been a guest on this list
for about three years, I feel that all of us realize that the opinions
expressed on this list are personal opinions, not official government
opinions.  As for the mistakes, I have made my own on this list and enjoyed
the benefit of being shown those mistakes.  In other words, I have learned a
great deal from fellow forensic scientists speaking candidly in exchange of
opinions. I realize the "dangers" inherent with public statement returning to
bite us later while in the courtroom but personally feel that neither you nor
I nor others would ever get anywhere if we didn't just speak up and say what
we believe.  Wrong then corrected.  But silent, then ignorant.   You will
appreciate the real autonomy of retirement and being able to speak what you
think is right without being "warned".  Because you have spoken candidly you
have taught me, for one, and I appreciate your expertise.  (Of course, my
gratitude could be deadly to your career so we ought to keep it under wraps.)

Fred Whitehurst


In a message dated 5/22/01 5:28:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


Subj: My inexpert DNA analysis knowledge
Date: 5/22/01 5:28:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons)
Sender:    owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu
To:    forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail))

File:Unknown (4667 bytes) DL Time (28800 bps): < 1 minute



To the list,

I've been advised by my lab's bone-fide DNA experts that I might want to
avoid commenting too much on DNA issues in the future as I know not entirely
of which I speak.  My lack of personal expertise with the subject matter has
apparently led me to overstate or understate the true nature of some of the
issues being discussed, innocently but nonetheless inaccurately.  I'm told
that NRC guidelines do indeed endorse the use of the term "unique" in DNA
profiling, and that such use is perfectly justified when the meaning is
properly explained and understood.  I also should not have referred to how
our biology folks "do" STRs, since we are still building our database and
validating our STR technique, and are not yet "on-line" with it.  We're
still learning, and it's clear I personally have a LOT to learn about the
topic.  As someone whose academic background includes a degree in biology
the topic does appeal to my interests, despite my work in analytical
chemistry, but I should be more wary about discussing an area I have not
personally mastered.  Having all this explained to me, I now see the light
and so must experience the taste of my own shoe leather (certainly neither
the first nor the last time).

I first would like to make it clear that all my comments on this list have
been, are, and will continue to be solely my own and do not necessarily
represent the views of anyone else, official or unofficial, in my own lab or
elsewhere.  I hesitate to say too much further for fear of making another
boo-boo, but I feel I should try to correct the areas where I now know I
went astray.  Webster gives two different definitions for the word "unique."
One is "being the only one of its kind," the other is the more general
"unusual; rare."  My comments about the use of the term were intended with
the former definition in mind, but the term as used by forensic biologists
(and NRC recommendations) applies to the latter definition.  Further, DNA
analysis statistics are usually applied to a given, limited population
(e.g., the USA population, or the British population, as opposed to the
world population).  So for a given population, the profile may in fact be so
rare as to essentially constitute uniqueness (by one definition or the
other) within that given population.  

For example, one reported evidence profile was searched against several
different national DNA databases, and was found to exist in only one of them
- the US database, where it matched the profile of a previous offender.
Now, we don't have a database for the population of mainland China, for
example, so it's possible that the profile also exists within the population
of the People's Republic of China; but since the assailant's description was
not that of a Chinese, and the percentage of the PRC's population which
visits the US is exceedingly miniscule, the PRC's population base really
isn't relevant to the case at hand (the chances of someone living in China
entering the US and committing this specific crime while disguised as a
non-Chinese are ridiculously nil).  The profile from the evidence was so
rare within the US database that a statement of uniqueness for the profile
in the US population is logically justified, and so the match to the
suspect's profile is very, very powerful evidence, to the point of being
able to accurately say that no one else in the US could reasonably have
deposited that evidence.   This reinforces my previous conclusion that even
though a profile is not an identification in the absolute sense, when a high
degree of rareness is established and considered in the light of a limited
possible population, it effectively amounts to the same thing.  As more of
the world's various populations are tested and databases established for
them, DNA analysts in the future may be able to make more definitive
statements about "uniqueness," perhaps even on a global scale.

I'd like to apologize for any misunderstanding my inexact previous
discussions of this topic may have caused, and any consternation I may have
caused those who really know what they're talking about.  From now on, I
think I'm going to stick to chemistry and general forensic issues for which
I have sufficiently significant personal knowledge.  For DNA, I'd best let
those who have actual expertise with the subject matter handle future
discussions and/or debates.  At the very least I will ask those "in the
know" before opining on my own.  Thanks to all those who corresponded with
me off-line on this topic - I enjoyed discussing it with you and learned
more in the process.  As a wise person once said, the more I learn, the
better I understand how much more I yet do not know.  My best to all.


Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist (NOT DNA analyst)
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


Shoe leather - "The Other Dark Meat"
Promotes humility and strong mandibular musculature
(It's very chewy!)



--part1_65.14e2a193.283fff75_boundary-- From MajorDomo Fri May 25 18:21:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA15284 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from co.sanmateo.ca.us (mail.co.sanmateo.ca.us [204.114.51.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA15279 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 18:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CSM-Message_Server by co.sanmateo.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 25 May 2001 15:20:46 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:20:12 -0700 From: "Linda French" To: Subject: Phenyl-2-propanone Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 1.0.13 ; County of San Mateo Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id SAA15280 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 385 Does anyone have a MSDS for phenyl-2-propanone? The manufacturer of our lab's bottle is out of business and I haven't found another source. I'd especially like to know its flash point. I've tried several MSDS web-sites to no avail. MSDS On-line seems to have disappeared or has other problems. It's other names are: phenyl acetone benzyl methyl ketone CAS = 103-79-7 Thank you From MajorDomo Sat May 26 16:34:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA22449 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from holmes.holmes.nl ([195.169.99.97]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22444 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 16:34:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by holmes.holmes.nl (Postfix, from userid 69) id 4E795D656; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:45:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from theta.holmes.nl (theta [10.5.0.12]) by holmes.holmes.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C04BD5C3 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:45:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by theta.holmes.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 26 May 2001 22:34:12 +0200 Message-ID: From: Zeno Geradts To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forensic email database Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 22:34:11 +0200 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 Content-Length: 369 It might be interesting for this group that there is a forensic email database, in which the field of expertise and names are listed for forensic scientist. You can add your name to this on line database at http://forensic.to/email . If you have any questions or suggestions on this service, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Zeno http://forensic.to From MajorDomo Sat May 26 21:22:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA23515 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 May 2001 21:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smithers.sfrn.dnai.com (smithers.sfrn.dnai.com [208.59.199.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23510 for ; Sat, 26 May 2001 21:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 208-59-198-247.s247.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com (208-59-198-247.s247.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com [208.59.198.247]) by smithers.sfrn.dnai.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f4R1M9s66818; Sat, 26 May 2001 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010526182308.00a22ad0@pop.sfrn.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@pop.sfrn.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:34:45 -0700 To: "Elliot, Douglas" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: equidensitometry In-Reply-To: <200105242349.TAA04312@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1506 At 12:50 PM 05/25/2001 +1300, Elliot, Douglas wrote: >Hi > >We have been having trouble finding information about a particular >speciality, equidensitometry. It seems to be a method of getting >information on footwear impressions from carpets and photographs of >carpets. However, it might not be that all. Any suggestions that may be >close to the truth would be welcome. > >Douglas Elliot >ESR Ltd, Auckland, nz >douglas.elliot@esr.cri.nz Douglas, You might wish to contact Dr. Vladimer Aubrecht at aubrecht@uvee.fee.vutbr.cz . He is Associate Professor in the Department of Power, Electrical, and Electronic Engineering and professes that his major area of research is "Optical diagnostics of an switching arc - high speed photography, equidensitometry analysis, computational 3D reconstruction, visualization and animation of an switching phenomena" See also: V. Aubrecht, B. Gross, ET.Protasevich: Spectral and Equidensitometry Diagnostics of Electric Arc Plasma, 1999. Finally: Equidensitometry - by Lau, E. available, I think, at Amazon. Basically Daryl was right. The study relates to the equal-density contours along planes and folds. BTW, Eliot, I know I owe you an e-mail on the Bovine blood case, in which the protein in the fabric caused it to be misread as human. Later in that one. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From MajorDomo Sun May 27 00:58:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA25043 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 00:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25035 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 00:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (unknown [203.197.229.227]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id E494A40D3F for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 10:28:23 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3B1010DA.62E3BA84@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 01:53:54 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Fingerprints Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1576 Dear List members, I was reading a book on fingerprints and at one place it told me that Galton worked out mathematically the number of possible variations of fingerprints. And he came up with the figure of 64 billion different fingerprints. It would be interesting to know, how he derived this figure. Can somebody give me the exact calculation please? Thankyou. The same book tells me that there are at least 80 characteristics in a fingerprint. May be this figure would help us to derive the above figure! Sincerely 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 Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 4. 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!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From MajorDomo Sun May 27 09:57:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA27951 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 09:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27946 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 09:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 09:57:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Phenyl-2-propanone (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 640 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:04:49 +0200 From: Jan Zonjee To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Linda French Subject: Re: Phenyl-2-propanone > Does anyone have a MSDS for phenyl-2-propanone? Available at http://www.chemexper.com, use the search box at the left and type in the CAS number. > I'd especially like to know its flash point. It is 83 degrees Celcius. Kind regards, Jan Zonjee Jan Zonjee, Ph.D. BVDA International b.v. P.O. Box 2323, 2002 CH HAARLEM, the Netherlands Email address at work: Jan.Zonjee@bvda.nl Internet: http://www.bvda.com From MajorDomo Sun May 27 09:57:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA27986 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 09:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27981 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 09:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 09:57:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Chicago morgue (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1186 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:56:13 -0400 From: deb To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Chicago morgue Hi all, I am writing a novel and need some help sorting out the details. Pardon me in advance if these questions seem dumb. My plot involves a murder that takes place in Chicago. I need to know: 1) where the morgue is located (address) and is there just one servicing the entire city 2) how many autopsies (roughly) are performed there annually 3) do they have a ME office or Coroner's office 4) what would the coroner/me wear during the autopsy 5) how long does an autopsy generally take to complete 6) who would generally be present during the autopsy 7) is it plausible that the coroner/me would allow someone not on his/her staff to assist in the autopsy of an apparent murder victim. The person assisting would have very little medical training (i.e.. a first year med student) and would not be related the victim 8) finally, any suggestions for books or web sites that provide information on autopsies from a "general interest" perspective (for the layman) Any information would be truly appreciated! Debbie From MajorDomo Sun May 27 13:18:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA00092 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 13:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00087 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 13:18:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Alikatt@aol.com Received: from Alikatt@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id y.5f.15ad4c04 (15703) for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 13:18:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web36.aolmail.aol.com (web36.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.222.12]) by air-id05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.37) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 May 2001 13:18:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 13:18:00 EDT Subject: ninhydrin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Message-ID: <5f.15ad4c04.284290c9@aol.com> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 381 Has anyone mixed ninhydrin using Novec Engineered Fluid HFE-7100? In reading the instructions, they say to stir the mixture until a milky yellow solution is formed. Does anyone have an approximate time frame for this? I stirred for 20 minutes and the solution was still a clear yellow. The resulting test prints developed, but not very dark or clear. Thanks, Alison Chandler PD From MajorDomo Sun May 27 23:52:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA04575 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.rollanet.org (mailsrv.rollanet.org [192.55.114.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA04570 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 23:52:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 1615 invoked from network); 28 May 2001 03:52:35 -0000 Received: from access-9-27.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (216.229.92.28) by mx.rollanet.org with SMTP; 28 May 2001 03:52:35 -0000 Message-ID: <019201c0e729$019b3c40$255ce5d8@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Chicago morgue (fwd) Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:48:05 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2077 See Ed Uthman's (Houston pathologist) Web site for a bunch of this stuff, http://www.neosoft.com/~uthman, including a writer's guide to the autopsy. Chicago (Cook Co.) has an ME system. I believe them to offer educational experience to the medical schools in the city (pathology residency programs must have forensic path experience) and a freshman med student might be involved (I was as a freshman in St. Louis.) Completion time is tremendously variable, depending on the injuries/disease manifestations: a single GSW of the head is much quicker than a case with a hundred stab wounds. Present: ME, autopsy assistant, photographer, & law enforcement case officer would be typical minimum. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Basten" To: Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: Chicago morgue (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:56:13 -0400 From: deb To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Chicago morgue Hi all, I am writing a novel and need some help sorting out the details. Pardon me in advance if these questions seem dumb. My plot involves a murder that takes place in Chicago. I need to know: 1) where the morgue is located (address) and is there just one servicing the entire city 2) how many autopsies (roughly) are performed there annually 3) do they have a ME office or Coroner's office 4) what would the coroner/me wear during the autopsy 5) how long does an autopsy generally take to complete 6) who would generally be present during the autopsy 7) is it plausible that the coroner/me would allow someone not on his/her staff to assist in the autopsy of an apparent murder victim. The person assisting would have very little medical training (i.e.. a first year med student) and would not be related the victim 8) finally, any suggestions for books or web sites that provide information on autopsies from a "general interest" perspective (for the layman) Any information would be truly appreciated! Debbie From MajorDomo Mon May 28 08:52:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA07223 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA07217 for forens; Mon, 28 May 2001 08:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 08:52:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105281252.IAA07217@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> From: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu To: forens Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4067 Here are a couple of posts that came back to me rather than the list. Remember to post to forens and not owner-forens or cbasten. Chris From: "Alex & Anna" To: "Basten" References: Subject: Re: Chicago morgue (fwd) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:25:57 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Length: 396 Dear Debbie! Sorry, I don't work in Chicago, and I can not tell You about the work in morgue there. I am a forensic pathologist from Russia. I like not only medicine, I am very much interested in literature. I respect people of art. If You will be writing a novel about Russia or Russian morgue, I will be glad to help You, and answer any question You have. Sincerely. Alex Reshetun-Belikov. >From cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Sun May 27 21:25:08 2001 -0400 Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03766 for ; Sun, 27 May 2001 21:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.77.153.47]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id <20010528012506.VGDT8745.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net> for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 01:25:06 +0000 Message-ID: <3B11AD56.21F40C0C@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:43:50 -0400 From: Lana Thompson Reply-To: Vesalius@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-WNS5.0 (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Basten Subject: Re: Chicago morgue (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1792 Debbie, There is much information about autopsies. In fact, the very famous (now)Jack Kevorkian wrote a book about them. You can also look in your local library and find books about autopsies. Where do you live? > 1) where the morgue is located (address) and is there just one servicing the entire city. Go to your local library and get a Chicago telephone directory. Look under "City of Chicago" to find the morgue. It is probably under "medical examiner's office." > 2) how many autopsies (roughly) are performed there annually. You would have to write to them to find out. > 3) do they have a ME office or Coroner's office. Again, you would have to ask. > 4) what would the coroner/me wear during the autopsy. Gloves, a mask, glasses and a rubber apron. Sometimes boots. It depends on the body and how messy it is. > 5) how long does an autopsy generally take to complete. Depends on what you are looking for. There are other things that go with autopsies such as x-rays and tracking bullet or object paths. > 6) who would generally be present during the autopsy. The ME and a diener. > 7) is it plausible that the coroner/me would allow someone not on > his/her staff to assist in the autopsy of an apparent murder victim. > The person assisting would have very little medical training (i.e.. a > first year med student) and would not be related the victim. Possibly. you would have to ask. Are you a first year medical student? > 8) finally, any suggestions for books or web sites that provide > information on autopsies from a "general interest" perspective (for the > layman) There's a good book called "From Death to Dust" by Kenneth Iserson. (for starters) Go to the AAFS web page and see if you can find the name of the chicago ME there. Hope this helps. L From MajorDomo Mon May 28 10:24:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA07934 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:24:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07929 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 10:24:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from odyy.uclink.berkeley.edu (as3-3-137.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.195.187]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f4SEOkB02981; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010527070658.00b2fbe0@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:11:39 -0700 To: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: Fingerprints Cc: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" In-Reply-To: <3B1010DA.62E3BA84@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1013 At 01:53 AM 5/27/01 +0530, Dr. Anil Aggrawal wrote: >Galton worked out mathematically the number of possible variations of >fingerprints. And he came up with the figure of 64 billion different >fingerprints. It would be interesting to know, how he derived this >figure. Can somebody give me the exact calculation please? Thankyou. >The same book tells me that there are at least 80 characteristics in a >fingerprint. May be this figure would help us to derive the above >figure! Galton divided the fingertip into small square regions by superimposing a grid. Within each square, he categorized the pattern as being one of four types. From the number 64 billion of total possibilities, we can infer that the grid was 3 by 6. (4 to the 18 is about 64 billion.) Galton was sophisticated and ingenious. As I recall he did some experiments to show that the patterns (among his four categories) were approximately independent between neighboring squares. Charles Brenner forensic mathematics http://dna-view.com From MajorDomo Mon May 28 13:05:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA09504 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09499 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:05:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id y.d7.725cd92 (9243) for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 13:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:05:26 EDT Subject: Pathology testimony To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d7.725cd92.2843df56_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4156 --part1_d7.725cd92.2843df56_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am reading testimony that is strange to me. Can someone clear up my confusion. "What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was doing or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is usually something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their daily routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the body and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular set of circumstances. We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have died." We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of expertise. But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not simply look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion concerning time of death. Am I right about this. The court in the opinion notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a forensic pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information alone. Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of death. He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other evidence pointed." Is our science then driven under pressures of group think? Fred Whitehurst --part1_d7.725cd92.2843df56_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am reading testimony that is strange to me.  Can someone clear up my
confusion.

"What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was doing
or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits
are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is usually
something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their daily
routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the
circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the body
and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular set
of circumstances.  We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you
just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have
died."

We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of
expertise.  But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not simply
look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable
opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the
information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion
concerning time of death.  Am I right about this.   The court in the opinion
notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a forensic
pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information alone.  
Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both
the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert
circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of
death.   He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition
of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other
evidence pointed."  Is our science then driven under pressures of group think?

Fred Whitehurst --part1_d7.725cd92.2843df56_boundary-- From MajorDomo Mon May 28 14:53:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA10363 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10358 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:53:26 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id i.10e.62c48c (4533); Mon, 28 May 2001 14:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10e.62c48c.2843f89d@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:53:17 EDT Subject: Fwd: (no subject) To: pkwearne@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_10e.62c48c.2843f89d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7281 --part1_10e.62c48c.2843f89d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_10e.62c48c.2843f89d_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: From: MarieLong@aol.com Full-name: MarieLong Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 01:56:31 EDT Subject: (no subject) To: beesther@earthlink.net, CHINTOE@aol.com, Jackdanford@aol.com, drunderhill@yahoo.com, Rldemonia@cs.com, sherry.digmon@atmoreadvance.com, ellsworthroy@hotmail.com, NaaNaa40@webtv.net, senator@shelby.senate.gov, V019196@gepex.ge.com, taoss@worldnet.att.net, akwhitaker@prodigy.net, LairdCarlson@compuserve.com, steve@stevewindom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part2_10e.62c48c.2843428f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513 --part2_10e.62c48c.2843428f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Man on death row for five years found innocent =A0 The Associated Press May 26, 2001=20 =20 DECATUR, Alabama (AP) -- A north Alabama man who spent five years on prison'= s=20 death row has been found innocent at retrial. =A0 Gary Wayne Drinkard, 45, of Falkville was released Friday after a Morgan=20 County jury found him innocent of capital murder charges in the=20 robbery-slaying of Decatur businessman Dalton Pace. =A0 Drinkard's first conviction had been overturned by the Alabama Supreme Court= =20 because prosecutors were allowed to talk about Drinkard's prior criminal=20 history. =A0 Pace was killed at his home on Aug. 18, 1993 and robbed of about $2,000,=20 according to testimony. =20 Drinkard had been held in the Morgan County Jail since last July while=20 awaiting retrial. He had spent five years on death row awaiting an execution= =20 date. =A0 Drinkard's lawyers during this week's retrial attacked the credibility of th= e=20 prosecution witnesses. Prosecutors called several witnesses, including=20 Drinkard's adopted daughter and his half-sister. =A0 Kelly Drinkard Harvell, who testified in 1995 that her father was at home=20 when police said he killed Pace, changed her testimony and now says Drinkard= =20 was not at home the entire evening of the murder. Defense attorneys called a= =20 couple that manages a motel in Panama City, Fla., who testified that Harvell= =20 worked for them and she stole money. Harvell admitted she had grand theft an= d=20 possession of a controlled substance charges pending in Florida. =A0 Drinkard's half-sister, Beverly Segars, helped police build the case against= =20 Drinkard. She testified this week about wearing a tape-recording device to=20 get him to talk about Pace's murder. But the recorded conversation was=20 distorted and authorities had it enhanced to make clear some of the words.=20 Statements on the transcript from it were fragmented. Segars testified that=20 Drinkard told her he didn't realize how big Pace was until he grabbed him.=20 However, she was not asked to interpret the partial statements of the=20 transcript. =A0 Rex Segars, the half-sister's common-law husband at the time, testified that= =20 Drinkard told him he killed Pace and took about $2,200 from the auto junk=20 dealer. =A0 Other witnesses, Willodene Brock and Thomas Carter, testified that they were= =20 at Drinkard's home on Aug. 18, and he was there the entire time. Brock said=20 she went there to help Harvell deliver her dog's puppies and they left aroun= d=20 10 p.m. =A0 Authorities estimated the time of Pace's death to be around 8 p.m., accordin= g=20 to testimony. =A0 Beverly Segars' son, Robert Lambert, testified that his mother had a=20 reputation for not telling the truth and said he would not believe her under= =20 oath.=20 --part2_10e.62c48c.2843428f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Man on death row for fiv= e years found innocent

=A0
The Associated Press
May 26, 2001=20
=20
DECATUR, Alabama (AP) -- A north Alabama man who spent five years on pri= son's=20
death row has been found innocent at retrial.
=A0
Gary Wayne Drinkard, 45, of Falkville was released Friday after a Morgan= =20
County jury found him innocent of capital murder charges in the=20
robbery-slaying of Decatur businessman Dalton Pace.
=A0
Drinkard's first conviction had been overturned by the Alabama Sup= reme Court=20
because prosecutors were allowed to talk about Drinkard's prior criminal= =20
history.
=A0
Pace was killed at his home on Aug. 18, 1993 and robbed of about $2,000,= =20
according to testimony.
=20
Drinkard had been held in the Morgan County Jail since last July while=20
awaiting retrial. He had spent five years on death row awaiting an execu= tion=20
date.
=A0
Drinkard's lawyers during this week's retrial attacked the credibi= lity of the=20
prosecution witnesses. Prosecutors called several witnesses, inc= luding=20
Drinkard's adopted daughter and his half-sister.
=A0
Kelly Drinkard Harvell, who testified in 1995 that her father was at hom= e=20
when police said he killed Pace, changed her testimony and now says Drin= kard=20
was not at home the entire evening of the murder. Defense attorneys call= ed a=20
couple that manages a motel in Panama City, Fla., who testified that Har= vell=20
worked for them and she stole money. Harvell admitted she had grand thef= t and=20
possession of a controlled substance charges pending in Florida.
=A0
Drinkard's half-sister, Beverly Segars, helped police build the case aga= inst=20
Drinkard. She testified this week about wearing a tape-recording device=20= to=20
get him to talk about Pace's murder. But the recorded conversation was=20
distorted and authorities had it enhanced to make clear some of the word= s.=20
Statements on the transcript from it were fragmented. Segars testified t= hat=20
Drinkard told her he didn't realize how big Pace was until he grabbed hi= m.=20
However, she was not asked to interpret the partial statements of the=20
transcript.
=A0
Rex Segars, the half-sister's common-law husband at the time, testified=20= that=20
Drinkard told him he killed Pace and took about $2,200 from the auto jun= k=20
dealer.
=A0
Other witnesses, Willodene Brock and Thomas Carter, testified that they=20= were=20
at Drinkard's home on Aug. 18, and he was there the entire time. Brock s= aid=20
she went there to help Harvell deliver her dog's puppies and they left a= round=20
10 p.m.
=A0
Authorities estimated the time of Pace's death to be around 8 p.m., acco= rding=20
to testimony.
=A0
Beverly Segars' son, Robert Lambert, testified that his mother had a=20
reputation for not telling the truth and said he would not believe her u= nder=20
oath.=20

--part2_10e.62c48c.2843428f_boundary-- --part1_10e.62c48c.2843f89d_boundary-- From MajorDomo Mon May 28 15:17:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA10747 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:17:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.97]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10742 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:16:59 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id i.46.1569e7bd (4233); Mon, 28 May 2001 15:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46.1569e7bd.2843fe19@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:16:41 EDT Subject: Fwd: The business of prison To: pkwearne@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_46.1569e7bd.2843fe19_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 17986 --part1_46.1569e7bd.2843fe19_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_46.1569e7bd.2843fe19_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:45:14 -0400 Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:44:41 -0400 Received: from computer (user-38ldfcm.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.189.150]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA22550; Mon, 28 May 2001 07:44:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000d01c0e76b$8e9f5ee0$96bd56d1@computer> From: "treefrog" To: Subject: The business of prison Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 03:17:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 > > The business of prison > http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/features/2001/0512/fea1.htm > > The incarceration industry generates $30 billion a year in the US - more > than baseball or pornography - so you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist > to wonder why the prison population is expanding so rapidly, writes Anna > Mundow > Beeville, Texas: 4.30 a.m. > > One by one the bosses clip-clop over to one of the guard towers that > surround the prison. They chat for a while among them- selves, waiting > amiably on horseback. Above them, the picket guard attaches a rope to a > plastic milk crate, then lowers the crate over the side. Inside the crate > are the bosses' guns. > > They are .357 Magnums, and the bosses are authorised to shoot to kill. When > the crate reaches saddle height, each boss dips in and grabs one. There is > one more guard on horseback, and he stays aloof from the others. He is known > as the Highrider and he is armed not with a pistol, but with a rifle: a > .30-30 capable of picking off a running inmate at several hundred yards. > > The inmates line up two by two for their work detail. They have been awake > since 3.30 a.m., the start of their morning feeding . . . For hours, the men > will pound the ground . . . clearing acres of land in a process known as > flatweeding . . . To pass the time, the inmates, nearly half of whom are > black, sing work songs. This is old music, handed down from generation to > generation of convicts. Some of it dates back to the days of the plantation. > > Pelican Bay, California, midmorning > > The SHU (Secure Housing Unit) is de- signed to deaden the senses. The cells > are windowless; the walls are white. From in- side the cell, all one can see > through the perforated metal door is another white wall. . . . It is > surreally quiet . . . very much like an intensive care ward. The lighting is > subdued and even the guards speak in whispers. In the control room, computer > screens glow with luminous, pulsing cursors and video monitors flicker with > grainy black- and-white images from surveillance cam- eras . . . Charles > Manson lives here. > > These are the twin faces of American incarceration. Chain-gangs break rocks > in Texas, swinging their hammers to the rhythm of songs first chanted by > slaves. Prisoners in futuristic isolation cells hear only the buzz of > fluorescent light, the hum of computerised ventilation. Today approximately > 1.8 million Americans are behind bars; no other nation imprisons more of its > citizens. At the current growth rate, by the year 2050 half of the US > population will be incarcerated. The prospect is, of course, absurd: society > would cease to function. > > What drives this headlong rush towards the unimaginable? Prison is no longer > just a crime and punishment business, it is a money business. From the > chain-gang to the isolation unit, incarceration has become one of America's > fastest-growing industries, a sure thing in a softening economy. Generating > over $30 billion a year in the US - more than baseball, more than > pornography - the thriving prison industry has created millionaires with a > vested interest in filling cells and employees with a fatalistic attitude to > their long-term guests. "Let's face it," one warden recently remarked, > "they're here to die." > > Joe Hallinan is haunted by prison sounds. "They say you never forget the > clang of the doors slamming behind you, and they're right," he says. "The > shrieks of the inmates in the segregation units, the rhythmic pounding of > feet on doors; it never leaves you." > > Hallinan, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, never wanted to go > inside - until he met Jack Kyle. A tough Texas warden, Kyle always believed > in locking people up, still does. But, he confided in Hallinan, things are > getting out of hand. "Everybody wants 'em," Kyle observed of the new > "supermax" prisons that squat like sinister shopping malls on the outskirts > of small towns across the US. The sign outside one Illinois hamlet says: > "Welcome to Tamms/ The Home of Supermax". And guess what its Burger Shack > special is called? Intrigued, Hallinan spent four years visiting prisons > across the country, from California to the rural south. "I just kept > writing," he recalls. "In hotel rooms, in airports, on the hood of my car. > Writing and saying to myself: `Oh my God, people are never going to believe > this.' ". > > The result is Going Up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation, Hallinan's > devastating examination of the 21st-century prison industry. He first > glimpsed that industry's power in a Texas courtroom at the trial of Joe Boy > Lambright, the first prison guard in Texas history convicted of killing an > inmate. "I saw how the merger of punishment and profit was reshaping this > country," Hallinan writes. "How young men like Joe Boy, who might, in > another generation, have joined the army or gone to work in a factory, were > now turning to prison for their livelihood. I saw job hungry towns, > desperate for something to keep their young people from leaving, compete for > prisons the way they once had for industries . . ." > > Abandoned by heavy industry and bypassed by the electronic revolution, many > failing towns in the US's mid-section and south now have a final shot at > prosperity. They can become "prison hubs". Just as the Cold War bestowed > military bases on grateful backwaters, so the prison boom holds out cash > incentives and employment prospects to decaying towns. "The sales pitch to > our town was development," explains Doug Richards, an attorney in > Springfield, Vermont. Richards recently opposed the imminent construction of > a 350-bed state prison outside Springfield, but concedes that the > inducements were too attractive for the struggling factory town to refuse. > "The state of Vermont offered a package of some $7.5 million and land for a > community centre. That sold it to the voters." > > Federal and state prisons have been features of the US landscape since the > 19th century; many have become part of the collective imagination: Sing > Sing, Folsom, Angola, San Quentin. This is a sealed, self-referential world > with its own Johnny Cash soundtrack, its own movie legends. > > But new players have arrived on the US prison stage: private corporations > who now compete with state governments for lucrative prison contracts. "So > keen is the competition between public and private that the bottom line > drives nearly all decisions behind bars in this country," Hallinan explains, > "from the food the inmates eat to the type of work they do - even to the TV > shows they get to watch . . . Television acts like 'electric Thorazine'. It > keeps inmates tranquil, and a tranquil inmate is a cheap inmate." > > Before 1983, there were no private prisons in the US; today there are over > 150. They are owned by a variety of firms, the oldest and largest being the > Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). In 1997, CCA's stock doubled on > Wall Street, fetching over 50 times its earnings on the previous year, a > performance rivalled only by the fastest-growing technology stocks. That > same year, Wackenhut, CCA's closest rival, reported $8.3 million in profits > on $137.8 million in revenues. That, says Joe Hallinan, "is the genius of > American prison expansion. Having failed to make prisons effective, we have > learned to make them profitable". > > They call it "selling the walls". Corporations such as CCA assemble > pre-fabricated modular units, minimising construction costs. Small "pods" of > cells surround a control booth, enabling one guard to do the work that five > traditionally did. (Payroll is 75 per cent of a typical prison's operating > costs.) Like a hotel - charging the client state, say, $50 per day per > inmate - the private prison sub-contracts all services from food to medical > care, then takes its cut. Telephone companies such as AT&T and MCI, for > example, compete for prisoners, who make $1 billion worth of calls every > year. In 1997, New York made $21.2 million from prison telephone-call > commissions. > > The numbers make sense. According to the industry's own figures, when a > private firm takes over an existing state prison, there is a 10 per cent > saving. When it operates a prison of its own design, the saving is 15 per > cent. Convict labour is also transformed. "At the Eastern Oregon > Correctional Institution . . . inmates don't make licence plates any more," > Hallinan writes. "They make money . . . $6.25 an hour, on average, > manufacturing casual clothing. The prison here, like prisons across America, > is turning itself into a for-profit factory, cashing in on a tight labour > market." Roughly half an inmate's hourly wage goes to the prison > corporation. > > Companies like Lee Jeans, Boeing, Victoria's Secret and Eddie Bauer all farm > work out to prison labour, and one California correctional agency uses > prisoners to make TWA's airline reservations. This, according to its > critics, is the new "prisonindustrial complex". State-run prisons draw > similar criticism. "So this is going to breathe new life into our town," > scoffs Kurt Staudter, another opponent of the Springfield, Vermont prison. > "They'll have inmates working there for 25 or 50 cents an hour. How is a > local cabinet shop or tool-maker supposed to compete with that kind of slave > labour?" Many in Springfield also fear the eventual takeover of the state > prison by a private company, a growing trend all over the US. > > Corporations such as CCA, citing prison overcrowding, say that they are > filling a need. Oklahoma's inmates, for example, are still housed in that > state's 1908 prison, despite the fact that their numbers have tripled in the > last 15 years. > > A source within the New England prison system, who requested anonymity, > rejects the argument. "There are plenty of empty cells in our prisons," he > insists, speaking from 15 years experience. "But saying that is not good for > business. This industry depends on feeding itself. It has to say there's a > crisis." > > According to the Bureau of Prisons, 58 per cent of the nation's inmates are > jailed for drug offences, thanks chiefly to anti-drug legislation enacted > during the 1980's. "By 1995, under the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, > the average federal prison term served for selling crack cocaine was nearly > 11 years," explains Hallinan. "For homicide, by comparison, the national > average was barely six." > > You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about the connection > between an exploding prison population and an industry that profits from > incarceration. Morgan Reynolds, who directs criminal justice programmes at > the National Centre for Policy Analysis, described his vision of the future > for Hallinan. Wardens become "marketers of prison labour . . . that's the > best way to grow our prison population". > > Hallinan thinks the conspiracy theory too crude. "But you now have enough > businessmen - and corrupt politicians - with a financial interest in > heightening the public perception of crime and expanding the prison > industry," he concedes. "Fear drives the whole machine." > > All over the US, Hallinan encountered a common perception of soaring crime. > Yet most people, particularly in prison-loving states like Texas, could not > cite personal examples. "I gradually began to see it as parallel to the > Communist scare in the 1950s," Hallinan recalls. "Back then, the generalised > fear bred a huge military arsenal. Now it breeds prisons." > > Affluent white Americans fear crime the most. But black Americans suffer it > most and have a disproportionate chance of being imprisoned. Today's prison > population is 49 per cent black and 18 per cent Hispanic. That statistic > represents one of the largest migrations in American history: of young urban > men, mostly belonging to minorities, to new prisons. "In the black > community, this is seen as black men being exported to white areas to make a > profit for the white man," explains Hallinan. "It's not slavery, of course. > These people have committed crimes and deserve to be punished. But in the > black community the echoes of slavery are extremely strong." > > To which most Americans might respond: "So what. Jail should be tough." For > hardliners, the new "supermax" jail - with its sanitising corporate language > and its emphasis on profit and efficiency - may even sound too nice. > > Hardly. "These concrete cubicles are so spartan, so devoid of stimulation, > that their success is measured . . . by how much inmates detest them," > Hallinan writes of the newest facilities where inmates are locked in > windowless cells. "They press the outer bounds of what most humans can > psychologically tolerate," one judge recently concluded. > > "I go into those cells every day," the New England prison worker agrees, > "and they are mind-altering, designed to break a man down. I'm surprised > more don't try to kill themselves." > > Working inside the booming new prison economy takes its own toll. On April > 21st, the New York Times reported "a severe shortage of guards around the > country", partly due to the "explosion of prison building" and increased > prison violence. The starting salary for a guard averages $23,000, but > desperate states like Oklahoma are now lowering their minimum recruitment > age from 21 to 18. > > "You know what your duties are today," Curt Bowman, president of the > officers' union at "Little Siberia", a maximum-security prison on the > Canadian border, tells his recruits. "Go to work. Come out alive." > Hallinan's book is filled with chilling reports of inmate and officer > brutality. So why work inside? "My wife and I have been married 28 years and > lived 19 years in a travel trailer," one guard responds. Another says: "Be > 54 and try to go out and buy health insurance." > > Even its supporters admit that the current system brutalises inmates and > enforcers alike. Opponents of prison expansion and privatisation question > not only the individual but also the social cost. "Educating children, > punishing criminals - these are government responsibilities," insists > Staudter, contemplating his town's new prison. "But the way they feed people > into the prison system now, a kid has a better chance of going to jail than > of going to college." > > Joe Hallinan predicts that a slowing economy may teach states how expensive > their new prisons really are. In 1980, prisons cost each US citizen an > average of $30 per year; by 1992, they cost $123 per year. But for now, the > industry grows, expanding its markets in Europe, Australia and Africa (nine > UK prisons are currently owned or managed by Wackenhut). Sitting on the hood > of his car one night, counting the stars in the south Texas night sky, Joe > Hallinan noticed "an incandescent glow where no lights should be. After a > while it occurred to me that what I was seeing was not the light of some > forgotten town, but the glow of a new American city". Prison, USA. > > Going Up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation by Joseph T. Hallinan is > published by Random House (hardback, $24.95 in US). > > > > > Prison, USA: the figures > > Over the past 20 years, the US prison population has quadrupled to > approximately 1.8 million, which represents 455 prisoners for every 100,000 > citizens. > > The federal government currently predicts that one in every 11 men will be > imprisoned during his lifetime. For black men, the odds rise to one in four. > The current prison population is 49 per cent black, 18 per cent Hispanic. > > For the past two decades, the US has experienced the biggest prison > construction boom in its history, and now spends some $21 billion a year on > prison construction and maintenance. Like many other states, California > spends more on prisons than it does on higher education. > > Forty per cent of prisoners cannnot cannot read. > > During the 2000 elections, an estimated 3.9 million Americans - one in 50 > adults - were denied their right to vote due to felony and another > convictions. Of that number, 1.4 million had completed their sentences. > Another 1.4 million were on probation or parole. Thirteen per cent of black > adult males have lost their voting rights based on criminal conviction (that > is, one-third of the total of disenfranchised voters). Human Rights Watch > reports that in the states with the most restrictive voting laws - in the > south and west - 40 per cent of blacks are likely to be permanently > disenfranchised (in such states, a convicted criminal loses his voting > rights for life). --part1_46.1569e7bd.2843fe19_boundary-- From MajorDomo Mon May 28 15:18:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA10851 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10846 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:18:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from acad.suffolk.edu (h0050dad29e03.ne.mediaone.net [65.96.202.189]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4SJIOx29151 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3B12A46C.1B28D85A@acad.suffolk.edu> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:18:04 -0400 From: Michael Avery Organization: Suffolk University X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-NSCPCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Pathology testimony References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7917 --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This question has recently been addressed in two civil rights cases. In one, the court held that the testimony of the pathologist (Dr. Michael Baden) concerning the approximate time of death was admissible, although he did not have most of the information usually relied upon and based his opinion on circumstantial evidence and environmental factors. Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL 1843246 (E.D.Pa. 2000). In the other, the court admitted the testimony of a pathologist despite the fact that he had not consulted the sources usually relied upon by forensic pathologists, but had merely examined the body. Tofano v. Reidel, 61 F.Supp. 2d 289 (D.N.J. 1999). From a legal point of view, testimony of a pathologist is admissible if it is the product of scientific methods and principles reliable enough to satisfy the judge as the "gatekeeper" with respect to expert testimony. Criticisms of the testimony from the standpoint of what was not done, etc., should be brought out on cross-examination. Michael Avery Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > I am reading testimony that is strange to me. Can someone clear up my > > confusion. > > "What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was > doing > or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the > habits > are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is > usually > something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their > daily > routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the > circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at > the body > and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that > particular set > of circumstances. We find it more accurate to use that approach than > if you > just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may > have > died." > > We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of > expertise. But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not > simply > look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a > reliable > opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all > the > information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion > concerning time of death. Am I right about this. The court in the > opinion > notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a > forensic > pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information > alone. > Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider > both > the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert > circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time > of > death. He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical > condition > of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other > > evidence pointed." Is our science then driven under pressures of > group think? > > Fred Whitehurst --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This question has recently been addressed in two civil rights cases.  In one, the court held that the testimony of the pathologist (Dr. Michael Baden) concerning the approximate time of death was admissible, although he did not have most of the information usually relied upon and based his opinion on circumstantial evidence and environmental factors.  Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL 1843246 (E.D.Pa. 2000).  In the other, the court admitted the testimony of a pathologist despite the fact that he had not consulted the sources usually relied upon by forensic pathologists, but had merely examined the body.  Tofano v. Reidel, 61 F.Supp. 2d 289 (D.N.J. 1999).  From a legal point of view, testimony of a pathologist is admissible if it is the product of scientific methods and principles reliable enough to satisfy the judge as the "gatekeeper" with respect to expert testimony.  Criticisms of the testimony from the standpoint of what was not done, etc., should be brought out on cross-examination.  Michael Avery

Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote:

I am reading testimony that is strange to me.  Can someone clear up my
confusion.

"What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was doing
or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits
are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is usually
something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their daily
routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the
circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the body
and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular set
of circumstances.  We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you
just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have
died."

We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of
expertise.  But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not simply
look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable
opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the
information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion
concerning time of death.  Am I right about this.   The court in the opinion
notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a forensic
pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information alone.
Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both
the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert
circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of
death.   He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition
of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other
evidence pointed."  Is our science then driven under pressures of group think?

Fred Whitehurst

--------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304-- From MajorDomo Mon May 28 15:47:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA11098 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11093 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:47:16 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id y.d7.724d940 (4233) for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:47:10 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_d7.724d940.2844053e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3783 --part1_d7.724d940.2844053e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_d7.724d940.2844053e_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v78.52) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:27:20 -0400 Received: from sane2.washingtonpost.com (sane2.washingtonpost.com [206.132.25.75]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:26:55 -0400 Received: from sane2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sane2.washingtonpost.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11268; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:26:55 -0400 (EDT) From: register@washingtonpost.com Message-Id: <200105281926.PAA11268@sane2.washingtonpost.com> To: cfwhiteh@aol.com, pkwearne@hotmail.com, kjohn39679@aol.com Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from kjohn39679@aol.com X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/A85693-2001May27.html Imperfect Justice FOR THE LATEST exhibit of the fallibility of the judicial system, we turn to Joyce Gilchrist, a chemist with the Oklahoma City Police Department who has worked on more than 3,000 cases. Oklahoma has executed 11 persons based at least in part on her work. Twelve more remain on death row. Yet in recent weeks the FBI labs have been sharply critical of her performance in a sample of cases, accusing her of offering testimony "beyond the acceptable limits of forensic science" in several. Jeffrey Pierce recently was released from prison for a rape he didn't commit; Ms. Gilchrist's testimony at his trial had authoritatively linked his hair to samples found at the scene, a claim DNA testing later belied. A comprehensive review of Ms. Gilchrist's wo! rk is now underway. The alleged problems with Ms. Gilchrist's work are not new. According to the Daily Oklahoman, a professional association criticized her as far back as 1987. State and federal courts have overturned convictions on grounds that her testimony went beyond what was knowable scientifically. Last year she was expelled from another professional group. Ms. Gilchrist says she will be vindicated by the investigation. But questions about her work serve as a reminder of the grave harm that a single person in the criminal justice apparatus can cause -- either through malice or incompetence -- if the rest of the system offers little more than malign neglect. The same lesson should be drawn from other recently exposed failures of the justice system. Mistakes happen. Something as complex as the criminal justice system will inevitably fail sometimes. Forensic science is a powerful tool for accuracy in convictions when it is rigorous, and an equally powerful tool for ina! ccuracy at trial when it is not. Juries are powerfully moved by biological evidence, and scientists testify with an authority that other witnesses lack. That means that crime labs -- like the quality of lawyers provided to defendants -- must be improved and accountability built in. It also argues for rigorous post-conviction review. The death penalty is the ultimate affront to the notion that some measure of justice, however late, eventually can be restored when a case goes awry. Oklahoma authorities say they are confident that nobody has been wrongly executed as a result of Ms. Gilchrist's testimony. We hope they are lucky enough to be right. --part1_d7.724d940.2844053e_boundary-- From MajorDomo Mon May 28 15:48:10 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id PAA11209 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11200 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:48:09 -0400 (EDT) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id y.10f.611cb7 (4233) for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10f.611cb7.28440578@aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:48:08 EDT Subject: No Subject 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 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3528 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://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/A85693-2001May27.html Imperfect Justice FOR THE LATEST exhibit of the fallibility of the judicial system, we turn to Joyce Gilchrist, a chemist with the Oklahoma City Police Department who has worked on more than 3,000 cases. Oklahoma has executed 11 persons based at least in part on her work. Twelve more remain on death row. Yet in recent weeks the FBI labs have been sharply critical of her performance in a sample of cases, accusing her of offering testimony "beyond the acceptable limits of forensic science" in several. Jeffrey Pierce recently was released from prison for a rape he didn't commit; Ms. Gilchrist's testimony at his trial had authoritatively linked his hair to samples found at the scene, a claim DNA testing later belied. A comprehensive review of Ms. Gilchrist's wo! rk is now underway. The alleged problems with Ms. Gilchrist's work are not new. According to the Daily Oklahoman, a professional association criticized her as far back as 1987. State and federal courts have overturned convictions on grounds that her testimony went beyond what was knowable scientifically. Last year she was expelled from another professional group. Ms. Gilchrist says she will be vindicated by the investigation. But questions about her work serve as a reminder of the grave harm that a single person in the criminal justice apparatus can cause -- either through malice or incompetence -- if the rest of the system offers little more than malign neglect. The same lesson should be drawn from other recently exposed failures of the justice system. Mistakes happen. Something as complex as the criminal justice system will inevitably fail sometimes. Forensic science is a powerful tool for accuracy in convictions when it is rigorous, and an equally powerful tool for ina! ccuracy at trial when it is not. Juries are powerfully moved by biological evidence, and scientists testify with an authority that other witnesses lack. That means that crime labs -- like the quality of lawyers provided to defendants -- must be improved and accountability built in. It also argues for rigorous post-conviction review. The death penalty is the ultimate affront to the notion that some measure of justice, however late, eventually can be restored when a case goes awry. Oklahoma authorities say they are confident that nobody has been wrongly executed as a result of Ms. Gilchrist's testimony. We hope they are lucky enough to be right. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v78.52) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:27:20 -0400 Received: from sane2.washingtonpost.com (sane2.washingtonpost.com [206.132.25.75]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.36) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:26:55 -0400 Received: from sane2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sane2.washingtonpost.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11268; Mon, 28 May 2001 15:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:26:55 -0400 (EDT) From: register@washingtonpost.com Message-Id: <200105281926.PAA11268@sane2.washingtonpost.com> To: cfwhiteh@aol.com, pkwearne@hotmail.com, kjohn39679@aol.com Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from kjohn39679@aol.com From MajorDomo Mon May 28 19:08:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA12511 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gw.cs.nsw.gov.au (gw1.cs.nsw.gov.au [152.76.0.130]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12502 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from funnelweb.cs.nsw.gov.au ([152.76.2.177]) by gw1.gw.cs.nsw.gov.au with ESMTP id <119074>; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:09:00 +1000 Received: from iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au ([152.76.123.2]) by funnelweb.cs.nsw.gov.au (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id au for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:08:05 +1000 Received: from Spooler by iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (Mercury/32 v2.16); 29 May 01 09:06:11 +1000 Received: from spooler by iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (Mercury/32 v2.16); 29 May 01 09:05:35 +1000 Received: from joduflou.iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (152.76.123.3) by iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (Mercury/32 v2.16) with ESMTP; 29 May 01 09:05:25 +1000 From: "Jo Duflou" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:50:01 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Pathology testimony In-reply-to: <3B12A46C.1B28D85A@acad.suffolk.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Message-ID: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 10562 I think what's touched on here is the fundamental difference between medicine and science. Science, in theory in any case, is purely based on fact, while medicine (and by extension pathology) is based on a combination of scientific principles and "other information". As an example, if you visit your local friendly doctor with a runny nose, what happens next is (or should be) as follows: "Now Mr Smith, what is the problems?" "I've got a runny nose, I feel all bunged up, my throat is sore, etc, etc." Dr Jones looks in your nose and throat, says the obligatory 'mmmmmm' and decides you have an upper respiratory tract infection. He may or may not give you antibiotics, presumably on the basis of what your expectations are, not on the basis of scientific evidence. Hopefully he's condsidered, but excluded on the basis of non-expert patient information that the runny nose could be due to a base of skull fracture, various weird and wonderful (and deadly) tumours, and I'm sure at least 10,000 other things. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do a CT scan of the head and all sort of other investigations because the lords and masters (variously known as Medicare, medical insurance, and some strange organisations in the US) would slaughter him for overservicing. Nevertheless, based on the inexpert evidence by the patient, and some limited expert examination by the doctor, you land up with an expert opinion. Maybe it's wrong, and that's ok (maybe) as long as the evidence is qualified as an opinion and what it's based on. Surely it's then up to the court and/or jury to assess the weight of the evidence. I think (definitely opinion time now!!!!) that forensic science really has got itself into a bit of a pickle by trying to claim perfection (I know, by now there should be howls of outrage!). An opinion is just that, and as long as you make it well known that your "best guess" is xxx and the basis of this is yyyy, surely that's a lot better than saying "All of what I say is based on science, and it must be right and for good measure here are the stats to back it up, assuming of course that you and I can understand them, and I'm applying them correctly." May the (flawed) medical paradigm live forever!!!!!! Jo Duflou Forensic Pathologist NSW Institute of Forensic Medicine On 28 May 01, at 15:18, Michael Avery wrote: > > --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > This question has recently been addressed in two civil rights cases. > In one, the court held that the testimony of the pathologist (Dr. > Michael Baden) concerning the approximate time of death was > admissible, although he did not have most of the information usually > relied upon and based his opinion on circumstantial evidence and > environmental factors. Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL > 1843246 (E.D.Pa. 2000). In the other, the court admitted the > testimony of a pathologist despite the fact that he had not consulted > the sources usually relied upon by forensic pathologists, but had > merely examined the body. Tofano v. Reidel, 61 F.Supp. 2d 289 (D.N.J. > 1999). From a legal point of view, testimony of a pathologist is > admissible if it is the product of scientific methods and principles > reliable enough to satisfy the judge as the "gatekeeper" with respect > to expert testimony. Criticisms of the testimony from the standpoint > of what was not done, etc., should be brought out on > cross-examination. Michael Avery > > Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > > > I am reading testimony that is strange to me. Can someone clear up > > my > > > > confusion. > > > > "What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person > > was doing or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into > > what the habits are of that person and if there is an interruption > > of habit it is usually something that happened to them so that they > > can't carry out their daily routine.... In fact, the way we do it > > actually is we look at all the circumstances surrounding the death, > > and then we examine and look at the body and see if the condition of > > the body is consistent with that particular set of circumstances. > > We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you just start > > at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have > > died." > > > > We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas > > of expertise. But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can > > not simply look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and > > render a reliable opinion concerning when that person died, that one > > must look at all the information discovered by investigators before > > rendering an opinion concerning time of death. Am I right about > > this. The court in the opinion notes that "Dr. Davis began his > > testimony by explaining that a forensic pathologist's expert opinion > > does not rest upon expert information alone. Rather, he said that > > his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both the condition > > of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert circumstantial > > (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of death. > > He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition > > of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the > > other > > > > evidence pointed." Is our science then driven under pressures of > > group think? > > > > Fred Whitehurst > > --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > This question has recently been addressed in two civil rights > cases.  In one, the court held that the testimony of the > pathologist (Dr. Michael Baden) concerning the approximate time of > death was admissible, although he did not have most of the information > usually relied upon and based his opinion on circumstantial evidence > and environmental factors.  Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, > 2000 WL 1843246 (E.D.Pa. 2000).  In the other, the court admitted > the testimony of a pathologist despite the fact that he had not > consulted the sources usually relied upon by forensic pathologists, > but had merely examined the body.  Tofano v. Reidel, 61 F.Supp. > 2d 289 (D.N.J. 1999).  From a legal point of view, testimony of a > pathologist is admissible if it is the product of scientific methods > and principles reliable enough to satisfy the judge as the > "gatekeeper" with respect to expert testimony.  Criticisms of the > testimony from the standpoint of what was not done, etc., should be > brought out on cross-examination.  Michael Avery >

Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote:

face="arial,helvetica">I am reading testimony that is > strange to me.  Can someone clear up my
face="arial,helvetica">confusion.

face="arial,helvetica">"What's more precise is > information pertaining to what the person was doing >
or expected to do and > that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits >
are of that person and > if there is an interruption of habit it is usually >
something that happened > to them so that they can't carry out their daily >
routine.... In fact, > the way we do it actually is we look at all the >
circumstances > surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the > body
and > see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular > set
of > circumstances.  We find it more accurate to use that approach > than if you
size=-1>just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the > person may have
size=-1>died."

size=-1>We have had this discussion before here but related to other > areas of
size=-1>expertise.  But this pathologist seems to be saying that > one can not simply
face="arial,helvetica">look at the conditions of a body > and surroundings and render a reliable
face="arial,helvetica">opinion concerning when that > person died, that one must look at all the
face="arial,helvetica">information discovered by > investigators before rendering an opinion
face="arial,helvetica">concerning time of death.  > Am I right about this.   The court in the > opinion
size=-1>notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a > forensic
size=-1>pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert > information alone.
face="arial,helvetica">Rather, he said that his job, as > an expert pathologist was to consider both
face="arial,helvetica">the condition of the body and > varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert
face="arial,helvetica">circumstantial (or direct) > evidence that pointed to a particular time of
face="arial,helvetica">death.   He said that > his basic role was to decide whether physical condition >
of the body was > "consistent with" the time of death to which the other >
evidence > pointed."  Is our science then driven under pressures of group > think?

size=-1>Fred Whitehurst

> > --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304-- > From MajorDomo Mon May 28 19:08:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA12524 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gw.cs.nsw.gov.au (gw1.cs.nsw.gov.au [152.76.0.130]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12510 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 19:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from funnelweb.cs.nsw.gov.au ([152.76.2.177]) by gw1.gw.cs.nsw.gov.au with ESMTP id <119071>; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:08:58 +1000 Received: from iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au ([152.76.123.2]) by funnelweb.cs.nsw.gov.au (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id au for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 09:08:01 +1000 Received: from Spooler by iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (Mercury/32 v2.16); 29 May 01 09:06:06 +1000 Received: from spooler by iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (Mercury/32 v2.16); 29 May 01 09:05:35 +1000 Received: from joduflou.iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (152.76.123.3) by iofm.cs.nsw.gov.au (Mercury/32 v2.16) with ESMTP; 29 May 01 09:05:25 +1000 From: "Jo Duflou" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:47:22 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Pathology testimony In-reply-to: <3B12A46C.1B28D85A@acad.suffolk.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Message-ID: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 10562 I think what's touched on here is the fundamental difference between medicine and science. Science, in theory in any case, is purely based on fact, while medicine (and by extension pathology) is based on a combination of scientific principles and "other information". As an example, if you visit your local friendly doctor with a runny nose, what happens next is (or should be) as follows: "Now Mr Smith, what is the problems?" "I've got a runny nose, I feel all bunged up, my throat is sore, etc, etc." Dr Jones looks in your nose and throat, says the obligatory 'mmmmmm' and decides you have an upper respiratory tract infection. He may or may not give you antibiotics, presumably on the basis of what your expectations are, not on the basis of scientific evidence. Hopefully he's condsidered, but excluded on the basis of non-expert patient information that the runny nose could be due to a base of skull fracture, various weird and wonderful (and deadly) tumours, and I'm sure at least 10,000 other things. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't do a CT scan of the head and all sort of other investigations because the lords and masters (variously known as Medicare, medical insurance, and some strange organisations in the US) would slaughter him for overservicing. Nevertheless, based on the inexpert evidence by the patient, and some limited expert examination by the doctor, you land up with an expert opinion. Maybe it's wrong, and that's ok (maybe) as long as the evidence is qualified as an opinion and what it's based on. Surely it's then up to the court and/or jury to assess the weight of the evidence. I think (definitely opinion time now!!!!) that forensic science really has got itself into a bit of a pickle by trying to claim perfection (I know, by now there should be howls of outrage!). An opinion is just that, and as long as you make it well known that your "best guess" is xxx and the basis of this is yyyy, surely that's a lot better than saying "All of what I say is based on science, and it must be right and for good measure here are the stats to back it up, assuming of course that you and I can understand them, and I'm applying them correctly." May the (flawed) medical paradigm live forever!!!!!! Jo Duflou Forensic Pathologist NSW Institute of Forensic Medicine On 28 May 01, at 15:18, Michael Avery wrote: > > --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > This question has recently been addressed in two civil rights cases. > In one, the court held that the testimony of the pathologist (Dr. > Michael Baden) concerning the approximate time of death was > admissible, although he did not have most of the information usually > relied upon and based his opinion on circumstantial evidence and > environmental factors. Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, 2000 WL > 1843246 (E.D.Pa. 2000). In the other, the court admitted the > testimony of a pathologist despite the fact that he had not consulted > the sources usually relied upon by forensic pathologists, but had > merely examined the body. Tofano v. Reidel, 61 F.Supp. 2d 289 (D.N.J. > 1999). From a legal point of view, testimony of a pathologist is > admissible if it is the product of scientific methods and principles > reliable enough to satisfy the judge as the "gatekeeper" with respect > to expert testimony. Criticisms of the testimony from the standpoint > of what was not done, etc., should be brought out on > cross-examination. Michael Avery > > Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > > > I am reading testimony that is strange to me. Can someone clear up > > my > > > > confusion. > > > > "What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person > > was doing or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into > > what the habits are of that person and if there is an interruption > > of habit it is usually something that happened to them so that they > > can't carry out their daily routine.... In fact, the way we do it > > actually is we look at all the circumstances surrounding the death, > > and then we examine and look at the body and see if the condition of > > the body is consistent with that particular set of circumstances. > > We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you just start > > at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have > > died." > > > > We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas > > of expertise. But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can > > not simply look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and > > render a reliable opinion concerning when that person died, that one > > must look at all the information discovered by investigators before > > rendering an opinion concerning time of death. Am I right about > > this. The court in the opinion notes that "Dr. Davis began his > > testimony by explaining that a forensic pathologist's expert opinion > > does not rest upon expert information alone. Rather, he said that > > his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both the condition > > of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert circumstantial > > (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of death. > > He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition > > of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the > > other > > > > evidence pointed." Is our science then driven under pressures of > > group think? > > > > Fred Whitehurst > > --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > This question has recently been addressed in two civil rights > cases.  In one, the court held that the testimony of the > pathologist (Dr. Michael Baden) concerning the approximate time of > death was admissible, although he did not have most of the information > usually relied upon and based his opinion on circumstantial evidence > and environmental factors.  Schieber v. City of Philadelphia, > 2000 WL 1843246 (E.D.Pa. 2000).  In the other, the court admitted > the testimony of a pathologist despite the fact that he had not > consulted the sources usually relied upon by forensic pathologists, > but had merely examined the body.  Tofano v. Reidel, 61 F.Supp. > 2d 289 (D.N.J. 1999).  From a legal point of view, testimony of a > pathologist is admissible if it is the product of scientific methods > and principles reliable enough to satisfy the judge as the > "gatekeeper" with respect to expert testimony.  Criticisms of the > testimony from the standpoint of what was not done, etc., should be > brought out on cross-examination.  Michael Avery >

Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote:

face="arial,helvetica">I am reading testimony that is > strange to me.  Can someone clear up my
face="arial,helvetica">confusion.

face="arial,helvetica">"What's more precise is > information pertaining to what the person was doing >
or expected to do and > that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits >
are of that person and > if there is an interruption of habit it is usually >
something that happened > to them so that they can't carry out their daily >
routine.... In fact, > the way we do it actually is we look at all the >
circumstances > surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the > body
and > see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular > set
of > circumstances.  We find it more accurate to use that approach > than if you
size=-1>just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the > person may have
size=-1>died."

size=-1>We have had this discussion before here but related to other > areas of
size=-1>expertise.  But this pathologist seems to be saying that > one can not simply
face="arial,helvetica">look at the conditions of a body > and surroundings and render a reliable
face="arial,helvetica">opinion concerning when that > person died, that one must look at all the
face="arial,helvetica">information discovered by > investigators before rendering an opinion
face="arial,helvetica">concerning time of death.  > Am I right about this.   The court in the > opinion
size=-1>notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a > forensic
size=-1>pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert > information alone.
face="arial,helvetica">Rather, he said that his job, as > an expert pathologist was to consider both
face="arial,helvetica">the condition of the body and > varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert
face="arial,helvetica">circumstantial (or direct) > evidence that pointed to a particular time of
face="arial,helvetica">death.   He said that > his basic role was to decide whether physical condition >
of the body was > "consistent with" the time of death to which the other >
evidence > pointed."  Is our science then driven under pressures of group > think?

size=-1>Fred Whitehurst

> > --------------3579035C52F2AC7DC477B304-- > From MajorDomo Mon May 28 21:29:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA13629 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web13306.mail.yahoo.com (web13306.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13624 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 21:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010529012931.77327.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.175.75.32] by web13306.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 28 May 2001 18:29:31 PDT Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:29:31 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Now the FBI Lab is Credible to KJohn To: KJohn39679@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <10f.611cb7.28440578@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 864 I find it interesting, ironic even, that KJohn sends us an article critical of a forensic scientist, and the critic is the FBI Lab. --- KJohn39679@aol.com wrote: > > Imperfect Justice > FOR THE LATEST exhibit of the fallibility of > the judicial system, we turn to > Joyce Gilchrist, > Yet in recent > weeks the FBI labs have been sharply critical > of her performance in a sample > of cases, accusing her of offering testimony > "beyond the acceptable limits of > forensic science" . ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From MajorDomo Mon May 28 23:41:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA14313 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:41:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.rollanet.org (mailsrv.rollanet.org [192.55.114.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA14308 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:41:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 4184 invoked from network); 29 May 2001 03:41:46 -0000 Received: from access-7-21.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (216.229.93.10) by mx.rollanet.org with SMTP; 29 May 2001 03:41:46 -0000 Message-ID: <032c01c0e7f0$37ae21e0$255ce5d8@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Pathology testimony Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 22:34:06 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2623 Assuming (and it sounds like him) this is Dr. Joe Davis, Chief ME, retired, Miami/Dade Co., FL, then that is exactly what he is saying: that one can not simply look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion concerning time of death (or cause, or manner, of whatever other question arises). He sometimes phrases this as the older he gets, the slower he is to give a definitive answer before all the evidence is in. When Joe Davis speaks, smart American forensic pathologists take notes. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Pathology testimony I am reading testimony that is strange to me. Can someone clear up my confusion. "What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was doing or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is usually something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their daily routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the body and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular set of circumstances. We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have died." We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of expertise. But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not simply look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion concerning time of death. Am I right about this. The court in the opinion notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a forensic pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information alone. Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of death. He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other evidence pointed." Is our science then driven under pressures of group think? Fred Whitehurst From MajorDomo Tue May 29 02:10:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id CAA15043 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 02:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA15038 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 02:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (d3960.pppdel.vsnl.net.in [203.197.206.75]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788B79274 for ; Mon, 28 May 2001 23:19:21 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3B11829F.D2C65927@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 04:11:35 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Number of jurors Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1491 Dear List members, Trial by Jury has been abolished in India, so I don't know much about trial by jury. Somebody asked me how many jurors are there in a trial. Are there 5,7,9, or any uneven number? What is the maximum number and what is the minimum number? Does this differ from country to country and state to state? And what happens when the jury differs from the judge? Can the list members enlighten please? Thank you. Sincerely 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 Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 4. 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!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From MajorDomo Tue May 29 07:35:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id HAA16458 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 07:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r02.mx.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.98]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA16453 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 07:35:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id i.7f.150bbd90 (4314); Tue, 29 May 2001 07:35:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7f.150bbd90.2844e374@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 07:35:16 EDT Subject: Re: Number of jurors To: dr_anil@hotmail.com, 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 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1582 Dear Prof Aggrawal: The number of jurors does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In criminal cases in New York State, if an individual is charged with a felony, the number of jurors is 12. They must all agree on the verdict. For misdemeanors, the number of jurors is 6, and, yes, they too must be unanimous in their verdict. Their verdict is final in a criminal case unless they have convicted the defendant and the judge feels that the evidence does not support the conviction. At that point, the judge can reverse the verdict and acquit the defendant. Once there is an acquittal, the case is over. There can be no retrial as the Constitution of the United States forbids it under the double jeopardy clause. In civil cases, the number of jurors is six and they do not have to be unanimous. Four out of six can create the verdict. In a civil case, the judge can change the verdict, regardless of who won or lost. The double jeopardy provision does not apply because it only applies in criminal cases. The issues, of course, are usually money in a civil case, while in a criminal case, the issue is often liberty, and, in some instances, life or death. I do not know what other states in the U.S. do, but the trend has been away from 12 person juries. I am sorry to hear that jury trials have been done away with in India. I have always been a firm believer in jury trials. Lay persons can bring a lot of common sense to a case that has been boondoggled by the system (i.e., we lawyers!). Pietrina J. Reda Attorney at Law Freeport, New York From MajorDomo Tue May 29 10:18:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA18246 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from co.sanmateo.ca.us (mail.co.sanmateo.ca.us [204.114.51.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18240 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 10:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CSM-Message_Server by co.sanmateo.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 29 May 2001 07:18:09 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 07:17:36 -0700 From: "Linda French" To: Subject: Phenyl-2-Propanone Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 1.0.13 ; County of San Mateo Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id KAA18241 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 118 Thanks to all who responded. I now have the data I need. I will also bookmark the search/web-sites for future use. From MajorDomo Tue May 29 18:31:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA23741 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 18:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA23736 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 18:31:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 29 May 2001 22:31:21 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 29 May 2001 18:20:42 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Pathology testimony Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:20:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E88D.9863E450" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 9895 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_01C0E88D.9863E450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Fred, It seems to me that he's just saying that he wants to be sure that the victim's habits, the circumstances of death and/or the environ the body was in don't produce artifacts in the body's condition that would mislead him as to time of death (or even cause of death). In other words, the body's condition indicates a particular range of time of death estimate and cause of death, but unusual circumstances can through off or at least complicate those determinations - he wants to know what those circumstances might be so he can try to account for them (consider how they might have affected the body's condition). For instance, was the body found lying on a road on a summer's eve (where it would be kept warm by reradiated heat from the hot asphalt), or was it found lying in a running brook (which would cause quicker than normal loss of body heat). Was the victim sick from something that caused a fever or was he perhaps a runner who habitually ran three times a week, in which case he might have died at a time when his body temperature would have been abnormally elevated and so would take longer to cool to the temperature at the time found (was he found in running clothes, was the date of death one of his habitual running days)? Was he a recreational boxer (did his routine normally include sparring on or close to the day he died), which might often leave him with facial contusions, or possibly even concussions (with cumulative brain abnormalities)? I'm no expert on ME matters, but wanting to know as much as possible about the victim and his circumstances so that one can consider these kinds of things seems both proper and quite prudent to me. As we've noted in previous discussions, any case information may be important or at least useful in making a forensic determination. As a general forensic principle, more case information is good, and less information is bad (or at least less good). 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 28, 2001 13:05 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Pathology testimony I am reading testimony that is strange to me. Can someone clear up my confusion. "What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was doing or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is usually something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their daily routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the body and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular set of circumstances. We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have died." We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of expertise. But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not simply look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion concerning time of death. Am I right about this. The court in the opinion notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a forensic pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information alone. Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of death. He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other evidence pointed." Is our science then driven under pressures of group think? Fred Whitehurst ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E88D.9863E450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Fred,
 
It seems to me that he's just saying that he wants to be sure that the victim's habits, the circumstances of death and/or the environ the body was in don't produce artifacts in the body's condition that would mislead him as to time of death (or even cause of death).  In other words, the body's condition indicates a particular range of time of death estimate and cause of death, but unusual circumstances can through off or at least complicate those determinations - he wants to know what those circumstances might be so he can try to account for them (consider how they might have affected the body's condition).  For instance, was the body found lying on a road on a summer's eve (where it would be kept warm by reradiated heat from the hot asphalt), or was it found lying in a running brook (which would cause quicker than normal loss of body heat).  Was the victim sick from something that caused a fever or was he perhaps a runner who habitually ran three times a week, in which case he might have died at a time when his body temperature would have been abnormally elevated and so would take longer to cool to the temperature at the time found (was he found in running clothes, was the date of death one of his habitual running days)?  Was he a recreational boxer (did his routine normally include sparring on or close to the day he died), which might often leave him with facial contusions, or possibly even concussions (with cumulative brain abnormalities)? 
 
I'm no expert on ME matters, but wanting to know as much as possible about the victim and his circumstances so that one can consider these kinds of things seems both proper and quite prudent to me.  As we've noted in previous discussions, any case information may be important or at least useful in making a forensic determination.  As a general forensic principle, more case information is good, and less information is bad (or at least less good).
 
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 28, 2001 13:05
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Pathology testimony

I am reading testimony that is strange to me.  Can someone clear up my
confusion.

"What's more precise is information pertaining to what the person was doing
or expected to do and that is interrupted.... We look into what the habits
are of that person and if there is an interruption of habit it is usually
something that happened to them so that they can't carry out their daily
routine.... In fact, the way we do it actually is we look at all the
circumstances surrounding the death, and then we examine and look at the body
and see if the condition of the body is consistent with that particular set
of circumstances.  We find it more accurate to use that approach than if you
just start at a dead body and make a guess as to when the person may have
died."

We have had this discussion before here but related to other areas of
expertise.  But this pathologist seems to be saying that one can not simply
look at the conditions of a body and surroundings and render a reliable
opinion concerning when that person died, that one must look at all the
information discovered by investigators before rendering an opinion
concerning time of death.  Am I right about this.   The court in the opinion
notes that "Dr. Davis began his testimony by explaining that a forensic
pathologist's expert opinion does not rest upon expert information alone.  
Rather, he said that his job, as an expert pathologist was to consider both
the condition of the body and varous pieces of ordinary, nonexpert
circumstantial (or direct) evidence that pointed to a particular time of
death.   He said that his basic role was to decide whether physical condition
of the body was "consistent with" the time of death to which the other
evidence pointed."  Is our science then driven under pressures of group think?

Fred Whitehurst
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E88D.9863E450-- From MajorDomo Tue May 29 18:33:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA23863 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 18:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA23858 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 18:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 29 May 2001 22:33:23 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 29 May 2001 18:22:44 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Phenyl-2-propanone Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 18:22:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0E88D.E1764070" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4899 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_01C0E88D.E1764070 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Search for "phenyl acetone" on the Acros corporate site: http://www.acros.be/ It will give you an msds showing a flash point of 83C. I checked 8 different sites and found phenyl acetone on 6 of them, but this is the only one that had a flash point listed. MSDS On-Line still works - check the URL you're using: it should be http://www.msdsonline.com/Home/. They're recently revised the site, and free access is now for a limited time only, thereafter you have to pay for a subscription. But there are many other free msds sites available (including all chemical manufacturers - they have to provide msds info on their products free of charge). If you know who you last purchased a chemical from, go to their site and you'll likely find an msds. If you want to go to a general msds site, various universities, private companies, and government organizations provide free access. A simple search for "msds" on Yahoo, Google, or other search engine will lead you to dozens of them. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Linda French [mailto:LJFrench@co.sanmateo.ca.us] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 18:20 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Phenyl-2-propanone Does anyone have a MSDS for phenyl-2-propanone? The manufacturer of our lab's bottle is out of business and I haven't found another source. I'd especially like to know its flash point. I've tried several MSDS web-sites to no avail. MSDS On-line seems to have disappeared or has other problems. It's other names are: phenyl acetone benzyl methyl ketone CAS = 103-79-7 Thank you ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E88D.E1764070 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Phenyl-2-propanone

Search for "phenyl acetone" on the Acros = corporate site:

http://www.acros.be/

It will give you an msds showing a flash point of = 83C.  I checked 8 different sites and found phenyl acetone on 6 of = them, but this is the only one that had a flash point = listed.

MSDS On-Line still works - check the URL you're = using: it should be http://www.msdsonline.com/Home/.  They're = recently revised the site, and free access is now for a limited time = only, thereafter you have to pay for a subscription.  But there = are many other free msds sites available (including all chemical = manufacturers - they have to provide msds info on their products free = of charge).  If you know who you last purchased a chemical from, = go to their site and you'll likely find an msds.  If you want to = go to a general msds site, various universities, private companies, and = government organizations provide free access.  A simple search for = "msds" on Yahoo, Google, or other search engine will lead you = to dozens of them.


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Linda French [mailto:LJFrench@co.sanmateo.c= a.us]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 18:20
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Phenyl-2-propanone


Does anyone have a MSDS for phenyl-2-propanone?  = The manufacturer of our lab's bottle is out of business and I haven't = found another source.  I'd especially like to know its flash = point.

I've tried several MSDS web-sites to no avail.  = MSDS On-line seems to have disappeared or has other problems.

It's other names are:
phenyl acetone
benzyl methyl ketone

CAS =3D 103-79-7

Thank you

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0E88D.E1764070-- From MajorDomo Tue May 29 22:04:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA25068 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA25063 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 22:04:02 -0400 (EDT) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id y.20.172907a7 (10052); Tue, 29 May 2001 22:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20.172907a7.2845af0e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:03:58 EDT Subject: Re: Number of jurors To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: Unbonmot@aol.com, dr_anil@hotmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_20.172907a7.2845af0e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10523 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6803 --part1_20.172907a7.2845af0e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/29/01 4:39:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Pietrina J. Reda writes: > I do not know what other states in the U.S. do, but > the trend has been away from 12 person juries. The trend away from 12 person juries is similar to the trend away from the other constitutional rights that are under attack. Like the trend away from the freedom to possess firearms, the guarantee that "No person shall be held to answer for a(n) . . . infamous crime, unless" indicted by a Grand Jury, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (among other constitutional guarantees) the right to a jury trial is being subjected to incremental chipping away based on semantics. By way of example, according to our Constitution "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" in civil suits. But that leads to problems of backlogged court calendars, and expense for the court. So, to discourage the exercise of the right to a jury trial, a clever little change was instituted. The party that loses can be charged for the cost of impaneling a jury, the right to a jury must be specifically demanded prior to trial, and the party demanding a jury may be required to pay the cost of a jury (and a court reporter if requested) before that right may be exercised. Failure to demand the right or pay for it is considered a waiver of the right. But the right is preserved. Now I can't say that a 12 person jury is specifically required by the constitution. For that matter the requirement that a jury reach an unanimous verdict is not specifically enumerated either. Therefor we have the trend away from the requirement that 12 impartial citizens unanimously agree that a person is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, before the accused may be convicted. However the motive for chipping away at this protection against injustice is not congruent with the purpose intended in the Constitution. This trend is fueled by a desire for convenience, fiscal thrift, and the impression of security. The difference between requiring unanimous agreement and allowing eleven of the twelve jury members to convict despite a single vote of not guilty, is not simple a change of one-twelfth in the chances of a wrongful conviction. I'm not a statistician so I'll leave the figures to those who are, but this is not a case of simple math. An unanimous decision of twelve holds far greater protection against the conviction of an innocent defendant than agreement by eleven of the twelve, or worse yet a jury of six. 200+ years is a long time for clever persons to find ways around the Constitution using semantical play on words and preying on the angst of the people. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken Bill Holden Legaleye1@aol.com --part1_20.172907a7.2845af0e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/29/01 4:39:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Pietrina J. Reda
writes:

> I do not know what other states in the U.S. do, but
> the trend has been away from 12 person juries.  

The trend away from 12 person juries is similar to the trend away from the
other constitutional rights that are under attack.  Like the trend away from
the freedom to possess firearms, the guarantee that "No person shall be held
to answer for a(n) . . . infamous crime, unless" indicted by a Grand Jury,
and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (among other constitutional
guarantees) the right to a jury trial is being subjected to incremental
chipping away based on semantics.  By way of example, according to our
Constitution "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" in civil suits.  
But that leads to problems of backlogged court calendars, and expense for the
court.  So, to discourage the exercise of the right to a jury trial, a clever
little change was instituted.  The party that loses can be charged for the
cost of impaneling a jury, the right to a jury must be specifically demanded
prior to trial, and the party demanding a jury may be required to pay the
cost of a jury (and a court reporter if requested) before that right may be
exercised.  Failure to demand the right or pay for it is considered a waiver
of the right.  But the right is preserved.  Now I can't say that a 12 person
jury is specifically required by the constitution.  For that matter the
requirement that a jury reach an unanimous verdict is not specifically
enumerated either.  Therefor we have the trend away from the requirement that
12 impartial citizens unanimously agree that a person is guilty, beyond
reasonable doubt, before the accused may be convicted.  However the motive
for chipping away at this protection against injustice is not congruent with
the purpose intended in the Constitution.  This trend is fueled by a desire
for convenience, fiscal thrift, and the impression of security.  The
difference between requiring unanimous agreement and allowing eleven of the
twelve jury members to convict despite a single vote of not guilty, is not
simple a change of one-twelfth in the chances of a wrongful conviction.  I'm
not a statistician so I'll leave the figures to those who are, but this is
not a case of simple math.  An unanimous decision of twelve holds far greater
protection against the conviction of an innocent defendant than agreement by
eleven of the twelve, or worse yet a jury of six.
200+ years is a long time for clever persons to find ways around the
Constitution using semantical play on words and preying on the angst of the
people.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  -- Ben Franklin

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and
thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken


Bill Holden
Legaleye1@aol.com --part1_20.172907a7.2845af0e_boundary-- From MajorDomo Wed May 30 13:48:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA01830 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01825 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 13:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 May 2001 10:48:08 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [168.191.249.31] From: "Shaun Wheeler" To: Cc: References: <20010529012931.77327.qmail@web13306.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Now the FBI Lab is Credible to KJohn Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 13:17:57 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2001 17:48:08.0324 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFC8AC40:01C0E930] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 426 Maybe he figures they know more about common errors than anybody else? ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: ; Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 8:29 PM Subject: Now the FBI Lab is Credible to KJohn > I find it interesting, ironic even, that KJohn > sends us an article critical of a forensic > scientist, and the critic is the FBI Lab. > From MajorDomo Wed May 30 16:48:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA04410 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA04405 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 16:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:48:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3835 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:26:00 -0400 From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness For years, the DNA field has been criticized for calculating statistics inaccurately. Calculating something as arbitrary as someone's "error rate" is much more inaccurate. Different labs and individuals have different methodologies. And calculating one for the country or for a whole lab even, as some have proposed, simply does not assess my error rate. On your page Charles, you correctly say "although unquantifiable, is probably very small." I cannot consider anything "unquantifiable" in my calculations. I will always admit that there was some possibility of an error, but that it simply cannot be reliably calculated. Jeff Sailus -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:42 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: The myth of fingerprints:uniqueness At 11:13 AM 5/24/01 +1000, Bentley Atchison wrote: I would have thought that Charles' latter proposition is the relevant one. That is "assume that the prosection has the wrong man" and estimate the probability of the evidence (denominator of the likelihood ratio). Hi Bentley, It does seem like a relevant question, but not withstanding the phrase "that is", you have changed horses. Previously you asked "what is the probability that the crime sample actually has the profile" of the suspected donor. Given that the profile frequency is 1/90 billion, that the chance of contamination causing a false positive is 1/million, and assuming that the suspect is innocent, I noted that the answer is 1/90000. But now you propose a different question: What is the probability that the crime sample will appear to match the profile, assuming that the suspect is innocent. The answer different too; it is almost exactly 1/million -- i.e. it is essentially the error chance, and contrary to naive assumption is not equal to the profile frequency. In short, your new suggestion -- in effect, to look at the likelihood ratio (based on the probability of an apparent match, which is the real-world situation, rather than an actual match, which is less relevant) -- seems to be the right approach in order to make the desired pedagogic point. I assumed that your original approach was an effort to make the point without recourse to talking about likelihood ratios. I didn't want to say categorically that that's impossible, but it seems hard. If I was on the jury and was told (to quote) "the chance the crime sample has the same profile " is 1/90000 I would find this more than slightly interesting. You are quoting rather carelessly. The context of that quote is that the suspect is assumed to be innocent. To mirror your own argument "If we assume the prosecution has the right man" then presumably we don't need any DNA testing. also if we assume the prosecution has the wrong man, we don't need any statistics. So you should not find them interesting. Your last sentence is particularly interesting as there seems to be an idea that if we test more and more loci (15 now proposed) then we become more and more certain. My last sentence was If the idea is to make the point that the chance of an error, small as it is, nonetheless vastly dominates and overwhelms the random match probability, maybe a different question is necessary. I hope if you read it again you won't think that I missed your intended point. Click to "laboratory error" on http://dna-view.com/profile. htm and see if you don't agree that we're on the same page. Best regards, Charles From MajorDomo Thu May 31 09:45:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA11490 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ares.idirect.com (ares.idirect.com [207.136.80.180]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11485 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cr525847a (on-tor-unv-ap3-44-23.look.ca [216.154.36.166]) by ares.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06778 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: From: "Deb" To: Subject: Thanks and more info request Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:46:49 -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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1376 Thanks to everyone who responded to my question regarding the Chicago morgue. The information I received was very helpful and am in the process of fine-tuning my autopsy scene. I do have some more questions that I hope someone will have answers to. In my story, in the course of the autopsy, the ME finds several hairs on the victim's clothing. The hair is a differnt color (brown, and the victim's is blonde) so he makes the assumption that it isn't hers. Now to work the evidence into my story, they will discover that it is "synthethic" or from a wig. I'm using the assumption that a synthetic wig is cheaper than one made from human hair. My questions are as follows: 1)how will it be determined that the hair is from a wig? Do they determine it at the time of the autopsy by looking under a microscope or do they send it to a lab for processing? 2) if they look under a microscope - what would the hair look like as compared to a human hair? What physcial characterisitics would the hair from a wig have? 3) How long typically would the wait for lab results be (if it does have to go to a lab)? 4) Would the police be able to track the hair to a wig manufacturer? If yes, how would they do that? It doesn't really matter to my story if the hair is synthetic, as long as it originates from a wig. Any information would be greatly appreciated! Regards, Debbie From MajorDomo Thu May 31 14:54:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA14182 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.nist.gov (email.nist.gov [129.6.2.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14177 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:54:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goodpaster (h179112.nist.gov [129.6.179.112]) by email.nist.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA16175 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010531100530.00a35990@mailserver.nist.gov> X-Sender: jgoodpas@mailserver.nist.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:54:23 -0400 To: Forensic Science Mailing List From: John Goodpaster Subject: Standard Reference Materials in Forensic Science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3403 Greetings to the List, I am a relatively new employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who is charged (along with others) to develop standard reference materials (SRMs) which may be of benefit to the forensic science community. I would be quite interested to hear the opinions of those who are active practitioners in the field as to the benefit of existing standards as well as needs for new standards. Briefly (and I quote the SRM web site): "Through the SRM Program, NIST provides more than 1200 different SRMs that are certified for their specific chemical or physical properties. SRMs are used for three main purposes: - to help develop accurate methods of analysis (reference methods); - to calibrate measurement systems; - and to assure the long-term adequacy and integrity of measurement quality assurance programs." That being said, there are a number of SRMs made by NIST which may have utility to forensic scientists. These include: - Blood Alcohol Determinations - SRM 1828a Ethanol-Water Solution - Drugs of Abuse (in freeze-dried urine) - SRM 1507b THC-9-COOH SRM 1508a Benzoylecgonine SRM 2382 Morphine Glucuronide SRM 8444 Cotinine SRM 1511 Benzoylecgonine, Morphine, Codeine, THC-9-COOH, Phencyclidine SRM 2381 Morphine and Codeine - DNA Profiling (solid forms) - SRM 2390 DNA Profiling Standard (RFLP) SRM 2391a PCR-Based DNA Profiling SRM 2392 Mitochondrial Sequencing - Glass (powder and solid forms) - SRM 610 Trace Elements in Glass SRM 621 Soda-Lime Container SRM 1411 Soft Borosilicate Glass SRM 1412 Multicomponent Glass SRM 1872 Synthetic Glass SRM 1873 Synthetic Glass IN PROGRESS: NIST is becoming more interested in producing SRMs which are "real world" samples yet are well characterized and can fulfill the role of a reference material. Towards that end, current projects at NIST include: A) Drugs of Abuse in Hair B) Genetic Markers in the Human Y Chromosome C) Organic Additives in Smokeless Powder So, bringing this message full circle, I have two main questions for which I am soliciting feedback: 1) Do the existing standards (provided by NIST or other sources) adequately assist practitioners of forensic science in the three functions outlined above (e.g., method development, calibration, and quality assurance)? 2) Are there other standards which NIST could provide which would better meet these needs or address those that are not well satisfied? Thank you for your time and patience and I welcome your thoughts! Sincerely, John Goodpaster P.S. I would refer those seeking more information to three main sources: 1) The SRM program at http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/232/232.htm 2) NIST activities in law enforcement (the Office of Law Enforcement Standards) at http://www.eeel.nist.gov/810.02/index.html 3) E-mailing me personally and I can do my best to answer your question(s) and/or refer you to someone who can. **************************************************************************** ********************** John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. phone: (301) 975-3142 Analytical Chemistry Division FAX: (301) 977-0685 National Institute of Standards and Technology e-mail: john.goodpaster@nist.gov 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8392 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8392 **************************************************************************** ********************** From MajorDomo Thu May 31 23:44:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id XAA17136 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.inland.net (ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA17131 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 23:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from user (iii-pm3-1-16.inland.net [209.85.112.31]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14562 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008301c0ea4e$3f203d40$1f7055d1@inland.net> From: "M. Horton" To: Subject: email address Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 20:52:14 -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 Content-Length: 260 I seem to have misplaced an email address and hope that someone on the list can help. I'm looking for the email address of Pattie Lough of the San Diego Police Dept. If I remember correctly, Pattie might even be on this list. Thanks in advance, Mike Horton