From daemon Tue Apr 1 13:38:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h31IcjP22916 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h31IciP22910 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:38:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:38:44 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h31IciP22911 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 11204 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:57:41 -0600 From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: Basten Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) I guess someone has to say this, and I've been waiting for it but it hasn't appeared so far. This CSI show does not depict Forensic Science. It does show a group of Cops, with guns and badges, running around in $80,000 vehicles, processing crime scenes without any regard for proper procedure, and then, majically determining who the killer is. When they do need a Scientific answer, who do they turn to? The young guy with the crazy hair, who is portrayed as the modern nutty professor type. I have no big problem with these shows. I realize that it's entertainment. However, it does send the wrong message to the public. I get the same questions every day, when someone finds out what I do for a living. We all know what those are. But let's not think that this show is going to help with true laboratory Forensic Science. It might get fancier police cars, and better computers, but try getting a new GC-MS of an FT-IR system. These thing are out of sight and out of mind. Just my 2 cents. Phil Aviles -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0800 From: Greg Laskowski To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Robert, Although I have a bias towrds CSI, I must say thre are some positive effects due to the show. Because of its national and international recognition, members of Congress are more aware of the existence of forensic science, thus more grant funding has been made available to crime labs. the show's star and producer, william Petereson has testified before Congress about the nedd of funding for crime laboratories. One probably can thank him in some small way for the LFLIP grants. Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more "visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I see more positive than negative. More people in the high school are becoming interested in science as a result of the show. I see this whenver I gicve apresentation to a class or an organization. Students and the general public at large question things that they see in an episode. This questioning tells me that they are interested and just don't swallo for consumtion everything that the series depicts in a particular episode. Some service organizations that have speakers from our laboratory are interested in some of the needs of the laboratory. If the clubs such as the Rotary, Kiwanas, and Lions might consider contributing toward a GCMS or SEM/EDX, in't that a good thing? Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this profession in a positive light. It is a televison drama not a docudrama or documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. For the purist among you, all I can recommend is that you take the show with a grain of salt. Look to the positve, if you can. People now are interestee in what you do, how you do it, and generally feel that you are heros in protecting citizens and protecting their rights. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/31 11:58 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Wed Apr 2 00:56:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h325uZm05742 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 00:56:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ux12.cso.uiuc.edu (ux12.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.106]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h325uY605736 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 00:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.uiuc.edu (grenada.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.69]) by ux12.cso.uiuc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h325uUJx024025 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:56:30 -0600 (CST) X-WebMail-UserID: mmulawka@students.uiuc.edu Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 23:56:25 -0600 From: "M. Mulawka" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00003242, 00002221 Subject: career advice?? Message-ID: <3EB26318@webmail.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Infinite Mobile Delivery (Hydra) SMTP v3.62.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 642 Hello everyone, I'm new to the list :) I'm actually kind of embarassed to ask this because I should already know by now, but I'm doing my bachelor's degree right now in Molecular and Cellular Biology and I want to pursue forensic pathology. I haven't looked into it too much, but I'm not sure exactly what schooling I have to go through...I know I need an MD but do I then need to get a masters in forensics??I know that I'm supposed to have it all planned out, but I'm trying to graduate in 3 years and I just haven't found the time. I would very greatly appreciate it if anyone would drop some suggestions...:) Mary-Ann Mulawka From daemon Wed Apr 2 07:50:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h32Cox610515 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (bay1-f34.bay1.hotmail.com [65.54.245.34]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h32Cow610509 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:50:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:50:59 -0800 Received: from 204.110.99.42 by by1fd.bay1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:50:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.110.99.42] X-Originating-Email: [mottz68@hotmail.com] From: "Christopher D'Amato" To: tfrench@cmpd.org, pennycrazy@msn.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Not CSI Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 07:50:59 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2003 12:50:59.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[82AEDD90:01C2F916] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1909 The show is extremely entertaining, but I always find myself laughing hysterically because I've yet to see Criminalists processing crime scenes or evidence in the laboratory wearing highly fashionable clothing and low cut, cleavage enhancing shirts. They always seem to find the evidence so quickly too! And since when do Criminalists interrogate suspects???? >From: "French, Tim" >To: "'Alyssa Deinhart'" , Forensic Science List >Subject: RE: Not CSI >Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:58:34 -0500 > > >From what I have seen, the first three are accurate in as far as the case >and the work done. I am not familiar with the last two shows. >They don't however, accurately portray the "usual" case that we work every >day. These shows are portraying the cutting edge technology, the unusual >suspect, the opportunistic manner in which the suspect was caught. They also >portray cases where the lab used an unusual amount of time and resources to >catch a criminal. There are very few labs that have the ability to do this, >and those that do are only able to do this on a very limited basis. What >they show on TV is not done on a daily basis by any means. In their defense, >if they were to show the mundane day-to-day casework, they would be off the >air in two episodes. > > >Tim French >Criminalist II >Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department >Crime Laboratory >704-336-7750 > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > message/rfc822 >--- ------------------------------------------ MSN 8 helps ------------------------------------------ ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. ------------------------------------------ Get 2 months FREE*. ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Wed Apr 2 07:59:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h32CxcB10973 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:59:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (bay1-f135.bay1.hotmail.com [65.54.245.135]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h32Cxa610958 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:59:37 -0800 Received: from 204.110.99.42 by by1fd.bay1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:59:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.110.99.42] X-Originating-Email: [mottz68@hotmail.com] From: "Christopher D'Amato" To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: forwarded message Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 07:59:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2003 12:59:37.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7990CA0:01C2F917] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 12085 I have to agree. I only wish CSI's could drive around in Hummer H2's or GMC Yukons!!! We were lucky to get an old beat up police cruiser. >From: Basten >To: >Subject: forwarded message >Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 13:38:44 -0500 (EST) > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:57:41 -0600 >From: "Aviles, Phil J." >To: Basten >Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) > >I guess someone has to say this, and I've been waiting for it but it hasn't appeared so far. This CSI show does not depict Forensic Science. It does show a group of Cops, with guns and badges, running around in $80,000 vehicles, processing crime scenes without any regard for proper procedure, and then, majically determining who the killer is. When they do need a Scientific answer, who do they turn to? The young guy with the crazy hair, who is portrayed as the modern nutty professor type. I have no big problem with these shows. I realize that it's entertainment. However, it does send the wrong message to the public. I get the same questions every day, when someone finds out what I do for a living. We all know what those are. But let's not think that this show is going to help with true laboratory Forensic Science. It might get fancier police cars, and better computers, but try getting a new GC-MS of an FT-IR system. These thing are out of sight and out of mind. J! >ust my 2 cents. > >Phil Aviles > >-----Original Message----- >From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:14 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission >from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0800 >From: Greg Laskowski >To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) > >Robert, > >Although I have a bias towrds CSI, I must say thre are some positive effects due to the show. Because of its national and international recognition, members of Congress are more aware of the existence of forensic science, thus more grant funding has been made available to crime labs. the show's star and producer, william Petereson has testified before Congress about the nedd of funding for crime laboratories. One probably can thank him in some small way for the LFLIP grants. > >Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more "visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I see more positive than negative. > >More people in the high school are becoming interested in science as a result of the show. I see this whenver I gicve apresentation to a class or an organization. Students and the general public at large question things that they see in an episode. This questioning tells me that they are interested and just don't swallo for consumtion everything that the series depicts in a particular episode. Some service organizations that have speakers from our laboratory are interested in some of the needs of the laboratory. If the clubs such as the Rotary, Kiwanas, and Lions might consider contributing toward a GCMS or SEM/EDX, in't that a good thing? > >Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this profession in a positive light. It is a televison drama not a docudrama or documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. > >For the purist among you, all I can recommend is that you take the show with a grain of salt. Look to the positve, if you can. People now are interestee in what you do, how you do it, and generally feel that you are heros in protecting citizens and protecting their rights. > >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> Basten 03/31 11:58 AM >>> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) >From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from > [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] > > >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 >Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) > by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 > for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) >Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) > by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; > Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) >Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov > via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT >Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; > Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) >Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) > id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 >Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> >From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov >To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ > "French, Tim" ] (fwd >Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) >Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" > >I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool >we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, >demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the >supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually >increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased >interest in forensic sciences in academia.) > >I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! > >Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? > >Robert M. Thompson >Firearms and Toolmark Examiner >ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco >355 North Wiget Lane >Walnut Creek, CA 94598 >925-280-3633 Office >925-280-3600 Main Lab >925-280-3601 FAX >Robert.Thompson@atf.gov > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] >Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM >To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member >submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd > > >On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil >miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, >then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. > >On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is >compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," >then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. > >Chris Breyer > >My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe >are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or >mission statement. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >[mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert >Parsons >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member >submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd > >Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who >view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. >On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the >negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, >I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still >almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our >field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession >wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI >(that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based >on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show >portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how >unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the >others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the >poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! > misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to >explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). >I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the >disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show >is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers >would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No >such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? >No, not at all. > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] >Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member >submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd > > >Tim, > >Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a >blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an >ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is >not meant to be taken seriously. > >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "French, Tim" >Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 > > >In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant >says, >"We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is >obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects >of >it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of >technology or >equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". > >I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood >stain. >Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I >endured >before switching the channel yet again. > > >Tim French >Criminalist II >Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department >Crime Laboratory >704-336-7750 > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/mixed > text/plain (text body -- kept) > message/rfc822 >--- > ------------------------------------------ STOP MORE SPAM with ------------------------------------------ the new MSN 8 ------------------------------------------ and get 2 months FREE* ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Wed Apr 2 08:18:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h32DIxv11765 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:18:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h32DIw611759 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:18:36 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA331843A20D@DASMTHGSH666> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: career advice?? Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 07:13:44 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1299 Yes, you need an MD or DO degree, followed by pathology training. Typical path training is AP/CP (anatomic and clinical pathology) for general pathologists, a 4 year program. Most forensic pathologists do this and then take a forensic path residency for another 1 or 2 years. There are combined AP/FP programs which total out at 4 years. A masters in forensic science would be a sidetrack, interesting, but not worth an extra year for a forensic pathologist. Law degrees are much more common. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: M. Mulawka [mailto:mmulawka@students.uiuc.edu] Hello everyone, I'm new to the list :) I'm actually kind of embarassed to ask this because I should already know by now, but I'm doing my bachelor's degree right now in Molecular and Cellular Biology and I want to pursue forensic pathology. I haven't looked into it too much, but I'm not sure exactly what schooling I have to go through...I know I need an MD but do I then need to get a masters in forensics??I know that I'm supposed to have it all planned out, but I'm trying to graduate in 3 years and I just haven't found the time. I would very greatly appreciate it if anyone would drop some suggestions...:) Mary-Ann Mulawka From daemon Wed Apr 2 16:11:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h32LBj125941 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h32LBi625935 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:11:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net (26.new-york-28rh16rt-ny.dial-access.att.net[12.88.215.26]) by mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <2003040221114311100hb2cie>; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 21:11:43 +0000 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 16:11:49 -0500 Subject: Ricin test Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" To: Forens From: "E. J. Wagner" Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 310 Dear List; A while back someone mentioned research being done on a test for the presence of ricin. Does anyone know of any progress made in this regard? Thanks EJ - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Wed Apr 2 17:54:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h32MsQH28933 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:54:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h32MsP628927 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:54:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:54:26 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: career advice?? Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:54:26 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: career advice?? Thread-Index: AcL43PaoZSVUVnE8RPKmBrVg+vjAdwAVfU/A From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h32MsP628928 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1706 You don't need any kind of degree in forensic science. Those degree programs prepare you for Criminalistics, not for forensic pathology. The skill sets needed are largely different. What you need is an undergraduate program that will satisfy the entrance requirements of the med school you want to attend (your current degree program should do it, but check with the med school to make sure and if not, take the extra classes you'll need). Then after getting your MD you will have to complete a residency in anatomical pathology, then a second one in forensic pathology. This will require a total of about 12 years of study, including your undergrad years. If you can also become board certified in forensic pathology, that will be a big plus for your job prospects. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: M. Mulawka [mailto:mmulawka@students.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 00:56 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: career advice?? Hello everyone, I'm new to the list :) I'm actually kind of embarassed to ask this because I should already know by now, but I'm doing my bachelor's degree right now in Molecular and Cellular Biology and I want to pursue forensic pathology. I haven't looked into it too much, but I'm not sure exactly what schooling I have to go through...I know I need an MD but do I then need to get a masters in forensics??I know that I'm supposed to have it all planned out, but I'm trying to graduate in 3 years and I just haven't found the time. I would very greatly appreciate it if anyone would drop some suggestions...:) Mary-Ann Mulawka From daemon Thu Apr 3 17:39:40 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h33Mdem26036 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:39:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h33MdZ626030 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:39:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:39:36 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Tuesday Humor Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:39:35 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Tuesday Humor Thread-Index: AcL1udBbl8l9SnRLRRS/UG6pv1R46AB2QepQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h33Mdd626031 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8755 Pete, Bravo, I agree with all you said, but release of the information wasn't the issue here, it was the subpoena's demand that the criminalist keep the release of evidence and documentation secret from the entire rest of his organization, the prosecution, and the submitting agency. One, that's impossible - no lab employee can transfer evidence outside the lab without anyone else knowing (if they could, the lab would have a serious evidence security problem). They have to follow the chain of custody procedures, which include logging the evidence out and recording the transfer. That involves more than one person, and the record of the transfer would be in the evidence tracking system where everyone could see it. Second, labs don't "own" the evidence they are in possession of - it "belongs" to the agency that submitted it. We can't transfer it anywhere (or destroy it) without the permission of the agency, or if in compliance with a court order, without at least notifying them. They have to account for their evidence too, so they have to know where it is at all times. Third, it violates discovery laws in most jurisdictions to keep the transfer of evidence and files secret. Attorneys on each side have a right to know what was provided to the other side by a public agency. The judge who signed that order obviously needs some remedial education (which has begun with his "secrecy" order being overturned). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 00:55 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Tuesday Humor We should stop and think for a moment about "discovery" as it applies to forensic science. Science is a public business and the way a scientist works is to provide the material which enables other scientists to evaluate whatever conclusions or opinions the scientist has to offer on a particular subject. The presumption under which science operates is one of openness and full disclosure. Certain exceptions are made when there are over riding reasons to do so: National security, proprietary business information, and, quite recently, concerns for privacy. Anglo-American jurisprudence, on the other hand, operates from a diametrically opposed perspective: Each contestant in the adversarial system has some rhetorical ammunition to use when the battle is joined in the courtroom. The assumption is that this ammunition is privileged, confidential, work product that goes not need to be divulged until, and unless, the shots are fired. Just as scientists have developed some rules that provide exceptions to the default of full disclosure, lawyers have developed some rules that provide exceptions to the default of privileged work product. As a forensic scientist, we should consider what science requires in the way of disclosure, and not rely on what lawyers tell us to do. We don't allow lawyers to tell us how many amplification cycles to run for our PCR reactions, what the GC run conditions should be, or what constitutes an identification when comparing two fingerprints or two fired bullets. Those are science questions that scientists have the responsibility to answer. Neither should we let the lawyers tell us what information we should supply to another scientist who wants to review our report. Forensic scientists should develop a discovery rule that can be applied to the disclosure of information from the forensic science laboratory. I believe it is quite simple: All data necessary for a scientific peer review of a forensic science report shall be available to those who would like to review that report. Pete Barnett At 08:06 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >Greg, > >Interesting. We occasionally get the incompetent judge on one of our >local benches too (a consequence of having elected judicial positions - >the public not always being the best "judge" of professional abilities or >qualifications), but after being embarrassed a few times they soon shape >up or ship out. I was surprised by the other list member who replied that >he actually had to comply with an order like yours. It would never stand >up to review here. > >Have a great weekend. > > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 18:15 >To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: RE: Tuesday Humor > > >Bob, > >The order was signed by a judge. It, however violated a section of the >California Penal Code because it requires all discovery to be made through >the District Attorney's Office, and it violated an amendment to the >California State Constitution regarding reciprocal discovery by the >prosecution. In any event, the discovery order was withdrawn. > >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > >>> "Robert Parsons" 03/28 3:03 PM >>> >ROFLOL! Good one, Greg. > >Do your courts really support such subpoenas? We get some outrageous >subpoenas too, as I'm sure everyone does. As we all know, subpoenas may >technically carry the authority of the courts, but no judge ever sees them >(much less approves them) unless they are challenged. They are requested >by attorneys and issued by the Clerk of the Court without any judicial >review, so that makes them ripe for attempted abuse. That doesn't mean >they have to be put up with. New attorneys especially seem to suffer from >the delusion that subpoenas are an order from God. They must have slept >through the part where they were taught that any court order can be >challenged and need not be complied with until a judge rules on the >challenge. They really hate it when witnesses know their rights and >refuse to be bullied. In my state, subpoenas can be issued by attorneys >without any action by the court at all (not even by the Clerk of the Court >- the attorneys can draft and issue them themselves, ! >on their own authority as officers of the court), so attorneys often ask >for the moon and are sometimes amazed when they are refused. My response >to the "contempt of court" threat is "Well, you can TRY, but if you haul >me into court I'll simply tell my side and you'll lose because your >request is unreasonable - so if you want to waste your time, knock >yourself out buddy! On the other hand, if you want to be reasonable then >I'll be happy to try to accommodate you. The choice is yours." > >The one I see the most often is when they ask for copies of copyrighted >publications (like instrument manufacturers' operating manuals), and I >tell them that Federal copyright law prohibits me from complying with >their request - but I'll be happy to tell them where they can buy a copy >for themselves from the publisher! The look on their faces is >hilarious. Another interesting reaction is when I tell them the >statutorily authorized charge for copying the hundreds of pages of data, >SOPs, proficiency data, etc., that they've asked for. For some reason, in >both cases they immediately lose interest. I wonder why? Could it have >been a spurious request? Nah, they'd never make requests just to harass >us, would they? ;-) > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Indian River Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] >Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:57 >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Tuesday Humor > > >The other day, we received a signed court order from defense counsel >requesting us to ship some evidence in addition to a copy of the notes and >report. There was a catch however, the person complying with the order >was not to inform any other criminalists, or clerical staff, the >prosecuting attorney, or the original submitting law enforcement agency >that had possession of the evidence what was being done with the evidence >and where it was going. we were also informed that noncompliance with the >court order would be met with a contempt of court citation. Does anyone >have s special super secret ops criminalist (SSSOC) on staff in their >lab? What do they look like? > >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 From daemon Thu Apr 3 17:41:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h33MfHn26129 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h33MfG626119 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:16 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Not CSI Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:15 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Not CSI Thread-Index: AcL2jocfgZjNGmnNRK2Z6uopBB3IkABB1PLA From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Forensic Science List" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h33MfG626120 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1791 They are far more realistic than CSI, but take them with a grain of salt also. They take many shortcuts and make many oversimplifications in the name of time and ratings (i.e., the shows are too short to cover the science well and also cover the police investigation, trial and case outcome, and they are wary of too much technicality becoming boring so they try to gloss over some things and spice up others). They also make many technical errors because none of them have a forensic scientist on staff to review their scripts. Some do have consultants they ask questions of (one of their producers used to ask questions on this list), but the problem is they often don't recognize when they need to ask a question or what the right question to ask is - so they often think they have it right when they don't. That said, you can actually learn something about forensic science watching those shows, instead of merely being entertained with fiction (as on CSI). Just don't take all the details as gospel. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Alyssa Deinhart [mailto:pennycrazy@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 02:32 To: Forensic Science List Subject: Not CSI Hi, Inspired by all the discussion of the program CSI, I was curious to find out what all you think about the shows involving real cases such as: Forensic Files, New Detectives, FBI Files, I Detective, The System and others of the nature. How accurate do you see those shows as? Are they remotely related to the type of work that actually occurs in the forensic field? Alyssa --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Apr 3 17:41:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h33MfqR26307 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h33Mfp626293 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:51 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] (fwd) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:41:49 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] (fwd) Thread-Index: AcL2VEQCpCjKG8OUT62/zmEJrjI8vABVifYA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h33Mfp626294 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4842 Here are some web sites you may find useful in your research: NIJ Drugs and Crime Facts http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/contents.htm Columbia University's national center on drug abuse http://www.casacolumbia.org/ NCJRS club drugs site http://www.ncjrs.org/club_drugs/club_drugs.html National Institute on Drug Abuse http://www.nida.nih.gov/ NIDA club drugs site http://www.clubdrugs.org/ DEA home page http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ Drug Free America Foundation http://www.dfaf.org/home.htm Monitoring the Future (students and drugs) http://monitoringthefuture.org/ National Drug Intelligence Center http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/index.htm Emory University's National Families in Action http://www.emory.edu/NFIA/index.html Office of National Drug Control Policy http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ The Anti-Drug Campaign http://www.theantidrug.com/ SAMHSA's National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information http://www.health.org/ Project Know http://www.projectknow.com/ UN Drug Control Program http://www.undcp.org/index.html Web of Addictions http://www.well.com/user/woa/ Addiction Medicine Forum (discussion group for recovering addicts - provides some interesting insights into user's attitudes) http://www.medhelp.org/perl6/addiction/wwwboard.html Join Together http://www.jointogether.org/home/ Schaffer Drug Policy Library (warning - a pro-drug-legalization site. Makes a half-hearted attempt at presenting balanced views on the issue. The site itself freely mixes factual information with distortions and propaganda, but still provides a wealth of useful information and links to much more; also provides insights into the drug-legalization movement's strategies and arguments. Browse with a discerning eye.) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/index.htm The Psychedelic Library (warning - also a pro-drug-use site, but with interesting information on the history of hallucinogenic drugs) http://www.psychedelic-library.org/ Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 19:31 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["lynn" ] >From forens-owner Sat Mar 29 03:06:07 2003 Received: from mailhub.datafast.net.au (mailhub.datafast.net.au [203.123.67.14]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h2T866608230 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 03:06:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 50941 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2003 08:05:38 -0000 Received: from dialup-1-073.melbournepwrtl2.dft.com.au (HELO max) (203.123.89.73) by mailhub.datafast.net.au with SMTP; 29 Mar 2003 08:05:38 -0000 Message-ID: <007701c2f5ca$49072880$49597bcb@max> From: "lynn" To: Subject: Can I have some help please? Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 19:07:46 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Could any of you well informed (I hate the word experts because everyone = yo meet claims to be an expert on something) people out there suggest = some good reading material or sites on specific drugs. I don't mean drug = related crime, that's just the name of my course. I decided to = concentrate on one particular drug, for example opium - but it doesn't = HAVE to be opium) and follow it's progress through history, its effects = on the body, emotions and psychologically and the avenues for rehab and = whether they are successful and if so how successful. I just need a = push start to find proper reading material. And I don't want to be told = like the last young girl who asked the same thing and was told her to = basically do her own research by one miserable individual, kindly not = repeat that advice to me! I am not a the village idiot!! If there were = about 72 hours in the day, I may have time to do that but I am usually = still working at 3am and kinda like a bit of sleep every now and then! = Sorry everyone else - but the person I'm referring to knows who HE is. Thanks a bunch, guys and gals. Lynn from Australia --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Apr 3 18:26:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h33NQut27920 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h33NQr627914 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:26:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:26:54 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:26:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Thread-Index: AcL37DqjHVqYw2zdTZWW0jy/9OvEnQCI3vsA From: "Robert Parsons" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h33NQs627915 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 14417 Greg, I don't disagree with too much of what you say below, but a few things: >Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more >"visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis >of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may >want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad >thing? It is if the "something" they are looking for is unnecessary, inappropriate, or entirely fictional. Much of the "scientific" procedures portrayed on this show fit into one of these categories, so then we have to explain why the real world is different from what they "learned" about forensic science by watching TV, instead of focusing on the legitimate evidence at hand. This is the greatest harm I see. Everything on the show is either oversimplified, exaggerated, or fabricated, so the viewers/prospective jurors get a very warped view of what can, is, or should be done, and how it is properly done. When we say something different (reflecting reality, instead of the show's forensic science fiction), our word then becomes suspect because it isn't what they saw on TV. If they cannot or will not grasp that what they saw on TV was make-believe, it could adversely impact how they view the REAL evidence we present. I think the average juror has enough difficulty understanding some of the complexities of forensic science testimony, and doesn't need to be further confused by fictional forensics on TV. >Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a >director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this >profession in a positive light. It is a television drama not a docudrama or >documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic >science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining >way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. If the "positive light" isn't a realistic light, I believe we are better off without it. The science errors are far from trivial, and the jobs of the characters do not even remotely resemble what we do in real life (how many arrests have you made lately?). The problem is that viewers, while they may question certain things, really do believe that most of what they see is accurate or (as the producers say) "at least plausible," but it's often neither. When they learn as jurors that it isn't as easy or as cut and dried as the show depicts, that positive light can turn dark very easily. They may then feel angry that they were misled, and embarrassed that they were so naive as to believe it, and so may begin to doubt everything anyone tells them about our field, including everything we say on the stand. Without forensic evidence they feel comfortable putting their faith in, they will turn to far less reliable evidence, like eyewitness testimony. Would that be a good thing? Indeed not. For the general public who never become empanelled as jurors, I agree the show probably does more good than harm; but for prospective jurors, I think it does FAR more harm than good. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict which members of the public will fall into which group, and both watch the show. I would be far more comfortable if the positive aspects of publicity for our field came entirely from the documentary programs on cable TV instead of fictional shows like CSI. The documentaries have errors too, but at least they get it mostly right, instead of mostly wrong. Personally, I can't wait until the fad passes and the CSI shows are off the air (although they will probably be on the air for decades in syndicated reruns, long outliving me). If such popular shows could strive to be even a little more realistic, THAT would certainly be a good thing. If our field were more publicly vocal about criticizing the show (instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying "Hey, it's only fictional fun") maybe the producers would start to feel a pressure to be more responsible in their storytelling and take fewer outlandish liberties. After all, they constantly claim to be producing a realistic show "based on real forensic science." If "real" forensic scientists loudly and publicly lambasted the show for it's stunning inaccuracies, putting the lie to the producers' claims, the resulting fall out (embarrassment and perhaps lower ratings) might force them to change. If instead the shows tanked and were cancelled, well, considering things as they are I still think we'd be better off without them. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0800 From: Greg Laskowski To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Robert, Although I have a bias towrds CSI, I must say thre are some positive effects due to the show. Because of its national and international recognition, members of Congress are more aware of the existence of forensic science, thus more grant funding has been made available to crime labs. the show's star and producer, william Petereson has testified before Congress about the nedd of funding for crime laboratories. One probably can thank him in some small way for the LFLIP grants. Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more "visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I see more positive than negative. More people in the high school are becoming interested in science as a result of the show. I see this whenver I gicve apresentation to a class or an organization. Students and the general public at large question things that they see in an episode. This questioning tells me that they are interested and just don't swallo for consumtion everything that the series depicts in a particular episode. Some service organizations that have speakers from our laboratory are interested in some of the needs of the laboratory. If the clubs such as the Rotary, Kiwanas, and Lions might consider contributing toward a GCMS or SEM/EDX, in't that a good thing? Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this profession in a positive light. It is a televison drama not a docudrama or documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. For the purist among you, all I can recommend is that you take the show with a grain of salt. Look to the positve, if you can. People now are interestee in what you do, how you do it, and generally feel that you are heros in protecting citizens and protecting their rights. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/31 11:58 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Thu Apr 3 19:28:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h340SW429008 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:28:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h340SU629002 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:28:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h340Gtwa027807 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 16:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:28:24 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:28:21 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:24:38 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: rparsons@ircc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12920E22824658-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h340SV629003 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2274 Bob, et al., Although I can see the points you make - and you make some good ones - I still don't think that the "average juror" (whatever that means) is going to watch something on CSI or CSI:Miami and not only believe it in its entirety, but remember it _all_ accurately, either. True, they may be likely to say, "y'know, I think I saw something about this on TV not so long ago", or words to that effect, but I don't think they are liable to watch something 'semi-accurate' (to be fair to the show) on CSI and then pitch a fit when what they think they remember in the courtroom isn't exactly like it was on TV. There was a TV show in the UK that ran for years (and may still be running for all I know) called "The Bill". The show centered around police officers at a fictional station and was, according to the show's producers and the constables who watched it, highly accurate and life-like. However, juxtaposed to that was the opinion of those higher-ranking officers, who declared that it was nothing like real life. Who was right, and what did the general public believe 'really happened' in police work? Furthermore, there are a significantly higher number of fictional TV shows dedicated to police work than to the world of forensic science. Do you - and the general public/average juror - believe that what you/they are watching is 'real' police work? I, for one, would be appalled to learn that what happens in shows like "Fast Lane" and "Miami Vice" (to go back a few years) were actually realistic! The same could be said for what movies like "Top Gun" did for Navy - it ain't true and it ain't altogether realistic, but it sure made 'em look good! ;) And I would say again that whilst cop shows that depict "bad cops" may taint the jury pool into thinking that there are more of them out there than there are in reality, so the same may be said of true-life articles that expose the Fred Zains of this world. I would argue that it would be a far worse thing for the general public/average juror if there were fictional shows that showed forensic science in a bad light, than what CSI and CSI:Miami are attempting to do. Just my two cents :) -G. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section From daemon Thu Apr 3 19:45:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h340jum29447 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:45:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay1.mail.twtelecom.net (relay1.mail.twtelecom.net [207.67.10.252]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h340jt629434 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:45:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay1.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B7ABD4F6BC1 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 18:45:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay1.mail.twtelecom.net [207.67.10.252]) with SMTP; 4 Apr 2003 00:31:51 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Thu Apr 03 16:46:16 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:45:49 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:45:01 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h340jt629442 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 17342 Bob, You certainly have taken a dim view of this, but this has not been my experience. Jurors have talked to me after the trial. Some state the y watch CSI, some CSI and all the docudrama cable shows, some just the cable shows. They all have a positive take on the shows. They thirst for details, not what is told to them by the judge or the attorneys. I find jurors tend to be more visual. They take their duty seriously, and I feel that their thinking is generally manipulated by counsel and not the show. They aren't sponges as you make them out to be. Many are able to reason and recognize entertainment for entertainments sake. I'll give you an example. When a firearms or fingerprint expert is on the stand and says they achieved a match. Would you believe them because they are the expert or would you prefer that they demonstrate evidence of the match. I tend to support the latter. Science isn't mysticism or magic, it deals in tangible evidence. Sure it may be difficult to explain why the scene latent or the evidence bullet characteristics don't all agree, but if represented cogently and coherently with out the air of arrogance, juries will generally accept the expert's opinion. And that's what we do when we testify in front of juries. We simplify. we bring in huge blow ups of evidence (exaggerate in a positive sense), hopefully we do not fabricate, but that is the difference between a TV show and real; courtroom testimony. And in my opinion after testifying over a thousand times in many areas of forensic science or criminalistics, it is my opinion that for the most part juries can tell the difference. You sound a bit extreme. I guess we will have to ban Dick Tracey, Dragnet, Adam 12, Law and Order (all three), and Judging Amy because they just might not have that hint of realism you expect. I mean, you are entitled to views. I respect that, but I feel you are painting with an overly broad brush. There are times I shake when the show depicts something wrong, it's generally harmless, and those in the know can tell when that happens. People (general public) that I meet will often ask about those scenes as well, and I tell them. I am happy to explain and often it is because of a visual effect or a short cut because of the director's perogative. I will explain what can be doen and what can be done. They, the public feel that the real experts are just that, and television actors just paly that role. It is important that we are able to discern fantasy from reality. I am of the firm belief that the general public and thjose empaneled on a jury can do just that. I can't say that is the same for certain attorneys. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Robert Parsons" 04/03 3:26 PM >>> Greg, I don't disagree with too much of what you say below, but a few things: >Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more >"visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis >of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may >want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad >thing? It is if the "something" they are looking for is unnecessary, inappropriate, or entirely fictional. Much of the "scientific" procedures portrayed on this show fit into one of these categories, so then we have to explain why the real world is different from what they "learned" about forensic science by watching TV, instead of focusing on the legitimate evidence at hand. This is the greatest harm I see. Everything on the show is either oversimplified, exaggerated, or fabricated, so the viewers/prospective jurors get a very warped view of what can, is, or should be done, and how it is properly done. When we say something different (reflecting reality, instead of the show's forensic science fiction), our word then becomes suspect because it isn't what they saw on TV. If they cannot or will not grasp that what they saw on TV was make-believe, it could adversely impact how they view the REAL evidence we present. I think the average juror has enough difficulty understanding s! ome of the complexities of forensic science testimony, and doesn't need to be further confused by fictional forensics on TV. >Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a >director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this >profession in a positive light. It is a television drama not a docudrama or >documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic >science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining >way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. If the "positive light" isn't a realistic light, I believe we are better off without it. The science errors are far from trivial, and the jobs of the characters do not even remotely resemble what we do in real life (how many arrests have you made lately?). The problem is that viewers, while they may question certain things, really do believe that most of what they see is accurate or (as the producers say) "at least plausible," but it's often neither. When they learn as jurors that it isn't as easy or as cut and dried as the show depicts, that positive light can turn dark very easily. They may then feel angry that they were misled, and embarrassed that they were so naive as to believe it, and so may begin to doubt everything anyone tells them about our field, including everything we say on the stand. Without forensic evidence they feel comfortable putting their faith in, they will turn to far less reliable evidence, like eyewitness testimony. Would that be a good thing? ! Indeed not. For the general public who never become empanelled as jurors, I agree the show probably does more good than harm; but for prospective jurors, I think it does FAR more harm than good. Unfortunately, there is no way to predict which members of the public will fall into which group, and both watch the show. I would be far more comfortable if the positive aspects of publicity for our field came entirely from the documentary programs on cable TV instead of fictional shows like CSI. The documentaries have errors too, but at least they get it mostly right, instead of mostly wrong. Personally, I can't wait until the fad passes and the CSI shows are off the air (although they will probably be on the air for decades in syndicated reruns, long outliving me). If such popular shows could strive to be even a little more realistic, THAT would certainly be a good thing. If our field were more publicly vocal about criticizing the show (instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying "Hey, it's only fictional fun") maybe the producers would start to feel a pressure to be more responsible in their storytelling and take fewer outlandish liberties. After all, they constantly claim to be producing a realistic show "based on real forensic science." If "real" forensic scientists loudly and publicly lambasted the show for it's stunning inaccuracies, putting the lie to the producers' claims, the resulting fall out (embarrassment and perhaps lower ratings) might force them to change. If instead the shows tanked and were cancelled, well, considering things as they are I still think we'd be better off without them. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FLt ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:36:22 -0800 From: Greg Laskowski To: cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Robert, Although I have a bias towrds CSI, I must say thre are some positive effects due to the show. Because of its national and international recognition, members of Congress are more aware of the existence of forensic science, thus more grant funding has been made available to crime labs. the show's star and producer, william Petereson has testified before Congress about the nedd of funding for crime laboratories. One probably can thank him in some small way for the LFLIP grants. Juries are interested in the expert opinions because of the show. they are now more "visual" oriented, and will press us to demonstratein a more vcisual manner the basis of our conclusions. If something isn't done in a case by a laboratory, they may want a more detailed explanation why it hadn't been done. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I see more positive than negative. More people in the high school are becoming interested in science as a result of the show. I see this whenver I gicve apresentation to a class or an organization. Students and the general public at large question things that they see in an episode. This questioning tells me that they are interested and just don't swallo for consumtion everything that the series depicts in a particular episode. Some service organizations that have speakers from our laboratory are interested in some of the needs of the laboratory. If the clubs such as the Rotary, Kiwanas, and Lions might consider contributing toward a GCMS or SEM/EDX, in't that a good thing? Again, I reiterate, the show may depict some technical inaccuracies because a director chooses expedience or production value, it none-the-less casts this profession in a positive light. It is a televison drama not a docudrama or documentary. People that I have met associated with the show want to depict forensic science in a positve light. They have 45 minutes to tell a story, in an entertaining way. They ave done this successfully with both shows, CSI: and C SI Miami. For the purist among you, all I can recommend is that you take the show with a grain of salt. Look to the positve, if you can. People now are interestee in what you do, how you do it, and generally feel that you are heros in protecting citizens and protecting their rights. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/31 11:58 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] >From forens-owner Mon Mar 31 10:32:54 2003 Received: from mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (mx-relay1.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h2VFWs600950 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias5.treas.gov (tias-gw5.treas.gov [199.196.144.15]) by mx-relay1.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id h2VFWrUl003378; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.net.treas.gov by tias5.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.5]) with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 15:32:53 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-3.net.treas.gov (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2VFWlJu009086; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:55 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB101C8B8B5@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: ojbawonga@cox.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[ "French, Tim" ] (fwd Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:30:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" I would like to know, apart from the "CSI Effect" in the potential jury pool we all have to deal with on occasions, has there been any positive, demonstratable effect on our labs as a whole? I mean, has any of the supposedly positive effect that this and other show have garnered, actually increased a lab's budget, personnel, equipment? (Excluding the increased interest in forensic sciences in academia.) I'm not asking in a cynical vein, I truly would like to know! Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: chris breyer [mailto:ojbawonga@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:52 PM To: 'Robert Parsons'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd On a pragmatic level, if the show material is inaccurate enough to foil miscreants' plans to avoid our detection of their criminal evidence, then I can stomach the inane technical misrepresentations. On the other hand, if my job of educating the members of a jury is compounded due to their having bought into the tripe presented on "CSI," then throw the wretched show onto the dungheap of discarded TV dramas. Chris Breyer My apologies to all who eat and enjoy tripe. My views regarding tripe are not necessarily representative of my employer's policies, values, or mission statement. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Parsons Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:52 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Unfortunately, it _is_ taken seriously by most of the general public who view it, because they don't know any better - and that's the problem. On the positive side, the show does highlight our profession; but on the negative, it grossly miseducates the public about that profession. Yes, I know, it's supposed to be entertainment, not educational, but it still almost universally plants a false impression of the realities of our field upon viewers. Every person I meet who finds out my profession wants to ask me about my work because of something they saw on CSI (that's good), but almost without exception what they ask about is based on erroneous information provided by the show. Most think the show portrays our profession accurately, and are amazed when I tell them how unrealistic it really is. Almost every day on this list or one of the others I belong to, some misguided person has to be disillusioned of the poppycock this show foisted upon them. Frankly there is so much! misunderstanding due to this show that I sometimes weary of having to explain the realities to set people straight (I keep trying though). I'm glad for the interest the show sparks, but I resent the disinformation it provides to the public. Knowing how popular the show is, and how many people are inspired by it, you'd think the producers would feel a greater responsibility toward realism and accuracy. No such luck - all they apparently care about is ratings. Surprising, no? No, not at all. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 17:17 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom["French, Tim" ] (fwd Tim, Those that use fluorescein as a blood detection reagent will visualize a blood stain as an intense yellow orange fluorescence when viewed with an ALS. The show is a crime drama that highlights forensic science. It is not meant to be taken seriously. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 03/25 12:26 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "French, Tim" Subject: RE: BOUNCE - plausible? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:53:00 -0500 In the article that the link leads you to, the technical consultant says, "We don't make up the actual forensics, but where we take a cheat is obviously [in] how long it takes to do something. The technical aspects of it are all accurate, so when we represent a particular type of technology or equipment or analysis, it is something that is being done.". I have yet to see an iridescent/aurora when I shine an ALS on a blood stain. Something that I saw on one of the two minute segments of the show I endured before switching the channel yet again. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Fri Apr 4 08:39:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h34Ddcr09212 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.uwe.ac.uk (mercury.uwe.ac.uk [164.11.132.23]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h34Ddb609206 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:39:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from fas-fas533.uwe.ac.uk ([164.11.149.117]) by mercury.uwe.ac.uk (2.0.4/SMS 2.0.4-devel) with SMTP id OAA08429; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:39:24 +0100 (BST) From: "Patton, David" To: Geoff Bruton Cc: rparsons@ircc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:39:29 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (47-uwe) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3220 Geoff - you can still see "The Bill" in the UK. My feeling about TV shows and reality is that one tends to believe the screen unless one knows different. In my case I guess I assumed UK comedy quiz type shows were shown as flimed. Then I read an interview about how the spontaneous quips are re shot until they get it right. We have a show here where prospective dates ask inuendo- laden questions. I have read that the guests are given scipts if they cannot manage spontaneous unimaginative vulgarity. My (rambling) point is that most of us give TV the benefit of the doubt so do not expect the general public to know the difference between CSI and a real lab. Dave On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 16:24:38 -0800 Geoff Bruton wrote: > > Bob, et al., > > Although I can see the points you make - and you make some good ones - I still don't think that the "average juror" (whatever that means) is going to watch something on CSI or CSI:Miami and not only believe it in its entirety, but remember it _all_ accurately, either. True, they may be likely to say, "y'know, I think I saw something about this on TV not so long ago", or words to that effect, but I don't think they are liable to watch something 'semi-accurate' (to be fair to the show) on CSI and then pitch a fit when what they think they remember in the courtroom isn't exactly like it was on TV. > > There was a TV show in the UK that ran for years (and may still be running for all I know) called "The Bill". The show centered around police officers at a fictional station and was, according to the show's producers and the constables who watched it, highly accurate and life-like. However, juxtaposed to that was the opinion of those higher-ranking officers, who declared that it was nothing like real life. Who was right, and what did the general public believe 'really happened' in police work? Furthermore, there are a significantly higher number of fictional TV shows dedicated to police work than to the world of forensic science. Do you - and the general public/average juror - believe that what you/they are watching is 'real' police work? I, for one, would be appalled to learn that what happens in shows like "Fast Lane" and "Miami Vice" (to go back a few years) were actually realistic! The same could be said for what movies like "Top Gun" did for Navy - it ain't true ! ! > and it ain't altogether realistic, but it sure made 'em look good! ;) > > And I would say again that whilst cop shows that depict "bad cops" may taint the jury pool into thinking that there are more of them out there than there are in reality, so the same may be said of true-life articles that expose the Fred Zains of this world. I would argue that it would be a far worse thing for the general public/average juror if there were fictional shows that showed forensic science in a bad light, than what CSI and CSI:Miami are attempting to do. > > Just my two cents :) > -G. > > Geoff Bruton > Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory > Firearms & Toolmarks Section > > ---------------------------------------- Patton, David Email: David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk "University of the West of England" From daemon Fri Apr 4 11:31:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h34GVwI00456 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h34GVu600450 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h34FcpxG003239 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 08:31:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:31:29 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:31:25 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:27:13 -0800 From: "Geoff Bruton" To: David.Patton@uwe.ac.uk cc: rparsons@ircc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-membersubmissionfrom[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12936CEA884765-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h34GVv600451 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2684 Dave, You make a couple of good points - thanks also for the info on "The Bill", and I was amazed to read that "Blind Date" (or its replacement) is still running! Again, though, I would reiterate that whilst the general public may well accept that what they see on television and in movies is pretty accurate, they will not be inclined to remember _exactly_ what happened in the fictional show when they are asked to become a juror. A good example is something I caught whilst watching a re-run of one of the "Dirty Harry" movies (I forget which one, though its the one with David Soul!). In the movie, Eastwood's character suspects that the bad guy may be someone on the police force. Using cunning, he borrows the chap's gun (a revolver) at a shooting competition and "accidentally" misses a target, hitting a wooden door frame. Later, he returns to the range, digs out the bullet with a pen-knife and then slaps it under the comparison microscope with an evidence bullet. Unsurprisingly, our hero then gets a (near) positive identification, and shows it to his Chief, who remarks that it is "not close enough". The revolver in question is also fitted with a silencer during the fatal shootings. The errors here are rampant, but did it really affect the juror's perception as to what _really_ happens in a crime lab? (Not to mention why you would put a silencer on a revolver.) This fleeting glimpse of a crime lab and the sort of analysis that goes on is not accurate - technically or otherwise - but I would still disagree that such a display would taint a juror's mind to the point that he or she thinks they know more than the expert who is testifying because of what they have seen on TV, and might therefore disregard the testimony. I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree! Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Ventura County Sheriff's Department Crime Laboratory Firearms & Toolmarks Section >>> "Patton, David" 04/04/03 05:39AM >>> Geoff - you can still see "The Bill" in the UK. My feeling about TV shows and reality is that one tends to believe the screen unless one knows different. In my case I guess I assumed UK comedy quiz type shows were shown as flimed. Then I read an interview about how the spontaneous quips are re shot until they get it right. We have a show here where prospective dates ask inuendo- laden questions. I have read that the guests are given scipts if they cannot manage spontaneous unimaginative vulgarity. My (rambling) point is that most of us give TV the benefit of the doubt so do not expect the general public to know the difference between CSI and a real lab. Dave From daemon Fri Apr 4 12:23:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h34HN6l01914 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:23:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.117]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h34HN5601908 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:23:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net (184.new-york-29rh15rt-ny.dial-access.att.net[12.88.216.184]) by mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <2003040417230511300a1l2he>; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:23:06 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:23:13 -0500 Subject: Forensic Forum Suny SB Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" , "Forensic Science List" To: "> \"Forensic Science List\"" From: "E. J. Wagner" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <1D7D64E1-66C2-11D7-B60E-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 426 Dear List The Forensic Forum, "Prescription for Poison" at SUNY Stony Brook is TOMORROW, Saturday evening, April 5. at 8. Newsday printed the wrong date in today's paper, unfortunately, and we are trying to clarify. Details are on my website below-under" What's new". EJ - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Fri Apr 4 13:40:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h34IeY204316 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h34IeYZ04310 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:40:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:40:34 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 592 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "Forens-l (E-mail)" Cc: "Kupferschmid, Timothy D" Subject: Crime Scene Software Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:22:50 -0500 We are looking to purchase new crime scene software for diagraming, etc. If anyone has any suggestions, could you please send them to me. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 26 Hospital St. Augusts, ME 04333 P: 207-624-7028 F: 207-624-7123 From daemon Fri Apr 4 14:55:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h34JtYC05995 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h34JtX605979 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id AC7614ED9 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:55:34 -0600 (CST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) with SMTP; 4 Apr 2003 19:41:29 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Fri Apr 04 11:56:01 2003 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:55:35 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:55:09 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: forwarded message Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h34JtX605980 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1243 Gretchen, We use the Crime Zone versoin 6.0 software from the CADZONE. It is fairly easy to use and now has a halfway decent 3D capabilty. Although, for doing realy elegant interior crime scenes I prefer to use something like Sierra's Home Architect. It does lack the ability to put in laser trajectories in 3D mode. Good luck inyour hunt. If you find something better, please let the rest of the list know. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 04/04 10:40 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "Forens-l (E-mail)" Cc: "Kupferschmid, Timothy D" Subject: Crime Scene Software Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:22:50 -0500 We are looking to purchase new crime scene software for diagraming, etc. If anyone has any suggestions, could you please send them to me. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 26 Hospital St. Augusts, ME 04333 P: 207-624-7028 F: 207-624-7123 From daemon Sat Apr 5 09:52:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h35EqNw21873 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f112.pav2.hotmail.com [64.4.37.112]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h35EqM621867 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 09:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 06:52:22 -0800 Received: from 68.50.202.238 by pv2fd.pav2.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 14:52:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [68.50.202.238] X-Originating-Email: [cjmingus@hotmail.com] From: "C. Mingus" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Believing what you see on TV Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 14:52:22 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2003 14:52:22.0628 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6E46A40:01C2FB82] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 710 Just another point to add about people's understanding of procedures based on TV/movies: How many people think police are supposed to read Miranda to those they're arresting at the time they arrest them? I don't watch much TV, but inevitably on shows where suspects are being arrested, they're being given Miranda before they even put them in the squad car to transport them. CJ ------------------------------------------ The new ------------------------------------------ MSN 8: ------------------------------------------ smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Sat Apr 5 15:21:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h35KLa726307 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:21:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h35KLZ626301 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:21:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.154.189.228.dial1.seattle1.level3.net ([64.154.189.228] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 191uAI-0002wm-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 15:21:27 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030405121518.021e08b0@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 12:21:12 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: TV Tainted juries In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 820 A few years back one of our criminalists actually made it all the way through jury selection and onto a jury in a burglary case. The defense attorney was a former prosecutor and probably thought our fellow's expertise might be useful, and the DA of course didn't object. In the jury room, our fellow reports that many of the other jurors wanted to acquit the defendant because the police failed to find any fingerprints at the crime scene, when they KNEW from having watched TV shows that you ALWAYS find fingerprints at burglary scenes. (For those that didn't know, it's actually quite rare.) I offer this true story simply to support my theory that TV shows do influence the jury pool, and that CSI is not helping. I know it's entertainment, but it could be both accurate and entertaining, too. John Houde From daemon Sat Apr 5 16:47:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h35LlS527725 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ux7.cso.uiuc.edu (ux7.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.35]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h35LlR627711 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:47:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from webmail.uiuc.edu (grenada.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.69]) by ux7.cso.uiuc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h35LlQQF002880 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:47:26 -0600 (CST) X-WebMail-UserID: mmulawka@students.uiuc.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 15:47:21 -0600 From: "M. Mulawka" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00003242, 00002221 Subject: mitochondrial dna in forensics Message-ID: <3ED4E5D4@webmail.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Infinite Mobile Delivery (Hydra) SMTP v3.62.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 498 Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows anything about mitochondrial DNA in forensics techniques. I have to do a project on it for my Biology class and we're stuck on researching how the use of mitochondrial DNA will pan out to different fields in the future. We've found a few recent cases where mitochondrial DNA has been used to identify a murder victim or deceased relative, but will it be used in other ways in the future? Any input you have would be helpful. Thanks! Mary Ann Mulawka From daemon Sat Apr 5 17:37:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h35MbUw28468 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 17:37:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe65.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.200]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h35MbT628462 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 17:37:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 14:25:55 -0800 Received: from 66.61.75.204 by OE65.law8.internal.hotmail.com with DAV; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 22:25:54 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Reply-To: "shaun wheeler" From: "shaun wheeler" To: "C. Mingus" , References: Subject: "Believing what you see on TV" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 17:24:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2003 22:25:55.0260 (UTC) FILETIME=[52E287C0:01C2FBC2] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3036 Cecil and List: You wrote - ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. Mingus" > Just another point to add about people's understanding of procedures based on TV/movies: How many people think police are supposed to read Miranda to those they're arresting at the time they arrest them?" Trick question, right? After Miranda, if they were in custody, the warning became mandatory. The presumption of SCOTUS was that custodial confessions were inherently co-ercive, whether or not they actually were or not. It eventually reached such a point that, even with an attorney present, waivers signed, after 48 hours you damn near have to have a judge hearing the confession in open court on videotape with the Vicar of Christ as a witness, before it's considered admissible as evidence. In the original opinion under Miranda, SCOTUS held that while custodial confessions were going to be considered presumptively co-ercive, they left the door open to US Congress to revise the rules of evidence concerning NON-custodial confessions admissibility. As a consequence of this, Rule 3501 was passed in order to secure admissibility of confessions under those circumstances. Then along came US v. Dickerson and US AG Janet Reno. In brief, Dickerson confessed to a series of crimes over the telephone. He was not in custody, through arguably he knew he would eventually be taken into custody. Janet Reno, in her capacity as US Attorney General, ordered not only the US Attorney's Office prosecuting the case to not cite Rule 3501, but she sent out a general edit ordering that no US Attorney cite the rule. Kinda makes you wonder if they changed her oath of office from that of every other US AG, doesn't it? In any event, the Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief citing the rule. The trial court admonished the US Attorney for failing to fufill their duty as a member of the bar and the fight was on. Paul Cassell, who is now a US District judge, argued the case and I thought he might prevail. The Justices allowed him far more time than they did the Solicitor General, but the bottom line is they eventually decided that the Miranda 'Right' had to be administered even if the suspect was not in custody. I guess the 'co-erciveness' of non-custodial confessions renders even the best legal minds legally useless. So, in answer to your question, no, I don't believe you even have to 'cuff them, Danno'. You only need to be ready to question them as a suspect, before the Supreme Court of the United States thinks you have a constitutional obligation to warn them. Paul Cassell wrote a pretty good article on the implications of Miranda that was entitled "Handcuffing the Cops". If Miranda was a pair of handcuffs, Dickerson equates with shackles or a straightjacket. About the only real good out of US v. Dickerson is that Paul was nominated and confirmed to the Federal Bench by our current president. If he's half as good as a judge as he was at being a professor of law, I'm sure he'll do well. Shaun From daemon Sat Apr 5 18:38:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h35NcVS29478 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 18:38:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h35NcU629472 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 18:38:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-64.154.190.173.dial1.seattle1.level3.net ([64.154.190.173] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 191xF1-0001Mw-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 18:38:32 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030405153617.021d90c0@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 15:38:16 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: CAC/NWAFS Joint meeting next week In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030405121518.021e08b0@pop.business.earthlink. net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 301 Hey! A very rare event indeed, the California Association of Criminalists and the Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists will be having their meeting together all next week at the El Dorado hotel (and casino) in Reno. I will be there and if you see me first, introduce yourself! John Houde From daemon Tue Apr 8 16:26:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38KQl229040 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:26:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38KQkg29034 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:26:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: RE: forwarded message (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1202 Please post to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:07:41 -0500 From: "Banning, Steven" To: 'Basten' Subject: RE: forwarded message I've found Visio is easy and has a lot of stencils including crime scenes. It has become a little more expense since Microsoft took over but is still fairly inexpensive. -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "Forens-l (E-mail)" Cc: "Kupferschmid, Timothy D" Subject: Crime Scene Software Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:22:50 -0500 We are looking to purchase new crime scene software for diagraming, etc. If anyone has any suggestions, could you please send them to me. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory 26 Hospital St. Augusts, ME 04333 P: 207-624-7028 F: 207-624-7123 From daemon Tue Apr 8 16:49:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38KniE00011 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from es903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h38Knb600005 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY es903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Tue Apr 08 15:49:32 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:49:32 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: DNA Peer Review Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:49:32 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EBF3@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DNA Peer Review Thread-Index: AcL+EFtiANxUdZSeSmS8VI+wHHLEUQ== From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2003 20:49:32.0526 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B5898E0:01C2FE10] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h38KniF00011 Content-Length: 542 I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, TX 817 877 8083 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Apr 8 16:56:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38KuTV00436 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange02.sdsheriff.org ([199.106.18.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38KuR600430 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:56:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchange02.sdsheriff.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:57:13 -0700 Message-ID: <7BD898E2F2ADD511B85200D0B7B9EC9F03FBCF3B@exchange02.sdsheriff.org> From: "Fink, Marty" To: "'Aviles, Phil J.'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:57:07 -0700 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: 798 Phil, The San Diego Sheriff's Lab does 100% technical review. Marty Fink -----Original Message----- From: Aviles, Phil J. [mailto:Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 1:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DNA Peer Review I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, TX 817 877 8083 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Apr 8 17:01:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38L1Uu00830 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:01:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38L1T600824 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DE3B4D19 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:01:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) with SMTP; 8 Apr 2003 20:47:01 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Tue Apr 08 14:01:50 2003 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:01:23 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:01:04 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: DNA Peer Review Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h38L1T600825 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 884 Phil, The Kern County Regional Crime Laboratory does technical and administrative review on all cases. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Aviles, Phil J." 04/08 1:49 PM >>> I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, TX 817 877 8083 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Apr 8 17:12:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38LC3U01511 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:12:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.doj.ca.gov (mail.doj.ca.gov [167.10.5.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38LC1601505 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HD1N1S00.0TN for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 14:15:28 -0700 Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-MTA by SAHDCGWIA.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:12:00 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 14:11:57 -0700 From: "Keith Inman" To: Subject: Re: DNA Peer Review Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 1.1.14 ; Department of Justic Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1218 California DOJ DNA lab does technical and admin review on all cases. Keith Inman >>> "Aviles, Phil J." 4/8/2003 1:49:32 PM >>> I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, TX 817 877 8083 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ******************************************************************* Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ******************************************************************* From daemon Tue Apr 8 17:13:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38LDr201795 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch011.westchestergov.com (Cow.westchestergov.com [163.151.0.253]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38LDq601789 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exch011.westchestergov.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2GND00F1>; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:13:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" To: "'Fink, Marty'" , "'Aviles, Phil J.'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:13:42 -0400 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: 1563 Phil: 1. 100% technical review is a must according to the FBI audit document ( std. 12.1).So we being a part of CODIS have to have 100% tech. review. 2. We do these reviews prior to release of a report. However if you look at the both the DAB and ASCLD/LAB discussions on this subject, nowhere do either say that the reviews ( admin. or peer ) be conducted before the release of a report. But if you go by the spirit of review requirement I think it's a good idea to do the reviews before release of any report. Bharat Lakhkar Westchester County Forensic Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: Fink, Marty [mailto:Marty.Fink@sdsheriff.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 4:57 PM To: 'Aviles, Phil J.'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review Phil, The San Diego Sheriff's Lab does 100% technical review. Marty Fink -----Original Message----- From: Aviles, Phil J. [mailto:Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 1:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DNA Peer Review I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, TX 817 877 8083 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Apr 8 17:58:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38Lwv303208 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h38Lwu603202 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:58:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WMorris400@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id y.1aa.12b29883 (16930) for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:58:50 -0400 (EDT) From: WMorris400@aol.com Message-ID: <1aa.12b29883.2bc4a01a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:58:50 EDT Subject: Re: detection of drugs in blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10577 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 772 Realizing that the detection of a drug is dependent upon the amount of drug taken orally, is there a rule-of-thumb as to how many half-lives can occur before cocaine, alprazolam, ecstasy, heroin( 6-mam, morphine, codeine) before the parent drug and its metabolites be detected? Also, what are limits of detection by GCMS for these parent drugs and metabolites. As to MDA and MDMA, is there any relationship between amount of MDMA and MDA in blood relating to time of ingestion (generally, hypothetically or practically)? Finally, what are toxic blood concentrations for MDMA and MDA? Thank you in advance for any assistance. Wayne Morris --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Apr 8 18:32:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h38MWON04092 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web20504.mail.yahoo.com (web20504.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.139]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h38MWN604086 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:32:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030408223223.37020.qmail@web20504.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20504.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:32:23 PDT Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:32:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: DNA Peer Review To: "Aviles, Phil J." , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EBF3@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1140 The Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory (Oakland, CA) does technical and admin review on all cases prior to release of information (either by report or telephonically). DNA cases follow that policy. Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 --- "Aviles, Phil J." wrote: > I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm > trying to find out how many labs require peer review > of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of > reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please > respond privately if you wish, or call. This info > is extremely important, and any responses will be > greatly appreciated. Thanks > > Phil Aviles > Crime Lab Supervisor > Fort Worth Police Dept. > Fort Worth, TX > 817 877 8083 > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Apr 9 14:16:58 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h39IGwo22354 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:16:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h39IGt622348 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:16:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B94627B1; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:39:41 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.255.84]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:39:43 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3E944CAE.A6B866CF@vsnl.net> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 22:09:11 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Near Drowning Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2434 Dear List, One of my former students has asked the following query. I shall be personally obliged if someone could help him. His Email ID is nikhil@spandan.com His mail verbatim is: *********** It's Nikhil, from Spandan.com. How's things? I haven't been in touch with you for a long time... I write today wondering if you can help me with a research project of mine. I have to do a literature review on Near-drowning, basically a summary of all the evidence that exists about managing a patient of near-drowning who presents to the emergency department. So I cover topics like the epidemiology, common causes, pathogenesis, resuscitation, etc. and quote high-quality articles published in the literature about the same. It's an informal review only for presentation in our small class. Every student has to do one of these every year on a different topic, and my topic this year was drowning. Could you point me to a few sources that have a similar review so I could draw on their references? Thanks in advance, Nikhil *********** Many thanks for your help. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *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 daemon Thu Apr 10 11:46:27 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3AFkR513431 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:46:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3AFk8613425 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:46:10 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: QA standards for drug ID Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:46:07 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QA standards for drug ID Thread-Index: AcL/eB2eiXjYZmtGEdeHQgABA+kqaA== From: "Robert Parsons" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" , "TIAFT Listserv (E-mail)" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h3AFkR613431 Content-Length: 1521 I would like to survey the drug analysts, toxicologists, and QA/QC managers who are chemists among our list membership to explore the range of practices used for drug ID. First, which one of the following alternatives does your lab _require_ for confirmation of a drug ID for reporting purposes? Second, which one of them, in your professional opinion, do you personally think is the minimum _necessary_ to rely on for identification? Finally, please discuss why you feel this is the minimum, and why the other options are either inadequate or unnecessary. 1. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard run contemporaneously with the unknown (i.e., in the same sequence/batch run) 2. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard previously run on the same instrument and stored in hard copy or in an on-line user library 3. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard published in a recognized reference work (e.g., Mills & Roberson, Clarke's, etc.) In all cases, assume that all comparisons are made by a chemist who personally compares the spectra and matches the ion peaks visually, NOT by relying solely on automated library search algorithms. Any and all answers will be appreciated, thanks. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef --- From daemon Thu Apr 10 12:26:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3AGQ8G14437 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3AGQ7614431 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:26:08 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: QA standards for drug ID Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QA standards for drug ID Thread-Index: AcL/eB2eiXjYZmtGEdeHQgABA+kqaAABSI1g From: "Robert Parsons" To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" , "TIAFT Listserv (E-mail)" X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h3AGQ8H14437 Content-Length: 2196 I forgot to include one more question: Would your requirement be different if you did NOT use the retention time data as part of your confirmation data (i.e., if you instead used another analytical method for your second test, e.g., UV, TLC, etc.), so that the mass spectrum was the only data produced by the GC/MS that was being used for identification purposes? Thanks again. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:46 To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail); TIAFT Listserv (E-mail) Subject: QA standards for drug ID I would like to survey the drug analysts, toxicologists, and QA/QC managers who are chemists among our list membership to explore the range of practices used for drug ID. First, which one of the following alternatives does your lab _require_ for confirmation of a drug ID for reporting purposes? Second, which one of them, in your professional opinion, do you personally think is the minimum _necessary_ to rely on for identification? Finally, please discuss why you feel this is the minimum, and why the other options are either inadequate or unnecessary. 1. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard run contemporaneously with the unknown (i.e., in the same sequence/batch run) 2. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard previously run on the same instrument and stored in hard copy or in an on-line user library 3. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard published in a recognized reference work (e.g., Mills & Roberson, Clarke's, etc.) In all cases, assume that all comparisons are made by a chemist who personally compares the spectra and matches the ion peaks visually, NOT by relying solely on automated library search algorithms. Any and all answers will be appreciated, thanks. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef --- From daemon Thu Apr 10 16:08:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3AK8xu20135 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:08:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mn.us (state.mn.us [156.99.125.109]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3AK8v620129 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:08:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us by mail.state.mn.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:08:52 -0500 Received: by dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2G4BKWLT>; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:05:20 -0500 Message-Id: <384D84AED5DB0E47A62C04FC4CF719746ABCE9@dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us> From: "Grunwald, Eric" To: "'Forens'" Subject: RE: QA standards for drug ID Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:05:15 -0500 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: 3882 Bob (and list), Our lab uses Method 2, outlined below. To make an 'identification' we have to have run the standard for that compound on the instrument we used for the unknown. We have electronic and hard copy versions of our lab created libraries for each instrument. Personally, I think Method 3 should be the minimum, although I know not everybody (including some in my lab) would agree. My view is that EI libraries for common drugs of abuse are 'standardized' fairly well and that the chemistry ought to be the same from lab to lab (or else we are in serious trouble). (I will also admit though that it does give me some sense of security to go into court and say, "Yes, the standard for that compound was run on this particular instrument.") In cases when we don't have a standard for direct comparison, and rely on references, we tend to report our results as "consistent with ..." or "apparent... (not confirmed due to lack of appropriate standard)". Would my response be different if we did not use retention times? It's hard to say because until recently, we didn't use the retention time data (scary, I know). In almost all cases our 2nd 'analytical' technique is a color test. The only time we use retention times regularly is when the compound of interest happens to be in our check standard mix (which is fairly routinely since most of our samples are methamphetamine and cocaine) that gets run on a regular basis. When we get a 'weird' sample (i.e. compound not in the check standard mix) we do not routinely run the standard to check the R.T., we go by the spectrum alone (and any color test results). Obviously if more work was required to satisfy the scientist, it would be done. Hope this answers your questions, Eric Eric Grunwald MN BCA For. Sci. Lab. St. Paul, MN -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:46 To: FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail); TIAFT Listserv (E-mail) Subject: QA standards for drug ID I would like to survey the drug analysts, toxicologists, and QA/QC managers who are chemists among our list membership to explore the range of practices used for drug ID. First, which one of the following alternatives does your lab _require_ for confirmation of a drug ID for reporting purposes? Second, which one of them, in your professional opinion, do you personally think is the minimum _necessary_ to rely on for identification? Finally, please discuss why you feel this is the minimum, and why the other options are either inadequate or unnecessary. 1. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard run contemporaneously with the unknown (i.e., in the same sequence/batch run) 2. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard previously run on the same instrument and stored in hard copy or in an on-line user library 3. Unknown mass spectrum compared to mass spectrum of a drug standard published in a recognized reference work (e.g., Mills & Roberson, Clarke's, etc.) In all cases, assume that all comparisons are made by a chemist who personally compares the spectra and matches the ion peaks visually, NOT by relying solely on automated library search algorithms. I forgot to include one more question: Would your requirement be different if you did NOT use the retention time data as part of your confirmation data (i.e., if you instead used another analytical method for your second test, e.g., UV, TLC, etc.), so that the mass spectrum was the only data produced by the GC/MS that was being used for identification purposes? Thanks again. Any and all answers will be appreciated, thanks. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/ms-tnef --- From daemon Mon Apr 14 02:44:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3E6iBc24397 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 02:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f87.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.21.87]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3E6iA624391 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 02:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:41:57 -0700 Received: from 24.165.38.27 by lw14fd.law14.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 05:41:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.165.38.27] X-Originating-Email: [daredevil034@hotmail.com] From: "Michael Murdock" To: bnl1@westchestergov.com, Marty.Fink@sdsheriff.org, Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 19:41:57 -1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2003 05:41:57.0277 (UTC) FILETIME=[8FF784D0:01C30248] Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2396 Who is qualified to performing the technical reviews of the reports within the lab if the report was completed by the "technical leader" within the DNA lab? Thanks Michael >From: "Lakhkar, Bharat" >To: "'Fink, Marty'" , "'Aviles, Phil J.'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review >Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:13:42 -0400 > >Phil: > >1. 100% technical review is a must according to the FBI audit document ( >std. 12.1).So we being a part of CODIS have to have 100% tech. review. > >2. We do these reviews prior to release of a report. However if you look at >the both the DAB and ASCLD/LAB discussions on this subject, nowhere do >either say that the reviews ( admin. or peer ) be conducted before the >release of a report. But if you go by the spirit of review requirement I >think it's a good idea to do the reviews before release of any report. > >Bharat Lakhkar >Westchester County Forensic Laboratory > >-----Original Message----- >From: Fink, Marty [mailto:Marty.Fink@sdsheriff.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 4:57 PM >To: 'Aviles, Phil J.'; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review > > >Phil, > >The San Diego Sheriff's Lab does 100% technical review. > >Marty Fink > >-----Original Message----- >From: Aviles, Phil J. [mailto:Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 1:50 PM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: DNA Peer Review > > >I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how >many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release >of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if >you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will >be greatly appreciated. Thanks > >Phil Aviles >Crime Lab Supervisor >Fort Worth Police Dept. >Fort Worth, TX >817 877 8083 > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- ------------------------------------------ STOP MORE SPAM with ------------------------------------------ the new MSN 8 ------------------------------------------ and get 2 months FREE* ------------------------------------------ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- text/html (html body -- converted) --- From daemon Mon Apr 14 06:53:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3EArVo27345 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 06:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web14712.mail.yahoo.com (web14712.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.232.92]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3EArT627339 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 06:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030414105331.97754.qmail@web14712.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.19.189] by web14712.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 03:53:31 PDT Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 03:53:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Sliter Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1911 --- Michael Murdock wrote: > > Who is qualified to performing the technical reviews > of the reports within the lab if the report was > completed by the "technical leader" within the DNA > lab? > > Thanks > > Michael Michael, The way it works in my lab is that any other qualified DNA analyst could perform the technical review. The fact that the technical manager performed the actual casework would not change that. In the event that there is a difference of opinion between the technical reviewer and the analyst about the data or interpretation or statistical analysis, then that would need to be resolved according to the lab's policies. For us that would mean discussions between the reviewer and the analyst, possible additional testing or retesting of samples, and bringing other analysts into the discussion for additional points of view. If at the end of the day the analyst and reviewer can't agree, then it would fall to the technical manager to resolve the disagreement. You might imagine that when the technical manager is the primary analyst on a case, there might be a tendency for the reviewer to be less demanding in their review, because of the supervisory relationship. In a good lab system this should not be a problem. The distinction between the technical manager's role as a casework analyst and as the technical manager should be well-understood by everyone involved, including the upper level supervisory staff. All casework, including the technical manager's, should be subjected to rigorous review and audit procedures. And there should be adequate oversight by upper level supervisors to make sure everything is working properly. Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Apr 15 07:51:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3FBp1D24095 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.hosting.bellsouth.net (smtp.hosting.bellsouth.net [205.152.0.153]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3FBp1624089 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from atslab.com ([216.79.108.58]) by smtp.hosting.bellsouth.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-72249L1000S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:51:48 -0400 Received: by atslab.com from localhost (router,slmail V5.1); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:29 -0400 for Received: from [192.168.1.63] [192.168.1.63] by atslab.com [192.168.0.60] (SLmail 5.1.0.4415) with ESMTP id A21CABAE6E6A11D78421009027B0FFE1 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:45:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: estauffer@192.168.0.60 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:51:09 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Eric Stauffer" Subject: Tenax and Thermal Desorption X-SLUIDL: F00D6E9A-6E6911D7-84210090-27B0FFE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 665 Dear List Members, Is there any US crime lab using Tenax as an adsorption media for dynamic headspace concentration followed by thermal desorption? Thanks in advance for your response. Regards, Eric Stauffer -- ____________________________________________ Life May Have A Rear View Mirror But It Doesn't Have a Reverse Gear Eric Stauffer, MS, CFEI Fire and Explosion Investigation Applied Technical Services, Inc. 1190 Atlanta Industrial Drive Marietta, GA 30066 Voice (770) 423 1400 ext. 3053 Fax (770) 424 6415 Toll-free 1 800 544 5117 Email: estauffer@atslab.com http://www.atslab.com ____________________________________________ From daemon Tue Apr 15 14:22:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3FIM1a03588 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mn.us (state.mn.us [156.99.125.109]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3FIM0603582 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us by mail.state.mn.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:22:02 -0500 Received: by dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2G4BL89F>; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:18:25 -0500 Message-Id: <384D84AED5DB0E47A62C04FC4CF719746ABCF2@dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us> From: "Grunwald, Eric" To: "'Forens'" Subject: MS Tuning Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:18:19 -0500 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: 405 I some questions for those routinely using a GC-MS for the analyses they perform (especially for those doing controlled substance analyses)... How often do you "tune" the MS, what kind of "tune" do you do, and why? I know this is kind of vague, but I was hoping people would respond with the specifics for their lab. Thanks, Eric Eric Grunwald Forensic Scientist MN BCA For. Sci. Lab. St. Paul, MN From daemon Tue Apr 15 15:02:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3FJ2EN05729 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3FJ2A605723 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Tue Apr 15 14:02:09 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:02:06 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: DNA Peer Review Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:02:06 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EBFD@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DNA Peer Review Thread-Index: AcMDgYJf9AfoK/tvQxeHoEj7q2Dkxw== From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Apr 2003 19:02:06.0983 (UTC) FILETIME=[82650970:01C30381] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h3FJ2EO05729 Content-Length: 332 I just want to say thank you to all who responded to my question concerning peer review of DNA cases. The information was very helpful and greatly appreciated. Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth, TX --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue Apr 15 15:10:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3FJANS06316 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3FJANw06310 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:10:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:10:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2351 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 08:52:50 +1000 (EST) From: z2281747@octarine.itsc.adfa.edu.au Subject: Re: ricin poisoning Supportive care is the only treatment for Ricin poisoning. There is no prophylactic or anti-dote. EJ you're welcome to email me directly if any further/related info is required. Nial Nial Wheate LEUT N. WHEATE, Royal Australian Navy SO3 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Joint Health Support Agency CP2-6-158A nial.wheate@defence.gov.au -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2003 12:21 Subject: ricin Thank you very much for your response. The topic arose because I was about to present the Markov case ( London 1978) at the Forensic Forum at SUNY, SB ( State University of New York, Stony Brook,) and I wondered what, if any ,progress had been made since then. The diagnosis in Markov, of course, was made only post mortem, with the unwilling assistance of a hapless pig. In the case suspected ricin poisoning, is any treatment other than supportive suggested? EJ On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 02:33 AM, > Not sure if this is helpful or not. > > Specific Laboratory Diagnosis: Based on animal studies, ELISA (for > blood) or > immunohistochemical techniques (for direct analysis of tissues) may be > useful in confirming ricin intoxication. Post-mortem pathologic change > is > route specific: inhalation results in airways lesions; ingestion causes > gastrointestinal haemorrhage with necrosis of liver, spleen and > kidneys; and > intramuscular intoxication causes severe local muscle and regional > lymph > node necrosis with moderate involvement of visceral organs. Ricin is > extremely immunogenic; sera should be obtained from survivors for > measurement of antibody response. > > Our other ways of detecting for ricin (inside and outside the body) are > classified, but are based on antibody tests. > > Nial Wheate > LEUT N. WHEATE, Royal Australian Navy > SO3 Nuclear, Biological, Chemical > Joint Health Support Agency > CP2-6-158A > > > ---- Original Message ---- > From: E. J. Wagner > Date: Thu 4/3/03 7:13 > To: Forens > Cc: E. J. Wagner > Subject: Ricin test > > Dear List; > A while back someone mentioned research being done on a test for the > presence of ricin. > Does anyone know of any progress made in this regard? > > Thanks > EJ > - - - - From daemon Tue Apr 15 15:13:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3FJDFS06692 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3FJDE006686 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:13:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:13:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Hicks, Gretchen D" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1291 I can't remember if I forwarded this message-Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" Subject: RE: DNA Peer Review Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:28:41 -0400 We do 100% tech. and admin. reviews on all cases prior to release of the reports, where another competent analyst exists in the laboratory, that includes DNA. For disciplines with only one trained analyst in the laboratory, we do 10% tech. review and I think 100% admin. review. Gretchen D. Hicks Forensic Chemist II Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: Aviles, Phil J. [mailto:Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 4:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: DNA Peer Review I have a request of the DNA folks out there. I'm trying to find out how many labs require peer review of 100% of their DNA cases, prior to release of reports. I don't want to tie up the list, so please respond privately if you wish, or call. This info is extremely important, and any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Phil Aviles Crime Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, TX 817 877 8083 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed Apr 16 00:30:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3G4Ugw16767 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:30:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3G4Uc616761 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Wed Apr 16 16:30:30 2003 +1200 Received: by kscxchg2.esrit.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:30:29 +1200 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: Contact for Henry Lee Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:41:58 +1200 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: 145 Has anyone got a contact e-mail for Dr Lee? John Buckleton ESR private Bag 92021 Auckland New Zealand Ph +64 +9 8153-904 Fax +64 +9 849-6046 From daemon Wed Apr 16 01:26:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3G5QJJ17681 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:26:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eth.net (smtp14511.eth.net [202.9.145.11] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3G5QG617675 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:26:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by eth.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:57:02 +0530 Received: from chnisi02.eth.net ([202.9.178.3]) by eth.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Wed, 16 Apr 2003 05:27:41 +0530 Received: from 152.14.14.17 by chnisi02.eth.net (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:54:54 +0530 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3FIN6t03648; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:23:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:22:01 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3FIM1a03588 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mn.us (state.mn.us [156.99.125.109]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3FIM0603582 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us by mail.state.mn.us with ESMTP for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:22:02 -0500 Received: by dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2G4BL89F>; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:18:25 -0500 Message-Id: <384D84AED5DB0E47A62C04FC4CF719746ABCF2@dps-mail1.dps.state.mn.us> From: "Grunwald, Eric" To: "'Forens'" Subject: MS Tuning Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:18:19 -0500 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: 405 I some questions for those routinely using a GC-MS for the analyses they perform (especially for those doing controlled substance analyses)... How often do you "tune" the MS, what kind of "tune" do you do, and why? I know this is kind of vague, but I was hoping people would respond with the specifics for their lab. Thanks, Eric Eric Grunwald Forensic Scientist MN BCA For. Sci. Lab. St. Paul, MN From daemon Wed Apr 16 20:19:12 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3H0JCH07855 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web40904.mail.yahoo.com (web40904.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.201]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3H0JB607849 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030417001912.11744.qmail@web40904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.92.19.234] by web40904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:19:12 PDT Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:19:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Ernie Hamm Subject: Information Request To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 280 Is Dr. Roger J. Davis still with Forensic Science Service? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Apr 17 10:07:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3HE7nE19293 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from red01.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3HE7k619287 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uspis.gov by red01.uspis.gov via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 17 Apr 2003 14:09:30 UT Received: by itcsmtp01.uspis.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:07:23 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Bar-code Evidence Tracking Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:09:20 -0400 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: 729 Dear List, Not wishing to re-invent the wheel and hoping to learn from (especially) the mistakes (but also) the positive experiences of others, I am interested in querying persons who've relatively recently (within the past two years) implemented a bar-code evidence tracking system in their laboratory. Persons who would be willing to answer a brief series of questions detailing your experience with the implementation of such a system are asked to respond to me off-list with your name, phone number and a convenient time to contact you to briefly discuss your experiences. . . including your time zone. Thanks in advance, Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist US Postal Inspection Service Headquarters Laboratory From daemon Thu Apr 17 10:42:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3HEg4920410 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mercury.ucok.edu (mercury.ucok.edu [192.206.65.11]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3HEg2620395 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:42:02 -0400 (EDT) To: "Smith, Stephanie L" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" , owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Bar-code Evidence Tracking MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: RBost@ucok.edu Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 09:41:42 -0500 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on Robert Bost/MSC/UCO(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 04/17/2003 09:42:19 AM, Serialize by Notes Client on Robert Bost/MSC/UCO(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 04/17/2003 09:42:19 AM, Serialize complete at 04/17/2003 09:42:19 AM, S/MIME Sign failed at 04/17/2003 09:42:19 AM: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on Mercury/UCO(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 04/17/2003 09:41:50 AM, Serialize complete at 04/17/2003 09:41:50 AM X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1654 Stephanie, You might contact laboratories that do workplace urine drug testing. Many of these labs have been using bar-coded chain of custody forms and accompanying bar-code labels which are transferred onto the specimen bottles at the time of collection. If you want to let me know where you are located, I would try to identify a lab in your area you could contact. Robert O. Bost, Ph.D., DABFT Director, MS in Forensic Sciences Program Department of Chemistry University of Central Oklahoma Edmond, Oklahoma 73034 (405) 974-5519 "Smith, Stephanie L" Sent by: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu 04/17/2003 09:09 AM To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" cc: Subject: Bar-code Evidence Tracking Dear List, Not wishing to re-invent the wheel and hoping to learn from (especially) the mistakes (but also) the positive experiences of others, I am interested in querying persons who've relatively recently (within the past two years) implemented a bar-code evidence tracking system in their laboratory. Persons who would be willing to answer a brief series of questions detailing your experience with the implementation of such a system are asked to respond to me off-list with your name, phone number and a convenient time to contact you to briefly discuss your experiences. . . including your time zone. Thanks in advance, Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist US Postal Inspection Service Headquarters Laboratory --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu Apr 17 14:20:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3HIKkx26326 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web20505.mail.yahoo.com (web20505.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.140]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3HIKj626320 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030417182047.24163.qmail@web20505.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20505.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:20:47 PDT Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Latent Print question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1375 To all - I'm (again) trying to generate some information regarding latent print development cases. Specifically, how often have those involved in this area been able to develop latent prints from fired cartridge casings? In my searching thus far, I've found no cites to give me any numbers, just anecdotal information from people involved in this area - and if that's the case, I'd like to compile as much of this anecdotal information as possible. Why am I asking this? Our latent print staff spend a considerable amount of time attempting to develop latent prints from fired cartridge cases found at drive-by shootings (this is Oakland, and we have more than a few of those). Obviously, if someone has handled a casing after it has been fired, then a print could be developed. My query is specifically in regard to those casings found at scenes and not handled inappropriately post-firing. Feel free to reply to me offlist and if I get sufficient response, I'll post the data to the list. Thanks, Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory 455 Seventh Street - Room 608 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone - - 510.238.6555 FAX - - 510.238.6555 Email - - jtabercrombie@oaklandnet.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com From daemon Thu Apr 17 14:30:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3HIU4V26876 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3HIU3626870 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:30:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYlIAvetUCFNBFyZuCbfvFSQcN257KeLdvuEtQV0aUttSlBYriUUa/18sqITFnmKhY= Received: from pool-151-197-27-137.phil.east.verizon.net ([151.197.27.137] helo=BART.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) id 196E97-0003kC-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:30:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030417141935.01f65e20@incoming.verizon.net.b9> X-Sender: johnfrench@pop.rcn.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:30:08 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John French Subject: Donating Unused HIV Medications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2748 Some years ago a friend and I spent some time finding a way to ethically dispose of the literally thousands of HIV/AIDS and other expensive medications one comes across in the medicine cabinets of the deceased. We had solved the ethics to our own satisfaction, but not the legality of it. This agency seems to have combined the ethics with a legal way to do it, by shipping them overseas. It is a happy thought in troubled times that common sense can sometimes rule. John French ___________________________ For Lucky Few, 'Recycled' HIV Drugs Keep Hope Alive Reuters Health (04.14.03) - Wednesday, April 16, 2003 E.J. Mundell Some HIV-positive individuals in the United States and Canada have partnered with a Manhattan-based nonprofit that sorts, ships and distributes "recycled" medicine to HIV-positive people in developing countries. "People for whatever reason - they die, they change their regimen, they never took the medicine - they give it to us," explained Venezuelan-born Jesus Aguais, founder of Aid for AIDS. In addition, some patients donate the drugs they do not take during physician-sanctioned drug "holidays." Aguais started the agency in 1996 with only three patients: Today, it has 520 patients. After the donor's name is removed from the label on the bottle, donated medicines are carefully inventoried and sorted. Every foreign patient who applies for assistance undergoes a medical assessment, because the program's small store of medicines is best spent on those who closely adhere to the strict treatment schedules HIV drug therapies require. Working via fax and e-mail with doctors in the client's home country, Program Director Dr. Jaime Valencia reviews application forms that outline prospective clients' proof of HIV status, current medical history, and CD4 immune-cell blood counts. Priority is given to AIDS activists and educators, "people who are making a difference in their countries," Aguais stressed. This way, donated medicines do more than just keep individual patients alive - they also help prevent new infections, as individuals helped by the agency promote HIV prevention. Once accepted into the program, clients must submit CD4 counts every six months so Valencia can chart their progress and adherence. "We have complete control over where these medicines go," Aguais said. Because there are currently no US laws allowing or prohibiting the export of donated medicines, he said it is important from a legal standpoint "to know who the patients are." He said abuse of the program (such as reselling donated medicines) is almost nonexistent, due to close bonds that have formed over time between the New York office and trusted doctors in the Americas and Africa. From daemon Thu Apr 17 16:42:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3HKgDY00355 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:42:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3HKgCQ00348 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:42:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 631 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: CSI PC Game Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:19:17 -0400 To the list members, I've found a great fun-filled resource to train new crime scene technicians. Check out this site! Who needs web-based training, when you can learn at home! (Tongue firmly placed in cheek) http://csi.ubi.com/index.php Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov From daemon Fri Apr 18 00:13:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3I4DQa07166 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eth.net (smtp14510.eth.net [202.9.145.10] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3I4DO607160 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by eth.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:23:12 +0530 Received: from mail pickup service by eth.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:39:35 +0530 Received: from chnisi02.eth.net ([202.9.178.3]) by eth.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.537.53); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:47:46 +0530 Received: from 152.14.14.17 by chnisi02.eth.net (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:51:41 +0530 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3H0KY507941; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:19:12 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3H0JCH07855 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web40904.mail.yahoo.com (web40904.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.201]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3H0JB607849 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 20:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030417001912.11744.qmail@web40904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.92.19.234] by web40904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:19:12 PDT Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:19:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Ernie Hamm Subject: Information Request To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 280 Is Dr. Roger J. Davis still with Forensic Science Service? --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri Apr 18 17:44:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3ILifg26481 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw2.ircc.edu (fw2.ircc.edu [209.149.16.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3ILie626475 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ex1.ircc.edu by fw2.ircc.edu via smtpd (for [152.14.14.17]) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:44:40 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: MS Tuning Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:44:40 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: MS Tuning Thread-Index: AcMDfBxSMOZUpEJKT/W4sJjU2+9TYQAAsDrQ From: "Robert Parsons" To: "Grunwald, Eric" , "Forens" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h3ILie626476 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1058 We do a weekly autotune routinely, more often if necessary. To solve specific analytical problems, we could conceivably do a full spectrum maximum sensitivity tune or a targeted manual tune if we needed to increase sensitivity in a certain range, but while I'm aware of some labs having done that we've never had occasion to do it ourselves. Autotune works fine for routine work. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Grunwald, Eric [mailto:Eric.Grunwald@state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 14:18 To: 'Forens' Subject: MS Tuning I some questions for those routinely using a GC-MS for the analyses they perform (especially for those doing controlled substance analyses)... How often do you "tune" the MS, what kind of "tune" do you do, and why? I know this is kind of vague, but I was hoping people would respond with the specifics for their lab. Thanks, Eric Eric Grunwald Forensic Scientist MN BCA For. Sci. Lab. St. Paul, MN From daemon Mon Apr 21 11:17:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3LFH6613293 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (relay2.mail.twtelecom.net [216.54.204.190]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3LFH4613276 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay2.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 886DFC479 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:17:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay2.mail.twtelecom.net [216.54.204.190]) with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 15:01:28 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Mon Apr 21 08:17:31 2003 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:16:57 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:16:11 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Robert.Thompson@atf.gov] (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h3LFH4613278 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1471 Robert, I actually purchased the game and solved several cases in it. Using all my knowledge and skills developed over the years, this may be the ticket for ASCLD/LAB certification. This piece of software trains you on crime scene investigation, uses standard terms, checks your competency, and has delphi abilities allowing the user to consult with the real experts, i.e. Gil Grissom, Sara Seidel, Nick Stokes, Greg Sanders, and a forensic pathol;ogis, Dr. Robbins. What more can one ask? So far I have achieved the investigator's rank, but a master criminalist rank is just a mouse click away. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 04/17 1:42 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert.Thompson@atf.gov To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: CSI PC Game Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:19:17 -0400 To the list members, I've found a great fun-filled resource to train new crime scene technicians. Check out this site! Who needs web-based training, when you can learn at home! (Tongue firmly placed in cheek) http://csi.ubi.com/index.php Robert M. Thompson Firearms and Toolmark Examiner ATF Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 925-280-3633 Office 925-280-3600 Main Lab 925-280-3601 FAX Robert.Thompson@atf.gov From daemon Wed Apr 23 16:03:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3NK3cV11863 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3NK3b611857 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LisaLegalNurse@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id y.155.1e51d8e7 (15864) for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:03:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aol.com (mow-m22.webmail.aol.com [64.12.180.138]) by air-id06.mx.aol.com (v93.8) with ESMTP id MAILINID63-3df83ea6f18b31e; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:03:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:03:23 -0400 From: LisaLegalNurse@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <05FB8E85.240109C2.24A0AA0B@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 530 I am working on a case re: an elderly Nursing Home Resident that suffered unexplained bilateral spiral fractures of the tibia and fibula. Can this happen without the presence of a twisting injury? Death followed four days later,(time of death and events leading to the death are unknown. The resident was found dead in her bed) no autopsy was performed. The resident did have a history of osteoporosis and poor nutrition. Thank you! Lisa Hudson,RN, BSN, LNC Total LegalNurse Consultants Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 405-414-7005 From daemon Wed Apr 23 21:46:16 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3O1kGQ18432 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:46:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.jobe.net (mail.jobe.net [208.18.94.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3O1kF618426 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.33] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.07) id A1F45CE30138; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:46:28 -0500 Message-ID: <04a601c30a00$f902e4a0$1abf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <05FB8E85.240109C2.24A0AA0B@aol.com> Subject: Re: Question Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:29:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 779 This sounds like an excellent case to discuss with the state ME, Fred Jordan. I've got a quarter bet the nursing home never reported it. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: I am working on a case re: an elderly Nursing Home Resident that suffered unexplained bilateral spiral fractures of the tibia and fibula. Can this happen without the presence of a twisting injury? Death followed four days later,(time of death and events leading to the death are unknown. The resident was found dead in her bed) no autopsy was performed. The resident did have a history of osteoporosis and poor nutrition. Thank you! Lisa Hudson,RN, BSN, LNC Total LegalNurse Consultants Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 405-414-7005 From daemon Sat Apr 26 22:05:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3R25jH25437 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:05:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3R25i625431 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Flannery64@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id y.12a.28905567 (4592) for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:05:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Flannery64@aol.com Message-ID: <12a.28905567.2bdc94f8@aol.com> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:05:44 EDT Subject: DNA tests To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6014 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 625 Let me preface this by saying I'm not a forensics professional, just a writer trying to grasp some essentials, so don't be surprised by my ignorance.:) Anyway, here are a couple questions I'm hoping someone will answer for me re DNA testing: Would heavy bleaching of a blood-stained item or surface make it impossible to test for DNA? What about hydrogen perioxide? If something is treated with that, will it remove all protein and make it impossible to test for DNA? Thanks in advance, Anne --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat Apr 26 22:14:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3R2EEs25824 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.jobe.net (mail.jobe.net [208.18.94.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3R2ED625818 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 22:14:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.144] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.07) id AD03A600134; Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:14:27 -0500 Message-ID: <016a01c30c62$bd0a4100$90bf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <12a.28905567.2bdc94f8@aol.com> Subject: Re: DNA tests Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:14:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 475 Probably, for both. AFAIK, both agents work by oxidizing organic materials (oxidizing = burning, just slower.) Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: Would heavy bleaching of a blood-stained item or surface make it impossible to test for DNA? What about hydrogen perioxide? If something is treated with that, will it remove all protein and make it impossible to test for DNA? Thanks in advance, Anne From daemon Sun Apr 27 16:25:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3RKPND09013 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.46]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3RKPM609007 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:25:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 1cust124.tnt3.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net ([65.227.53.124] helo=pnoth) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 199si9-0000Vl-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:25:22 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030427152446.00808100@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:24:46 -0500 To: From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: the Nyhuis case In-Reply-To: <016a01c30c62$bd0a4100$90bf22d0@dwhause> References: <12a.28905567.2bdc94f8@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 528 Dear List, Does anybody know where I might find an online image of the facial reconstruction of Bunchee Nyhuis? [A case made famous by TV shows such as "The New Detectives": A man killed his wife and buried her body in a forest. Five years later, her skeleton was discovered. The body wasn't identified until a photo of a reconstruction of her face was published.] I'm going to be giving a presentation on forensic anthropology and I'd like to have the image to illustrate the story. Thanks in advance! -- Peter Nothnagle From daemon Sun Apr 27 16:52:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3RKqIn09713 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3RKqE609707 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 16:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Mon Apr 28 08:52:12 2003 +1200 Received: by kscxchg2.esrit.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:52:11 +1200 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: Recombination fraction on D5 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:52:10 +1200 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: 288 Dear list, My notes show that D5S818 and CSF1PO are on Chromosome 5. I have CSF1PO at 5q33.3-34. Does anyone have the exact location of D5S818 or better still the recombination fraction? John Buckleton ESR private Bag 92021 Auckland New Zealand Ph +64 +9 8153-904 Fax +64 +9 849-6046 From daemon Sun Apr 27 18:13:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3RMDqj10816 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:13:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.46]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3RMDp610810 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h-68-166-188-194.snvacaid.covad.net ([68.166.188.194] helo=Homey.kruglaw.com) by grebe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 199uP6-0001fl-00; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:13:48 -0700 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030427151012.00bb2538@pop.kruglaw.com> X-Sender: kim%kruglaw.com@pop.kruglaw.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:14:03 -0700 To: "Buckleton, John" From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: Recombination fraction on D5 Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 698 At 08:52 AM 4/28/2003 +1200, you wrote: >Dear list, My notes show that D5S818 and CSF1PO are on Chromosome 5. I have >CSF1PO at 5q33.3-34. Does anyone have the exact location of D5S818 or >better still the recombination fraction? >John Buckleton >ESR >private Bag 92021 >Auckland >New Zealand >Ph +64 +9 8153-904 >Fax +64 +9 849-6046 Hi John, Leave it to the lawyers... D5S818 is found at 5q21-q31 AGAT Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sun Apr 27 22:48:29 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3S2mTq13854 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:48:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3S2mS613848 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WBirkby@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id g.162.1f825f67 (18251); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:48:17 -0400 (EDT) From: WBirkby@aol.com Message-ID: <162.1f825f67.2bddf071@aol.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:48:17 EDT Subject: Re: the Nyhuis case To: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 552 Peter Nothnagle: If this is the Thailand female killed by her husband in Missouri, I believe that she was circumstantially ID'd using skull-antemortem-photo superimposition. The late Dr. Michael Charney, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO wanted the Court to accept the process as a POSITIVE ID. This was argued in a Frye Hearing (with Charney for the Prosecution and me for the Defense) but I never did hear how the Court ultimately ruled on Charney's new methodology. Walter H. Birkby, Ph.D., DABFA Forensic Anthropologist Tucson, AZ. From daemon Mon Apr 28 12:34:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3SGYhN26227 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3SGYg626221 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:34:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 1cust73.tnt2.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net ([65.227.11.73] helo=pnoth) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19ABaT-0003ji-00; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:34:42 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20030428113309.00805590@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:33:09 -0500 To: WBirkby@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: the Nyhuis case In-Reply-To: <162.1f825f67.2bddf071@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 731 Dear Dr. Birkby, Yes, that's the one. Thank you for another interesting detail about the case! -- Peter Nothnagle At 10:48 PM 4/27/03 EDT, WBirkby@aol.com wrote: >Peter Nothnagle: > If this is the Thailand female killed by her husband in Missouri, I >believe that she was circumstantially ID'd using skull-antemortem-photo >superimposition. The late Dr. Michael Charney, Colorado State Univ., Ft. >Collins, CO wanted the Court to accept the process as a POSITIVE ID. This >was argued in a Frye Hearing (with Charney for the Prosecution and me for the >Defense) but I never did hear how the Court ultimately ruled on Charney's new >methodology. >Walter H. Birkby, Ph.D., DABFA >Forensic Anthropologist >Tucson, AZ. > From daemon Mon Apr 28 21:16:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3T1Gnb05434 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web14709.mail.yahoo.com (web14709.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.225.233]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3T1Gm605428 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:16:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030429011649.22251.qmail@web14709.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.19.103] by web14709.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:16:49 PDT Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:16:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: Recombination fraction on D5 To: "Buckleton, John" , "'Forens-L'" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 341 John, Here is a link to a fairly comprehensive genetic map for chromosome 5 that includes both D5S818 and CSF1PO (listed by its synonym CSF1R). Both male and female recombination map positions are given. Tim Sliter __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com From daemon Mon Apr 28 21:20:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3T1KoM05735 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web14711.mail.yahoo.com (web14711.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.232.91]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3T1Kn605729 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030429012050.55896.qmail@web14711.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [207.136.19.103] by web14711.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:20:50 PDT Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:20:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Re: Recombination fraction on D5 To: "Buckleton, John" , "'Forens-L'" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 590 Here's the link for the chromosome 5 map: ftp://cedar.genetics.soton.ac.uk/pub/chrom5/gmap --- "Buckleton, John" wrote: > Dear list, My notes show that D5S818 and CSF1PO are > on Chromosome 5. I have > CSF1PO at 5q33.3-34. Does anyone have the exact > location of D5S818 or > better still the recombination fraction? > John Buckleton > ESR > private Bag 92021 > Auckland > New Zealand > Ph +64 +9 8153-904 > Fax +64 +9 849-6046 > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com From daemon Tue Apr 29 12:20:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3TGKQW20696 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web14708.mail.yahoo.com (web14708.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.125]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h3TGKP620690 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030429162026.30708.qmail@web14708.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.88.162.174] by web14708.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:20:26 PDT Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:20:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Sliter Subject: Labs doing Y chromosome STR casework To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20030427151012.00bb2538@pop.kruglaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 406 I've been asked to provide an agency with a list of labs currently doing casework testing using Y chromosome STRs. If anyone has had good experiences with any such labs, I'd appreciate hearing about them off-list. Thanks, Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com From daemon Wed Apr 30 07:57:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3UBv1b09746 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailhub3.liv.ac.uk (mailhub3.liv.ac.uk [138.253.100.83]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3UBv0609732 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc070013.law.liv.ac.uk ([138.253.70.13] helo=070060-64195c.liv.ac.uk) by mailhub3.liv.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19AqCs-0007f5-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:57:02 +0100 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:57:02 +0100 From: Stephen Cooper To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: odour query Message-ID: <707408921.1051707422@070060-64195c.liv.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EBF3@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> References: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EBF3@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.u s> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 245 A Law student from Russia, Irina, is doing some criminalistics research in the area of odour research and expertise. She is seeking advice/direction. If you can help, please send your replies to mailto:gandvic@mail.ru Thanks, Steve Cooper From daemon Wed Apr 30 10:42:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h3UEgtZ14805 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3UEgs614799 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:42:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net (206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net [206.169.45.183]) by relay3.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 934975377 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:42:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from SCANMAIL by 206-169-45-183.gen.twtelecom.net via smtpd (for relay3.mail.twtelecom.net [216.136.95.10]) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2003 14:26:29 UT Received: FROM mail.co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail ; Wed Apr 30 07:43:31 2003 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by mail.co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:42:54 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 07:42:23 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: , Subject: Re: odour query Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h3UEgs614800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1197 Stephen, As memory serves me, I recall that the All Union Institute of Forensic Sceinces in Moscow was engaged in odor research, In 1988 when I toured the former Soviet Union as a delegate with the american academy of forensic Scieces as part of the people to People program, the Russians were doing practical applications of collecting odor at crime scenes. They used some type of resin bag to collect the odor, which was then placed in a sealed jar. Canines then were used as trackers and even as confirmation of supect odors from criminals. There is even a museum and either Moscow or Leningrad honoring a specific canine for its work in apprehending criminals. Hope this is of some assiatance to your student. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Stephen Cooper 04/30 4:57 AM >>> A Law student from Russia, Irina, is doing some criminalistics research in the area of odour research and expertise. She is seeking advice/direction. If you can help, please send your replies to mailto:gandvic@mail.ru Thanks, Steve Cooper From daemon Thu May 1 12:40:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h41GeeA19191 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 2003 12:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web41411.mail.yahoo.com (web41411.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.77]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h41Ged619185 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 12:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030501164040.90071.qmail@web41411.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.1.216.157] by web41411.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 01 May 2003 09:40:40 PDT Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:40:40 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: Fiber Examiners To: Forens-L MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 724 Hi, List Members: I have some questions regarding fiber examination policies, procedures and protocols. 1. What is the scope of examination of victim environments? 2. What is the procedure used for negative findings? 3. With regard to clothing fibers, are statistical inquiries performed, i.e. gathering data on number of garments by manufacturer in the region, or specific area? Any other information or resources you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you, L. DeShong (civilian list member) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Thu May 1 18:09:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h41M9oT28658 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 1 May 2003 18:09:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ccprodapp14.campuscruiser.com (master.timecruiser.com [216.35.68.45]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h41M9n628652 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 18:09:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ccprodapp14 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccprodapp14.campuscruiser.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h41M9nc24476 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 18:09:49 -0400 Message-ID: <2161702.1051826989841.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp14> Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:09:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Theodore Mozer Reply-To: tmozer@occ.mailcruiser.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Evidence Receiving Procedures with a LIMS System Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: CC Mailer IV X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 567 I have been given the task of re-doing our laboratory evidence receiving, storage, handling, transferring and returning procedures now that we are implimenting a commercial laboratory information systems, namely, the Porter Lee Beast system. I have heard that several lab have inspected and pasted written procedures in place, for example, Oragon State. Is there anyone in a position to help me out and share their written procedure???? lppmozet@gw.njsp.org --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) --- From daemon Fri May 2 10:40:56 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h42EeuQ11315 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 2003 10:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.uri.edu (RockyPoint.uri.edu [131.128.1.58]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h42Eer611298 for ; Fri, 2 May 2003 10:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.32]) by pete.uri.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h42EerbY016726 for ; Fri, 2 May 2003 10:40:53 -0400 Received: from DIRECTOR ([131.128.32.152]) by terms.uri.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h42Eer7Y006495 for ; Fri, 2 May 2003 10:40:53 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20030502104142.00e3b130@postoffice.uri.edu> X-Sender: dhi0251u@postoffice.uri.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:41:42 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Dennis Hilliard Subject: In-Reply-To: <2161702.1051826989841.JavaMail.root@ccprodapp14> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 669 Dear list memebers, Our trace setion has been asked to examine items for the presence of Pepper Spray and Mace. We have a procedure for GC/MS analysis, but we would like to see how other labs handle this material. If you could send us your procedures for this type of material for GC/MS and or FTIR analysis, our trace person would be most appreciative. You can contact her directly at asc@uri.edu (Amy Duhaime) Thanks again, Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. Director - RI State Crime Laboratory Adjunct Assistant Professor - BioMedical Sciences 220 Fogarty Hall - URI 41 Lower College Road Kingston, RI 02881-0809 Tel: 401-874-2893 Fax: 401-874-2181 email: dch@uri.edu From daemon Sat May 3 02:39:57 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h436dv526378 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 2003 02:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h436ds626372 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 02:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz BY kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz ; Sat May 03 18:39:53 2003 +1200 Received: by kscxchg2.esrit.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 3 May 2003 18:39:53 +1200 Message-ID: From: "Buckleton, John" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: 30-30 Winchester Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 09:31:04 +1200 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: 588 My I inquire what people know about deflection of 30-30 Win in bodies. This is slightly urgent for court. In the case in question the bullet is 170gr soft point but has exited intact and continued. The buttle has some nose damage but little else. It has struck the victim high in the chest above nipple line and exited through the right shoulder. It has struck a double skin door and this gives quite a nice line to where it is believed the deceased stood. The question is, how reliabe is extending this line through the body the entry hole and thereby trying to place the shooter? From daemon Sat May 3 08:51:42 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h43Cpg300540 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 2003 08:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h43Cpfn00534 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 08:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 08:51:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1730 Please respond to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu : Check the To: address ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 22:17:35 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [dhi0251u ] >From forens-owner Thu May 1 22:17:35 2003 Received: from pete.uri.edu (RockyPoint.uri.edu [131.128.1.58]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h422HY602455 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 22:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.32]) by pete.uri.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h422HabY007630 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 22:17:36 -0400 Received: from TOP1S46 (WEBMAIL.uri.edu [131.128.172.39]) by terms.uri.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h422Ha7X009765 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 22:17:36 -0400 X-WebMail-UserID: dhi0251u Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 21:59:13 -0400 Sender: dhi0251u From: dhi0251u To: forens X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002288 Subject: Analysis request Message-ID: <3EB8E8DB@TOP1S46> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.62 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Dear list members: Our Lab have been tasked with examining a sample for the presence of Mace and/or pepper spray. Our trace person asked me to solicit procedures from other labs for analysis by GS/MS and/or FTIR. If you can help please send them to Amy Duhaime asc@uri.edu or fax 401-874-4868 Thanks, Dennis C. Hilliard RI State Crime Laboratory From daemon Sat May 3 21:49:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h441niW09286 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 3 May 2003 21:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.jobe.net (mail.jobe.net [208.18.94.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h441nh609280 for ; Sat, 3 May 2003 21:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.97] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-7.07) id A1C54D780122; Sat, 03 May 2003 20:49:57 -0500 Message-ID: <024e01c311df$7bd2d620$61bf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: "'Forens-L'" References: Subject: Re: 30-30 Winchester Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 20:50:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 509 As a general rule, bullets don't deflect passing through soft tissue, although they may when passing relatively tangentially through bone. Bullets relatively long for diameter, as the 170 gr. .30 cal, do tend to tumble in bodies, but the door would seem to be fairly good for establishing a trajectory. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Buckleton, John" My I inquire what people know about deflection of 30-30 Win in bodies. From daemon Mon May 5 08:27:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h45CREj04762 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 2003 08:27:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osiris.uid0.sk (osiris.uid0.sk [62.168.97.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h45CRD604756 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 08:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trojan (sigma.fmed.uniba.sk [158.195.55.226]) by osiris.uid0.sk (Postfix) with SMTP id AC4DF3FC1B1 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 14:30:46 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: From: "Agent 000" To: Subject: post mortem rectal temperature Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:28:16 +0200 Message-ID: <000101c31301$ce9b86e0$4532c39e@trojan> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 682 Dear colleagues, Prof. Henssge from Essen ,Germany published in Rechtsmedizin 2/2002 article "Todeszietbestimmung an Leichen" (pages 112-131). On page 115 there were two formalulas... I have access to the respective title via Springerlink, but unfortunatelly both formulas in the pdf file are very hard to read (maybe bug in pdf file?). I was not able to decrypt those formulas. If someone has access to the hardcopy of the magazine, it'd be a great help for me if he could email me those two formulas. Thanks in advance =============================== MUDr. JUDr. Peter Kováè Institute for Forensic Medicine School of Medicine Comenius University 811 08 Bratislava Slovakia From daemon Mon May 5 11:15:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h45FFHu08846 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 2003 11:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h45FFG608840 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 11:15:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id h45F8Wks011543 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 08:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7);); Mon, 05 May 2003 08:15:14 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 05 May 2003 08:15:11 -0700 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 08:14:59 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: dwhause@jobe.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: 30-30 Winchester MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 12A85F881537312-01-01 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h45FFG608841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1048 The pathologist should be able to tell you how the wound track looks and you should take a close look at the damage to the door. People like to think it is as easy as drawing straight lines but you need to pay attention to all of the holes and the condition of the bullet for indication of changing direction. Dave notes the length to dia. relationship (directly related to sectional density), they do tend to be more easily altered in their flight path in all aspects. Jim >>> "Dave Hause" 05/03/03 06:50PM >>> As a general rule, bullets don't deflect passing through soft tissue, although they may when passing relatively tangentially through bone. Bullets relatively long for diameter, as the 170 gr. .30 cal, do tend to tumble in bodies, but the door would seem to be fairly good for establishing a trajectory. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Buckleton, John" My I inquire what people know about deflection of 30-30 Win in bodies. From daemon Mon May 5 20:49:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h460n1R25024 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 5 May 2003 20:49:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h460mw625018 for ; Mon, 5 May 2003 20:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vsnl.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C8D4163C for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 06:19:12 +0530 (IST) Received: from ([219.65.226.73]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall Unix); Tue, 06 May 2003 06:19:13 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3EB702F3.625734D4@vsnl.net> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 06:03:55 +0530 From: Professor Anil Aggrawal Reply-To: dr_anil@hotmail.com Organization: S-299 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi-110048 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Mass Poisonings Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1983 May 6, 2003 forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subect: Mass Poisonings Dear all, The FBI Academy's Behavioral Science Unit at Quantico, Virginia defines mass murder as "any single event, single location homicide involving four or more victims". What I wish to know is that if a similar definition exists for "mass poisonings". Furthermore, can someone tell me some famous instances of mass poisonings in history? Cases like Jonestown massacre for instance where 913 victims died of cyanide poisoning. Can we include industrial gas disasters like Bhopal Gas Tragedy (Methyl Isocyanate) in mass poisonings? Kindly let me know. Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *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 daemon Tue May 6 09:47:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h46DlLL08497 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 2003 09:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h46DlJn08490 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 09:47:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:47:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: forward: respond to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3037 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'dr_anil@hotmail.com'" , "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: RE: Mass Poisonings Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:48:06 -0400 Oddly enough, our little state has made the national news here for a mass poisoning in a small town of 621 people in northern Maine. The poinsoning killed one person and sent a number of others to the hospital (15 I believe). There has since been a shooting involved with the case. I have attached the link from today's newspaper which covers the more recent happenings. If you are looking for more information regarding this case, you can peruse the website for the newspaper or www.CNN.com. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/030506church.shtml -----Original Message----- From: Professor Anil Aggrawal [mailto:tarun_84@vsnl.net] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:34 PM To: Forensic Newsgroup (main) Subject: Mass Poisonings May 6, 2003 forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subect: Mass Poisonings Dear all, The FBI Academy's Behavioral Science Unit at Quantico, Virginia defines mass murder as "any single event, single location homicide involving four or more victims". What I wish to know is that if a similar definition exists for "mass poisonings". Furthermore, can someone tell me some famous instances of mass poisonings in history? Cases like Jonestown massacre for instance where 913 victims died of cyanide poisoning. Can we include industrial gas disasters like Bhopal Gas Tragedy (Methyl Isocyanate) in mass poisonings? Kindly let me know. Thanks. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 INDIA Phone: 26465460, 26413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Tarun and Anil Aggrawal's Programming Page for Forensic Professionals http://anil1956.tripod.com/index.html 2.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 3. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 5. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 6. Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Book Reviews http://anil_300.tripod.com/index.html 7. Forensic Careers http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/electrical/314/career.html *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 daemon Tue May 6 11:30:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h46FUIA12498 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 6 May 2003 11:30:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange01.co.bexar.tx.us (exchange01.co.bexar.tx.us [206.254.132.230]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h46FUH612492 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 11:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchange01.co.bexar.tx.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 6 May 2003 10:17:20 -0500 Message-ID: From: gfoster@co.bexar.tx.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Open Position - Trace Evidence Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 10:17:13 -0500 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: 1026 The Bexar County Criminal Investigation Laboratory in San Antonio, Texas has the following open position. ---------------------------------------- Technical Leader - Trace Evidence Section Salary: $46,286 - $67,115 Closing Date: May 23, 2003 Bexar County Criminal Investigation Laboratory San Antonio, Texas Qualifications: MA or MS degree in Forensic Science, Chemistry, Natural Science or related field Five (5) years of forensic laboratory experience or combination of education and experience Responsibilities: Serves as technical supervisor in Trace Evidence Section Oversees daily work of Forensic Scientists in Trace Evidence Section Makes work assignments and trains others in Trace Evidence Section Contact / Application: Bexar County Civil Service Commission Bexar County Courthouse 100 Dolorosa, Suite 2.28 San Antonio, Texas 78205 210-335-2549 web site: http://www.co.bexar.tx.us/civilservice/JobSummary/Jobs/jobs_9.htm or Tim Fallon, Crime Laboratory Manager 210-335-4100 (voice) tfallon@co.bexar.tx.us From daemon Wed May 7 13:24:10 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h47HO9u18956 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 7 May 2003 13:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h47HO8618950 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 13:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LisaLegalNurse@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id h.22.398aa726 (16035); Wed, 7 May 2003 13:22:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aol.com (mow-m05.webmail.aol.com [64.12.184.133]) by air-id10.mx.aol.com (v93.12) with ESMTP id MAILINID102-3ea33eb940d51cb; Wed, 07 May 2003 13:22:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 13:22:29 -0400 From: LisaLegalNurse@aol.com To: dialwiz@houston.rr.com, dialwiz@ev1.net, Jfiner911@aol.com, louf01@swbell.net, AFerguso@snu.edu, Rhen6387@aol.com, JFogg@ok.mercy.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fwd: Virus alert MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <659BADC6.652EBE6F.24A0AA0B@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 218 this was on my c drive...heads up Lisa Hudson,RN, BSN Total LegalNurse Consultants 405-414-7005 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) message/rfc822 --- From daemon Thu May 8 14:02:36 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h48I2a125576 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 8 May 2003 14:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h48I2Zw25570 for ; Thu, 8 May 2003 14:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:02:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: fwd: request for help Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1646 If you can help this person, contact her off-list at JJazmyn@aol.com -Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:42:57 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [JJazmyn@aol.com] >From forens-owner Wed May 7 14:42:56 2003 Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h47Igu627339 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from JJazmyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id y.4f.2e7e0731 (24895) for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 14:42:47 -0400 (EDT) From: JJazmyn@aol.com Message-ID: <4f.2e7e0731.2beaada7@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 14:42:47 EDT Subject: (no subject) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6014 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" To whom it may concern: I am seeking a review of an autopsy report by an experienced=20 pathologist.=A0 I have limited resources, but I really need some assistance=20= of=20 a experienced pathologist.....or a medical examiner. It is my fathers=20 autopsy report that I would like to have reviewed, and if you could assist m= e=20 in any way....It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Jennifer Prather --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Fri May 9 09:44:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h49DisC17764 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 2003 09:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange01.co.bexar.tx.us (exchange01.co.bexar.tx.us [206.254.132.230]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h49Dir617758 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 09:44:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchange01.co.bexar.tx.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 9 May 2003 08:31:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: gfoster@co.bexar.tx.us To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Employment Opportunity - Trace Evidence Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:31:45 -0500 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: 1016 The Bexar County Criminal Investigation Laboratory in San Antonio, Texas has the following open position. ---------------------------------------- Technical Leader - Trace Evidence Section Salary: $46,286 - $67,115 Closing Date: May 23, 2003 Bexar County Criminal Investigation Laboratory San Antonio, Texas Qualifications: MA or MS degree in Forensic Science, Chemistry, Natural Science or related field Five (5) years of forensic laboratory experience or combination of education and experience Responsibilities: Serves as technical supervisor in Trace Evidence Section Oversees daily work of Forensic Scientists in Trace Evidence Section Makes work assignments and trains others in Trace Evidence Section Contact / Application: Bexar County Civil Service Commission Bexar County Courthouse 100 Dolorosa, Suite 2.28 San Antonio, Texas 78205 210-335-2549 web site: http://www.co.bexar.tx.us/civilservice/civilservice.htm or Tim Fallon, Crime Laboratory Manager 210-335-4100 (voice) tfallon@co.bexar.tx.us From daemon Fri May 9 19:28:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h49NStf01667 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 9 May 2003 19:28:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lsh110.siteprotect.com (lsh110.siteprotect.com [66.113.130.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h49NSr601661 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 19:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from locard (226-188-237-24.gci.net [24.237.188.226]) by lsh110.siteprotect.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h49NSr518343 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 18:28:53 -0500 Message-ID: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> From: "Brent Turvey" To: Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:27:02 -0800 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: 5429 Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered perjured testimony: Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He is also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children: DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338) http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te st3/01-2217.opn.html "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully moved to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to get a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his cross-examination. The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended to reinforce what it perceived as weaknesses in the evidence supporting its theory of intent. The prosecution also concedes that Walter was referred to them by Dr. Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did not independently investigate Walter's qualifications. Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake or reviewed his medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony, medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that basis that Smith and Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type of "lust-murder" called "picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the French verb "piquer," which means, among other things, to stick or poke). See Trial Transcript at 794. According to Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by biting, shooting, stabbing, and sodomizing their victims (though not all picquerists do all these things). This supposed syndrome accounted for much of the physical evidence in medical terms that dovetailed with the prosecution's theory of intent. It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his qualifications was perjurious. He claimed extensive experience in the field of psychological profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several years in the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct professorship at Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a prison psychologist with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert testimony given at hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan. On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel told Justice DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to retain a rebuttal psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of "picquerism." The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a psychologist with the expertise required. The prosecution successfully opposed a continuance. The trial concluded on schedule. Drake was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of twenty years to life. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the conviction, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Drake's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, was denied by the Appellate Division. Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence, through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his credentials. Although Walter is a prison psychologist with the Michigan Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence that Walter lied about his other credentials. As the prosecution now concedes, Walter performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office. According to Walter's supervisors there, he was employed as a lab assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the forensic lab. There seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct professor. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record of Walter testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding between October 1975 through May 1978. In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of the newly discovered evidence concerning Walter's perjury. ... For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's judgment denying Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the district court for discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its discretion considers that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or should have known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury." Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago From daemon Sun May 11 15:26:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4BJQ6809909 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 2003 15:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe21.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.125]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4BJQ4609901 for ; Sun, 11 May 2003 15:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 11 May 2003 12:26:06 -0700 Received: from 66.61.75.204 by oe21.law8.hotmail.com with DAV; Sun, 11 May 2003 19:26:05 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Brent Turvey" , References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Subject: Profiling Ethics Revisited Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 14:26:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2003 19:26:06.0214 (UTC) FILETIME=[2AFBC260:01C317F3] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 388 Brent and List: They say that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm fairly certain this would include those who live in the houses owned by their client's daughters. On this much we agree: The state of ethics in profiling is appalling. The question really is what do you intend to do differently? Shaun Wheeler Forensic Scientist (hey, if he can do it I can too) From daemon Mon May 12 12:19:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4CGJk702925 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 12:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange02.sdsheriff.org ([199.106.18.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4CGJi602919 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 12:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchange02.sdsheriff.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:51 -0700 Message-ID: <7BD898E2F2ADD511B85200D0B7B9EC9F03FBD055@exchange02.sdsheriff.org> From: "Fink, Marty" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Hiram Evans (E-mail)" Subject: Microcrystal Test Training Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:20:48 -0700 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: 395 I have been asked by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Lab criminalist Hiram Evans to post a request for information about microcrystal test training. Specifically, what topics do you feel should be covered or what topics would you like to see covered in a drug microcrystal test workshop? Please email Hiram directly at: HEvans@sbcsd.org Thank you. Marty Fink, San Diego County Sheriff's Lab From daemon Mon May 12 17:44:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4CLikW12323 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 17:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4CLii612317 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 17:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PETER (pm8-21.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.21]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h4CLidC8000461; Mon, 12 May 2003 14:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200305122144.h4CLidC8000461@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:57:01 -0700 To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Microcrystal Test Training Cc: "Hiram Evans (E-mail)" In-Reply-To: <7BD898E2F2ADD511B85200D0B7B9EC9F03FBD055@exchange02.sdsher iff.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 628 How do you get those teeny tiny microscrystals in a mass spec to identify them? Isn't just easier to dump in some of the white powder in the first place? Pete Barnett At 09:20 AM 5/12/2003 -0700, Fink, Marty wrote: >I have been asked by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Lab criminalist Hiram >Evans to post a request for information about microcrystal test training. >Specifically, what topics do you feel should be covered or what topics would >you like to see covered in a drug microcrystal test workshop? > >Please email Hiram directly at: > >HEvans@sbcsd.org > >Thank you. > >Marty Fink, San Diego County Sheriff's Lab > From daemon Mon May 12 17:47:24 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4CLlNu12623 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 17:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web41412.mail.yahoo.com (web41412.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.78]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4CLlM612617 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 17:47:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030512214722.36208.qmail@web41412.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.1.216.157] by web41412.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2003 14:47:22 PDT Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:47:22 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1867 Mr. Turvey, the link was truncated and did not work. I noted that there were a number of things missing from your post. (1) The decision you cited was by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, not a trial court. (2) You did not point out that the evidence supporting the 2nd Circut's finding is not made clear in their opinion. The finding, after all, may be based on sworn affidavits and/or testimony, but it might also be based merely on the conclusory allegations of Drake and his counsel, without any evidentiary support. (3) You did not mention that this decision is not "The End." The U.S. Supreme Court could very well reverse the 2nd Circuit and reinstate the district court's denial of habeas relief. The U.S. Supreme Court might also find that the 2nd Circuit overstepped its bound and hold that there was no basis for the finding of perjury and/or find that there was no perjury. I'm sure you will be the first to post that decision. (4) You did not mention that Mr. Drake is without any doubt guilty of the murders for which he was charged, tried and convicted. Which makes this is a case of a factually guilty individual potentially being placed back in society based on a legal technicality which probably had no bearing on the outcome of his trial. The District Court decision in this case is enlightening in that regard: http://www.nywd.uscourts.gov/decision/20010316.pdf Finally, I find it odd that you reserved comment on the issue of "picquering" (sp?). Surely you are aware that it is not a term used solely in "true crime books" as alleged in the 2nd Circuit's opinion. L. DeShong (Civilian List Member) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Mon May 12 21:22:21 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4D1MLY17406 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 21:22:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net (fed1mtao02.cox.net [68.6.19.243]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4D1MJ617400 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 21:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TheBreyers ([68.4.168.242]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030513012218.JXVC3292.fed1mtao02.cox.net@TheBreyers>; Mon, 12 May 2003 21:22:18 -0400 From: "chris breyer" To: "'Peter D. Barnett'" , Cc: "'Hiram Evans \(E-mail\)'" Subject: RE: Microcrystal Test Training Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:22:18 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c318ee$193cbd80$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200305122144.h4CLidC8000461@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1098 Why not force the manufacturers of the drugs to include taggants with the molecular structures? They might be read by microscopy... Talk to the Feds about that. Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:57 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Cc: Hiram Evans (E-mail) Subject: Re: Microcrystal Test Training How do you get those teeny tiny microscrystals in a mass spec to identify them? Isn't just easier to dump in some of the white powder in the first place? Pete Barnett At 09:20 AM 5/12/2003 -0700, Fink, Marty wrote: >I have been asked by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Lab criminalist Hiram >Evans to post a request for information about microcrystal test training. >Specifically, what topics do you feel should be covered or what topics would >you like to see covered in a drug microcrystal test workshop? > >Please email Hiram directly at: > >HEvans@sbcsd.org > >Thank you. > >Marty Fink, San Diego County Sheriff's Lab > From daemon Mon May 12 23:54:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4D3s3i20461 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 2003 23:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4D3s1620455 for ; Mon, 12 May 2003 23:54:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-132-183.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.132.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h4D3rqC8029421; Mon, 12 May 2003 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030512204819.00aa2100@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 20:49:31 -0700 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Microcrystal Test Training Cc: "'Hiram Evans \(E-mail\)'" In-Reply-To: <000001c318ee$193cbd80$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> References: <200305122144.h4CLidC8000461@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 437 At 06:22 PM 5/12/03 -0700, chris breyer wrote: >Why not force the manufacturers of the drugs to include taggants with >the molecular structures? They might be read by microscopy... Talk to >the Feds about that. Great idea -- but first you gotta catch 'em. Talk to the feds about THAT. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue May 13 01:55:41 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4D5tfn22921 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 01:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fed1mtao05.cox.net (fed1mtao05.cox.net [68.6.19.126]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4D5td622901 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 01:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from TheBreyers ([68.4.168.242]) by fed1mtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030513055530.MMEJ20191.fed1mtao05.cox.net@TheBreyers>; Tue, 13 May 2003 01:55:30 -0400 From: "chris breyer" To: "'Peter D. Barnett'" , Cc: "'Hiram Evans \(E-mail\)'" Subject: RE: Microcrystal Test Training Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 22:55:31 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c31914$4504f920$f2a80444@oc.cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030512204819.00aa2100@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4920.2300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1056 But think of the boon to drug chemists! Just peer into the eyepieces of the microscope to observe the contraband chemical closely enough to read the little tag that says "Hi! My Name Is Methamphetamine". Of course, you'd have to back up that observation with a confirmatory GC-MS. I see shrinking backlogs... Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Peter D. Barnett Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 8:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: 'Hiram Evans (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Microcrystal Test Training At 06:22 PM 5/12/03 -0700, chris breyer wrote: >Why not force the manufacturers of the drugs to include taggants with >the molecular structures? They might be read by microscopy... Talk to >the Feds about that. Great idea -- but first you gotta catch 'em. Talk to the feds about THAT. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue May 13 07:49:31 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DBnV228706 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 07:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exchange02.sdsheriff.org ([199.106.18.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4DBnT628695 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 07:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by exchange02.sdsheriff.org with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 13 May 2003 04:50:37 -0700 Message-ID: <7BD898E2F2ADD511B85200D0B7B9EC9F03FBD05F@exchange02.sdsheriff.org> From: "Fink, Marty" To: "'Peter D. Barnett'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Cc: "Hiram Evans (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Microcrystal Test Training Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 04:50:36 -0700 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: 926 First you have to train them. They know when I say jump I mean jump now! Marty Fink -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@fsalab.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:57 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Cc: Hiram Evans (E-mail) Subject: Re: Microcrystal Test Training How do you get those teeny tiny microscrystals in a mass spec to identify them? Isn't just easier to dump in some of the white powder in the first place? Pete Barnett At 09:20 AM 5/12/2003 -0700, Fink, Marty wrote: >I have been asked by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Lab criminalist Hiram >Evans to post a request for information about microcrystal test training. >Specifically, what topics do you feel should be covered or what topics would >you like to see covered in a drug microcrystal test workshop? > >Please email Hiram directly at: > >HEvans@sbcsd.org > >Thank you. > >Marty Fink, San Diego County Sheriff's Lab > From daemon Tue May 13 09:51:25 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DDpPN02615 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4DDpN602609 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:51:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c345114a (12-252-188-87.client.attbi.com[12.252.188.87]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003051313512305200dg86ve>; Tue, 13 May 2003 13:51:23 +0000 Message-ID: <003401c31956$aefbdf50$6701a8c0@c345114a> From: "Jamie" To: "Fink, Marty" , "Forens-L" References: <7BD898E2F2ADD511B85200D0B7B9EC9F03FBD055@exchange02.sdsheriff.org> Subject: Re: Microcrystal Test Training Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 07:49:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 969 Marty, All leavity aside, have Hiram call me at 719-251-9215. James (Jamie) Crippin Director - WFLETC Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (719) 544-1011 ph (719) 546-8841 pg (719) 544-0037 fx (719) 251-9215 cell "I would rather be irresponsible and right, than responsible and wrong" Winston Churchill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fink, Marty" To: Cc: "Hiram Evans (E-mail)" Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:20 AM Subject: Microcrystal Test Training > I have been asked by San Bernardino County Sheriff's Lab criminalist Hiram > Evans to post a request for information about microcrystal test training. > Specifically, what topics do you feel should be covered or what topics would > you like to see covered in a drug microcrystal test workshop? > > Please email Hiram directly at: > > HEvans@sbcsd.org > > Thank you. > > Marty Fink, San Diego County Sheriff's Lab > From daemon Tue May 13 14:57:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DIvYn12080 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 14:57:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4DIvR612074 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 14:57:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Tue May 13 13:57:25 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 13 May 2003 13:57:25 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Special Request Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:57:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1B@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMZgX5B4Ma5/htxTDKkRgSWaxmgOw== From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2003 18:57:25.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E41C160:01C31981] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4DIvYo12080 Content-Length: 1005 We have an unusual situation which has been brought to my attention, and hopefully someone out there has the experience and expertise to advise our crime scene unit. We are getting an increasing number of requests to collect fecal samples from burglary scenes. Obviously, our burglar has decided to leave a little something very personal, or has a gastrointestinal problem, which becomes pronounced during burglaries. We're looking for someone who has had a lot of experience with collecting these samples, and advice on the significance of the potential information resulting from the analysis of such a sample. Is it possible to extract DNA from a fecal sample after 2 or 3 hours? Is there any time limit? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, literature references would be a big help. This is getting messy. Thanks in advance, Phil Aviles Fort Worth PD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue May 13 18:29:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DMTHd16836 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4DMTE616830 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:29:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Tue May 13 17:29:09 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 13 May 2003 17:29:09 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Thanks Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:29:09 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1E@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Thanks Thread-Index: AcMZnxKb+xR5Ts6yR4S8PxIsQwLRhw== From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2003 22:29:09.0874 (UTC) FILETIME=[1294C520:01C3199F] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4DMTHe16836 Content-Length: 417 I just want to say Thanks to all who responded to my special request. I have the information that I need now, although the Crime Scene folks are not very happy. Once again, this list has proven to be the best resource available, particularly in smelly situations. Phil Aviles Fort Worth PD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue May 13 18:46:51 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DMkpG17439 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:46:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4DMki617433 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:46:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Dpiyella@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id y.ab.2ce65806 (15862); Tue, 13 May 2003 18:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aol.com (mow-m25.webmail.aol.com [64.12.137.2]) by air-id06.mx.aol.com (v93.12) with ESMTP id MAILINID61-3df63ec1742438d; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:39:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:39:32 -0400 From: Dpiyella@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: dpiyella@aol.com Subject: 13.2 at the vWA?? MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7DD11718.74ADCF22.00722B64@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 931 Hello All, My name is Danielle Imes and I am a DNA analyst in Philadelphia's DNA Laboratory. We are using the 1.1 system on the FMBIOII. We have recently come across what looks like a 13.2 allele at the vWA locus. The sample in question is an E. Cell fraction from a night gown. The complaintant is the major contributor of the DNA profile detected; there is a minor component. She is a 15, 15 at the vWA locus. We are picking up a 13.2, 15 at the vWA locus. The 13.2 allele has a 30% greater OD than the 15 allele at that locus. The band is 136.75bp. The band looks like a band. It is not bleed through. It is actually visually more prominent than the expected 15 of what appears to be the major component. We are in the process of re-running the sample on the 1.1, 2.1 and 16 to get a clearer picture of what's going on, but we are interested in your thoughts. Please send your thoughts and comments. Danielle From daemon Tue May 13 18:47:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DMlBC17580 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4DMl9617567 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net (214.new-york-27rh15rt-ny.dial-access.att.net[12.88.212.214]) by mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <20030513224708111005iolce>; Tue, 13 May 2003 22:47:09 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Thanks Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" , To: "Aviles, Phil J." From: "E. J. Wagner" In-Reply-To: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1E@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 656 On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Aviles, Phil J. wrote: > I just want to say Thanks to all who responded to my special request. > I have the information that I need now, although the Crime Scene folks > are not very happy. Once again, this list has proven to be the best > resource available, particularly in smelly situations. > > Phil Aviles > Fort Worth PD > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > > - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Tue May 13 18:47:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4DMlc617853 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.117]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4DMla617847 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net (214.new-york-27rh15rt-ny.dial-access.att.net[12.88.212.214]) by mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <20030513224725113008isdse>; Tue, 13 May 2003 22:47:26 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Thanks Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: "E. J. Wagner" , To: "Aviles, Phil J." From: "E. J. Wagner" In-Reply-To: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1E@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 792 Phil- Please post the answers (unless you've been asked not to, of course). I'm sure I'm not alone in waiting with-um..baited breath. EJ On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Aviles, Phil J. wrote: > I just want to say Thanks to all who responded to my special request. > I have the information that I need now, although the Crime Scene folks > are not very happy. Once again, this list has proven to be the best > resource available, particularly in smelly situations. > > Phil Aviles > Fort Worth PD > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > > - - - - See EJ's Web site at http://www.forensic.to/webhome/ejwagner/ (also, mirrored at http://home.att.net/~ejwagner/ ) - updated 2-Mar-2003 From daemon Tue May 13 20:33:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4E0X2d20586 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 20:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4E0X2r20580 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 20:33:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 20:33:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1361 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thompson, Roger" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Fecal Sample collection and Evidence Potential Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:05:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Our DNA Technical Leader response to the Fort Worth question: J Forensic Sci 2002 Sep;47(5):993-5 Related Articles, Links Extraction of human nuclear DNA from feces samples using the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit. Vandenberg N, van Oorschot RA. Victoria Forensic Science Centre, Victoria Police, Macleod, Australia. The use of a QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (QIAGEN) for extracting human nuclear DNA from feces samples is reported. This method employs a stool lysis buffer and a unique matrix (InhibitEX tablet) to remove PCR inhibitory substances specific to feces samples. DNA extracted from various amounts of stool and from stool samples exposed to different environmental impacts was successfully amplified and typed using the Profiler Plus Amplification Kit and ABI PRISM 310 Genetic Analyzer. PMID: 12353586 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Roger C. Thompson Crime Laboratory Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Voice- 704-353-1100 Fax- 704-353-0088 Page- 704-565-7054 rthompson@cmpd.org From daemon Tue May 13 22:40:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4E2e2a23625 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 May 2003 22:40:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4E2e0623619 for ; Tue, 13 May 2003 22:40:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from roo.uclink.berkeley.edu (12-233-51-232.client.attbi.com [12.233.51.232]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h4E1x0tG396395; Tue, 13 May 2003 18:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20030513173601.00c3e210@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:00:09 -0700 To: Dpiyella@aol.com From: Charles Brenner Subject: Re: 13.2 at the vWA?? Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, dpiyella@aol.com In-Reply-To: <7DD11718.74ADCF22.00722B64@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1636 Fractional allele sizes are extremely unusual in vWA. From over 70,000 people I see only two reports of a *.3 allele (13.3 and 18.3) and three reported *.2 alleles (15.2, 15.2, 18.2). The last four all come from data collected by the German provincial police lab (LKA) in Duesseldorf. The 15.2's consist of one observation out 1100 "Arab" chromosomes, and one of 5300 Turkish. If 15.2's occur in the Middle East at the rate of 1/1000 and about 1/1000 of paternal meioses in vWA contract by one repeat unit, there must be many 14.2's. Similarly, one would expect at least a few 13.2's. Charles Brenner http://dna-view.com At 06:39 PM 5/13/03 -0400, Dpiyella@aol.com wrote: >Hello All, > >My name is Danielle Imes and I am a DNA analyst in Philadelphia's DNA >Laboratory. We are using the 1.1 system on the FMBIOII. We have recently >come across what looks like a 13.2 allele at the vWA locus. The sample in >question is an E. Cell fraction from a night gown. The complaintant is >the major contributor of the DNA profile detected; there is a minor >component. She is a 15, 15 at the vWA locus. We are picking up a 13.2, >15 at the vWA locus. The 13.2 allele has a 30% greater OD than the 15 >allele at that locus. The band is 136.75bp. The band looks like a >band. It is not bleed through. It is actually visually more prominent >than the expected 15 of what appears to be the major component. >We are in the process of re-running the sample on the 1.1, 2.1 and 16 to >get a clearer picture of what's going on, but we are interested in your >thoughts. Please send your thoughts and comments. > >Danielle From daemon Wed May 14 10:05:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EE5Ac07797 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EE53607773 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:05:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:05:01 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:05:00 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:05:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C6108B@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMZg58iT8p5v4KnSAm0omjOOVcNywAnhwoA From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:05:00.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF3B0360:01C31A21] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EE59607792 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1511 -----Original Message----- From: Ziolkowski, Liz [mailto:ZiolkowskiL.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:17 PM To: Aviles, Phil J. Subject: RE: Special Request Check the JFS "Extraction of human nuclear DNA from feces samples..." article by Vandenberg and van Oorshot, Sept. 2002, p993. Yours, Liz Ziolkowski -----Original Message----- From: Aviles, Phil J. [mailto:Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:57 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Special Request We have an unusual situation which has been brought to my attention, and hopefully someone out there has the experience and expertise to advise our crime scene unit. We are getting an increasing number of requests to collect fecal samples from burglary scenes. Obviously, our burglar has decided to leave a little something very personal, or has a gastrointestinal problem, which becomes pronounced during burglaries. We're looking for someone who has had a lot of experience with collecting these samples, and advice on the significance of the potential information resulting from the analysis of such a sample. Is it possible to extract DNA from a fecal sample after 2 or 3 hours? Is there any time limit? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, literature references would be a big help. This is getting messy. Thanks in advance, Phil Aviles Fort Worth PD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed May 14 10:06:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EE63O07867 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EE5o607831 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:05:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:05:49 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:05:49 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:05:49 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C6108C@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMZg9fvOEywlw9hRQCO0MX+tQ3HpwAngtTA From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:05:49.0372 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC179FC0:01C31A21] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EE61607862 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1750 -----Original Message----- From: Helix Biotech, Inc. [mailto:helix@execpc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:13 PM To: Aviles, Phil J. Subject: RE: Special Request Steve Renteria from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Crime Lab gave a talk at the Forensic Academy annual meeting in Chicago (Jan. 19 or 20th) on the use of the Qiagen Stool DNA Minikit for DNA extraction from fecal samples. I would give him a call to get the details. Warm regards... Alan Friedman, PhD Helix Biotech, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Aviles, Phil J. Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 1:57 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Special Request We have an unusual situation which has been brought to my attention, and hopefully someone out there has the experience and expertise to advise our crime scene unit. We are getting an increasing number of requests to collect fecal samples from burglary scenes. Obviously, our burglar has decided to leave a little something very personal, or has a gastrointestinal problem, which becomes pronounced during burglaries. We're looking for someone who has had a lot of experience with collecting these samples, and advice on the significance of the potential information resulting from the analysis of such a sample. Is it possible to extract DNA from a fecal sample after 2 or 3 hours? Is there any time limit? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, literature references would be a big help. This is getting messy. Thanks in advance, Phil Aviles Fort Worth PD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed May 14 10:07:09 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EE79F08273 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EE73608234 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:06:46 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:06:46 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:06:46 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C6108D@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMZkGxiU95pvEBGR4iIVNpwHErGBwAkZmwQ From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:06:46.0716 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E459FC0:01C31A22] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EE75608246 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2053 -----Original Message----- From: alburns [mailto:alburns@exis.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:44 PM To: Aviles, Phil J. Subject: Re: Special Request Phil, Several years ago (before DNA) I worked a series of residential burglaries where the suspect left his "calling card" at each scene. What I did was use tongue depressors and package the fecal matter in a clean (sterile) plastic speciman box. We were able to produce a full serological workup on the material and match it to the suspect. I'm not sure about the DNA aspect, I'll let the other experts here answer that part. A. E. (Al) Burns 1st Sgt. (ret) Chesapeake Police Dept. Chesapeake, Va ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Special Request > We have an unusual situation which has been brought to my attention, and hopefully someone out there has the experience and expertise to advise our crime scene unit. We are getting an increasing number of requests to collect fecal samples from burglary scenes. Obviously, our burglar has decided to leave a little something very personal, or has a gastrointestinal problem, which becomes pronounced during burglaries. We're looking for someone who has had a lot of experience with collecting these samples, and advice on the significance of the potential information resulting from the analysis of such a sample. Is it possible to extract DNA from a fecal sample after 2 or 3 hours? Is there any time limit? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, literature references would be a big help. This is getting messy. > > Thanks in advance, > Phil Aviles > Fort Worth PD > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > > From daemon Wed May 14 10:07:50 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EE7o208651 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EE7j608605 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:07:41 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:07:41 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: forwarded message Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:07:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C6108E@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: forwarded message Thread-Index: AcMZsHFwCKW4qDtDQ9GGaovExAFYtgAcbK0A From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:07:41.0232 (UTC) FILETIME=[2EC41B00:01C31A22] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EE7l608634 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1544 -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Thompson, Roger" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Fecal Sample collection and Evidence Potential Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:05:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Our DNA Technical Leader response to the Fort Worth question: J Forensic Sci 2002 Sep;47(5):993-5 Related Articles, Links Extraction of human nuclear DNA from feces samples using the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit. Vandenberg N, van Oorschot RA. Victoria Forensic Science Centre, Victoria Police, Macleod, Australia. The use of a QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (QIAGEN) for extracting human nuclear DNA from feces samples is reported. This method employs a stool lysis buffer and a unique matrix (InhibitEX tablet) to remove PCR inhibitory substances specific to feces samples. DNA extracted from various amounts of stool and from stool samples exposed to different environmental impacts was successfully amplified and typed using the Profiler Plus Amplification Kit and ABI PRISM 310 Genetic Analyzer. PMID: 12353586 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Roger C. Thompson Crime Laboratory Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Voice- 704-353-1100 Fax- 704-353-0088 Page- 704-565-7054 rthompson@cmpd.org From daemon Wed May 14 10:08:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EE8Ga08875 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EE8A608844 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:08:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:08:08 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:08:08 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:08:08 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C6108F@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMZzNDyEU82QCiNQKeGqD0uwf6pZQAVWU6w From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:08:08.0545 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F0BBD10:01C31A22] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EE8C608845 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2784 -----Original Message----- From: jharris [mailto:jharris@quincy.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:56 PM To: Aviles, Phil J. Cc: jharris Subject: Re: Special Request Dear Phill, I make coring tools used to sample blood cards (Harris Micro-Punch and Harris Uni-Core). The uni-cores are disposable and available in diameters ranging from 00.50 mm to 8.00 mm. The cutting tips are razor sharp and therefore can cut through hard (dried) or soft fecal matter. The uni-core allows the user to cut, retrieve and store a fecal sample without having to manipulate or handle the target source. Once stored in the hollow tip the tip can be covered with a cover cap which accompany the coring tools. At the lab the sample may be slowly or rapidly ejected into any desired location, i.e. slide, vial, etc. Partial sample need be removed and the rest remain in the cutting tip. The tips are stainless steel and the body polypropylene. The uni-core is pushed into the sample until it makes contact with the underlying surface. The sample is therefore pushed into the hollow cutting tip. The uni-core can then be pulled from the source material, while retaining the fecal sample. We can provide you with test uni-core and can design a prototype kit (i.e. gloves, etc.) where everthing is collected and stored in the pouch for the lab. Samples may also be place directly onto and FTA card at the crime scene using our uni-core. You may see this product at our site www.quincy.ca under Products. Please advise if this is of interest. Joel Harris, Shunderson Communications Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Special Request > We have an unusual situation which has been brought to my attention, and hopefully someone out there has the experience and expertise to advise our crime scene unit. We are getting an increasing number of requests to collect fecal samples from burglary scenes. Obviously, our burglar has decided to leave a little something very personal, or has a gastrointestinal problem, which becomes pronounced during burglaries. We're looking for someone who has had a lot of experience with collecting these samples, and advice on the significance of the potential information resulting from the analysis of such a sample. Is it possible to extract DNA from a fecal sample after 2 or 3 hours? Is there any time limit? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, literature references would be a big help. This is getting messy. > > Thanks in advance, > Phil Aviles > Fort Worth PD > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- From daemon Wed May 14 10:09:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EE97m09367 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EE93609354 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:09:01 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:09:01 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:09:01 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C61090@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMaDzejnbm5Oz9SQVGwtYrRJGy9vQAExgtw From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:09:01.0498 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E9BB9A0:01C31A22] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EE95609362 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1814 -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Stephanie L [mailto:SLSmith@uspis.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:52 AM To: Aviles, Phil J. Subject: RE: Special Request Phil, I went to an excellent workshop at the AAFS meeting a couple of years ago on Forensic Botany. . . The lady who presented the workshop was Dr. Jane Bock. . . She is listed in the AAFS membership roster. She's sort of near you too. . . Though nearer to you when you were still in NM. I think she is in CO. She presented much information about cases you have described. Good luck, Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist US Postal Inspection Service -----Original Message----- From: Aviles, Phil J. [mailto:Phil.Aviles@fortworthgov.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:57 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Special Request We have an unusual situation which has been brought to my attention, and hopefully someone out there has the experience and expertise to advise our crime scene unit. We are getting an increasing number of requests to collect fecal samples from burglary scenes. Obviously, our burglar has decided to leave a little something very personal, or has a gastrointestinal problem, which becomes pronounced during burglaries. We're looking for someone who has had a lot of experience with collecting these samples, and advice on the significance of the potential information resulting from the analysis of such a sample. Is it possible to extract DNA from a fecal sample after 2 or 3 hours? Is there any time limit? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Also, literature references would be a big help. This is getting messy. Thanks in advance, Phil Aviles Fort Worth PD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed May 14 10:17:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EEHY510169 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4EEHQ610155 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Wed May 14 09:17:24 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 14 May 2003 09:17:24 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:17:24 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1F@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Special Request Thread-Index: AcMaI4qFmI59hdHhRNaxU2+YR4CPcA== From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2003 14:17:24.0829 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A9DF0D0:01C31A23] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4EEHY610169 Content-Length: 271 I received several requests to post the messages that were sent in response to my Special Request. Thanks to everyone again for all the help. Phil --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed May 14 10:53:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EErxY11783 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:53:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4EErw611777 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 10:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from solo9550ls (12-241-172-236.client.attbi.com[12.241.172.236]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003051414535900100ehq98e>; Wed, 14 May 2003 14:53:59 +0000 Message-ID: <001e01c31a28$95b9c660$ecacf10c@Solo9550LS> Reply-To: "Daryl W. Clemens" From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: References: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1F@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> Subject: Re: Special Request Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:53:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1003 I'd be interested to hear if the DNA people think that using the coring tool someone suggested would be an appropriate collection technique. What I've been hearing is that you need to swab the exterior surfaces of the "present". Regards, Daryl ------------------------------------------------------------- Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime and Clues http://www.crimeandclues.com Moderator, forensic-science mail list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/ ------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:17 AM Subject: Special Request > I received several requests to post the messages that were sent in response to my Special Request. Thanks to everyone again for all the help. > > Phil > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > From daemon Wed May 14 18:43:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4EMh5A25424 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 18:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4EMh3625418 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 18:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maureen (c-24-131-128-247.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.131.128.247]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc52) with SMTP id <2003051422430405200gin7se>; Wed, 14 May 2003 22:43:04 +0000 From: "Maureen Wood" To: "Forensic" Subject: Research question for writer Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 18:46:20 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 735 Hello Everyone - I am a writer. Currently I am working on a novel that will incorporate a body being uncovered behind an old brick wall in the New England area. -Would the bones be a light to muddy brown color, instead of white, due to lack of sunlight? -Would there be hair on the skeleton's head? Would it discolor with age? -Would it be feasible to have this individual wear some sort of ring, and if so, would it stay on his hand or be found within the wall? -Would there be any odor after twenty or so years? -Also, am I wrong to presume that rats would ensure there to be no tendons etc. on the bones? I would appreciate any and all assistance, as well as any gotcha's I may come across. Thanks again, Maureen From daemon Wed May 14 20:37:15 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4F0bFs27371 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4F0bE627365 for ; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:37:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WBirkby@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id l.176.1a4a3c37 (16335); Wed, 14 May 2003 20:31:54 -0400 (EDT) From: WBirkby@aol.com Message-ID: <176.1a4a3c37.2bf439f9@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:31:53 EDT Subject: Re: Research question for writer To: mowoody@attbi.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1064 Maureen Wood: MY take on your "body behind a brick wall" problem. 1) A lot depends on access to the remains by rodents who would consum soft tissues and disturb the bones from their normal postmortem positions. IF you can rule-out such activity, then this scenario would obtain: 2) the color of the bones would be dark to medium brown with dehydrated soft tissues still present on the bones. 3) hair would still be present on the desiccated scalp. 4) A ring MIGHT stay loosely on the finger depending on gravity--but it should still be near the hand from which it came DEPENDING on the postmortem positioning of the body. 5) Rats MIGHT chew away desiccated soft tissues such as tendons. NO rats would help in keeping the bones stiffly articulated. 6) Beetles and insects are more likely to do damage to the skin and hair in the absence rodents. Hope this helps. If not, net me again with what is not clear. Sincerely yours, Walter H. Birkby, Ph.D., DABFA Forensic Anthropologist Tucson, AZ. From daemon Thu May 15 07:18:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4FBIUr08092 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 May 2003 07:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from alpha.urdirect.net (alpha.urdirect.net [216.136.28.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4FBIT608086 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 07:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0 (pm3a-39.satx.urdirect.net [216.136.28.118]) by alpha.urdirect.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id GAA32002 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 06:18:31 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.urdirect.net: Host pm3a-39.satx.urdirect.net [216.136.28.118] claimed to be FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0 Message-ID: <005601c31ad3$b71cde90$761c88d8@FBI4WV0EYJ6FE0> From: "Mike Wise" To: References: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC1F@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> <001e01c31a28$95b9c660$ecacf10c@Solo9550LS> Subject: Re: Special Request Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 06:18:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1517 The last time I asked our lab people about this (admiitedly about 4 years ago)...I was told the only thing that would be any good would be the exterior surfaces since that is where the skin sells would affix to as the material passed through and out of the body. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Special Request > I'd be interested to hear if the DNA people think that using the coring tool > someone suggested would be an appropriate collection technique. What I've > been hearing is that you need to swab the exterior surfaces of the > "present". > > Regards, > > Daryl > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Daryl W. Clemens > > Editor, Crime and Clues > http://www.crimeandclues.com > > Moderator, forensic-science mail list > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science/ > ------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aviles, Phil J." > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:17 AM > Subject: Special Request > > > > I received several requests to post the messages that were sent in > response to my Special Request. Thanks to everyone again for all the help. > > > > Phil > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > > > From daemon Mon May 19 09:46:55 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4JDktg19381 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 2003 09:46:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4JDko619375 for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 09:46:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Mon May 19 08:46:49 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 19 May 2003 08:46:49 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: DNA FROM HUMAN FECES Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 08:46:48 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047B01C6109E@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: DNA FROM HUMAN FECES Thread-Index: AcMcxjF3LYaqrl7LSUm4pS6L4eUS7QBRtQKQ From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2003 13:46:49.0199 (UTC) FILETIME=[188FC7F0:01C31E0D] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4JDkth19381 Content-Length: 1849 -----Original Message----- From: Johnson, Don J. [mailto:DJJohnso@lasd.org] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 5:40 PM To: Aviles, Phil J. Cc: Brandelli, Donna S. Subject: DNA FROM HUMAN FECES Phil Aviles, We have recently validated a method for the extraction and STR-typing of human nuclear DNA from human fecal matter using the QIAGEN QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit. The kit costs about $150.00, and includes enough reagents for 50 extractions. However, it was necessary to modify QIAGEN's procedure to fit our purposes. It is a reliable product; we have received accurate results. In contrast, we generally are unable to obtain DNA from feces using our standard lysing procedure and phenol-chloroform cleanup. The bottom line is that DNA recovery is possible with this kit, and that partial or complete STR profiles can be obtained--if the sample permits. We recommend collecting as much as possible of the stool, place it into a clean or sterile container, and freeze it as soon as possible. We have recovered DNA from a stool frozen for 6 years in an unsolved homicide case. Liane Martin, a graduate student at our laboratory, evaluated the kit as part of her Master's thesis. Below is the abstract she presented at Promega's 12th International Symposium on Human Identification in October 2001. Also, there is a technical note published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (Sept. 2002, Vol. 47, No. 5, page 993) on the forensic application of this kit. Please contact me if you have further questions, Donald J. Johnson, Senior Criminalist Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Scientific Services Bureau 2020 W. Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 989-5045 <> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/octet-stream --- From daemon Mon May 19 14:03:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4JI3hY26107 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 2003 14:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.baltimorepolice.org ([151.196.160.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4JI3f626101 for ; Mon, 19 May 2003 14:03:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BPD_WEB-Message_Server by mail.baltimorepolice.org with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 19 May 2003 14:08:42 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.5 Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:03:14 -0400 From: "Pamela Shaw" To: Cc: "Mark Profili" Subject: Employment Opportunity - Serology Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4JI3hZ26107 Content-Length: 1265 One - year contractual serologist position - Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore, Maryland The Baltimore Police Lab is searching for a contractual serologist to perform body fluid analysis on evidence to undergo DNA testing. This position is funded by a Federal grant and offers no benefits package. Terms of the contract include a per case payment schedule. Minimum requirements are an AA degree with specific science and forensic coursework requirements, three months forensic serology experience at an accredited lab and ability to pass a qualifying test/interview required. Please send your resume, transcript, and applicable certificates to Mark Profili, Criminalist Supervisor, Trace/Biology Unit, Laboratory Section, Baltimore Police Department 242 W. 29th Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21211. Applicants are subject to a background investigation, polygraph and substance abuse testing. For a detailed position description or more information call 410-396-2562, Monday - Friday 8:00?4:00 or e-mail Mark.Profili@Baltimorepolice.org. This announcement closes June 7, 2003. Pamela K. Shaw Phone - 410.396.2668 Fax - 410.783.5194 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/x-vcard --- From daemon Thu May 22 10:45:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4MEjQ029780 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 2003 10:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from doaisd01001.state.mt.us (doaisd01001.state.mt.us [161.7.1.78]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4MEjO629774 for ; Thu, 22 May 2003 10:45:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by doaisd01001.state.mt.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 22 May 2003 08:45:09 -0600 Message-ID: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7DF87B5@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Hoffman, Judi" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 08:45:10 -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: 326 Dear List: I am trying to purchase a copy of Fettis, G. (editor), Automotive Paints and Coatings, VCH Publishers, 1995. The book is now out of print...does anyone have an extra copy they would be willing to sell or have a comparable reference which is still available? Thanks in advance, Judi Hoffmann MT Forensic Sci. Div. From daemon Thu May 22 11:43:45 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4MFhjM01972 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 22 May 2003 11:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4MFhh601966 for ; Thu, 22 May 2003 11:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Lainey (rdu168-169-166.nc.rr.com [24.168.169.166]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h4MFcWal002515; Thu, 22 May 2003 11:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000c01c32079$227488a0$a6a9a818@nc.rr.com> From: "Janet Brashears" To: "Hoffman, Judi" , References: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7DF87B5@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:45:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4MFhjN01972 Content-Length: 759 Try this: http://www.campusi.com/bookFind/asp/bookFindPriceLst.asp?idxPrefind=5&prodId=3527286373&sessionId=17738351&r=200352283537-2081 Lainey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hoffman, Judi" To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:45 AM > Dear List: > > I am trying to purchase a copy of Fettis, G. (editor), Automotive Paints and > Coatings, VCH Publishers, 1995. The book is now out of print...does anyone > have an extra copy they would be willing to sell or have a comparable > reference which is still available? > > Thanks in advance, > Judi Hoffmann > MT Forensic Sci. Div. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat May 24 14:08:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4OI8Yh04430 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 2003 14:08:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4OI8W604422 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 14:08:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c345114a (12-252-188-87.client.attbi.com[12.252.188.87]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with SMTP id <200305241808320530000mn3e>; Sat, 24 May 2003 18:08:32 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c3221f$7c3e3cd0$6701a8c0@c345114a> From: "Jamie" To: "Forens-L" Subject: Proficiency tests Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:08:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4OI8Yi04430 Content-Length: 4279 I thought the group might find this interesting: " Quality Forensics, Inc. >From the Desk of Michael Kvasnik, President May 23, 2003 Hi, We are excited to share the news that Quality Forensics has now received ASCLD/LAB® approval for proficiency challenges in the disciplines of Forensic Biology (DNA) and Toxicology. Additionally, Quality Forensics has been approved to increase their current offerings in the Trace discipline with the Explosives proficiency challenge that will start shipping in July 2003. The tests offered by Quality Forensics can be used to satisfy the external proficiency testing requirements of the accreditation program of ASCLD/LAB® or support a laboratory's internal competency and training programs. Quality Forensics users include laboratories in local, State, Federal and various International forensic labs. Upcoming shipments include Fiber and Paint in June and Explosives in July. We still have tests available for shipment if your laboratory would like to participate. We invite you to visit our website www.QualityForensics.com for specific product information and easy access to a Quality Forensics order form. The website provides copies of the Preliminary Reports posted for both our Glass and Ignitable Liquid Residue challenges offered earlier this year. Check back for Final Reports including Subscriber Result Form summaries on these products and for results of our other upcoming challenges. FYI, some of our test takers chose the option to directly enter their test results using our Subscriber Result Form area of the website. We welcome your comments and appreciate your feedback by phone or email at your convenience. Thank you for your time and best regards, Michael Kvasnik, President Quality Forensics, Inc. Headquarters located at: 4300 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park, MN 55384 Office Phone: 952-471-1120; Cell Phone: 612-325-5371 Email: Info@QualityForensics.com www.QualityForensics.com ________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE QUALITY FORENSICS ANNOUNCES APPROVED PROVIDER STATUS BY ASCLD/LAB® FOR EXPLOSIVES, FORENSIC BIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY PROFICIENCY TESTS Spring Park, Minnesota - May 19, 2003 Quality Forensics, Inc., a forensic proficiency testing services company, is pleased to announce ASCLD/LAB® approval for proficiency challenges in the disciplines of Forensic Biology (DNA) and Toxicology. Quality Forensics has been approved to increase their current offerings in the Trace discipline with the Explosives proficiency challenge that will start shipping in July 2003. The tests offered by Quality Forensics can be used to satisfy the external proficiency testing requirements of the accreditation program of ASCLD/LAB® or support a laboratory's internal competency and training programs. The Quality Forensics challenges to be offered in the discipline of Forensic Biology include Casework, Database and Mitochondrial with the Toxicology challenges comprised of both Blood Alcohol and Blood Drug. The Forensic Biology Casework challenge will allow for stain identification. The Explosives challenge has been added to the already ASCLD/LAB® approved Trace offerings of Fiber, Paint, Glass and Ignitable Liquid Residue. Specific details on these product offerings is available by calling 952-471-1120 or by accessing the company's website, www.QualityForensics.com . As a company, Quality Forensics is committed to taking a leadership position in the sale and support of proficiency tests to the forensic community. Recognizing the importance of the actual design of the tests to be offered, Quality Forensics has established committees of forensic experts for each discipline offered. On an on-going basis, Quality Forensics intends to develop and support proficiency testing programs based on the recommendations of these focused committee members. For purchasing information and details on the proficiency test products of Quality Forensics, please visit www.QualityForensics.com or call 952-471-1120. Choose a Quality Path ... Choose a Quality Test! " --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sat May 24 16:10:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4OKA6M06539 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 24 May 2003 16:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4OKA4606526 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 16:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PETER (pm8-18.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.18]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h4OK9wUm001177 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200305242010.h4OK9wUm001177@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:38:50 -0700 To: "Forens-L" From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Proficiency tests In-Reply-To: <002e01c3221f$7c3e3cd0$6701a8c0@c345114a> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4OKA5606534 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5446 Are these "Proficiency challenges" because it is not possible to flunk a challenge, but it is possible to flunk a "test?" How is a "challenge" evaluated? If the challenge is Mt. Everest, and I get as far as buying a pair of hiking boots, have I "met" the challenge, "passed" the challenge, "failed" the challenge? What if I get to Base Camp IV, and fall into a crevasse - have I met the challenge, shown proficiency? Rightly or, I think, wrongly, the way "Proficiency Tests" are used in the forensic science business is like a pass-fail exam. If you "pass", you get to keep doing what you were doing, claiming you are certified, etc. If you "fail" (which means you have not gotten the answer that someone else has determined to be the "right" answer) you have to stop doing those things until some remediation occurs. This is not a "challenge" (to do as well as you can do), but a "test" (to see if you can get an answer that someone else has determined to be right). Let's call a test a test, and a challenge a challenge. Pete Barnett At 12:08 PM 5/24/2003 -0600, Jamie wrote: >I thought the group might find this interesting: > >" >Quality Forensics, Inc. >>From the Desk of Michael Kvasnik, President > > > >May 23, 2003 > > > >Hi, > >We are excited to share the news that Quality Forensics has now received ASCLD/LAB® approval for proficiency challenges in the disciplines of Forensic Biology (DNA) and Toxicology. Additionally, Quality Forensics has been approved to increase their current offerings in the Trace discipline with the Explosives proficiency challenge that will start shipping in July 2003. The tests offered by Quality Forensics can be used to satisfy the external proficiency testing requirements of the accreditation program of ASCLD/LAB® or support a laboratory's internal competency and training programs. > > > >Quality Forensics users include laboratories in local, State, Federal and various International forensic labs. Upcoming shipments include Fiber and Paint in June and Explosives in July. We still have tests available for shipment if your laboratory would like to participate. > >We invite you to visit our website www.QualityForensics.com for specific product information and easy access to a Quality Forensics order form. The website provides copies of the Preliminary Reports posted for both our Glass and Ignitable Liquid Residue challenges offered earlier this year. Check back for Final Reports including Subscriber Result Form summaries on these products and for results of our other upcoming challenges. FYI, some of our test takers chose the option to directly enter their test results using our Subscriber Result Form area of the website. > > >We welcome your comments and appreciate your feedback by phone or email at your convenience. > > > >Thank you for your time and best regards, > >Michael Kvasnik, President >Quality Forensics, Inc. > > > > Headquarters located at: 4300 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park, MN 55384 > > Office Phone: 952-471-1120; Cell Phone: 612-325-5371 > > Email: Info@QualityForensics.com > > > > www.QualityForensics.com > > > >________________________________________________ > > > >FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE > >QUALITY FORENSICS ANNOUNCES APPROVED PROVIDER STATUS BY ASCLD/LAB® FOR EXPLOSIVES, FORENSIC BIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY PROFICIENCY TESTS > > Spring Park, Minnesota - May 19, 2003 > >Quality Forensics, Inc., a forensic proficiency testing services company, is pleased to announce ASCLD/LAB® approval for proficiency challenges in the disciplines of Forensic Biology (DNA) and Toxicology. Quality Forensics has been approved to increase their current offerings in the Trace discipline with the Explosives proficiency challenge that will start shipping in July 2003. The tests offered by Quality Forensics can be used to satisfy the external proficiency testing requirements of the accreditation program of ASCLD/LAB® or support a laboratory's internal competency and training programs. > > > >The Quality Forensics challenges to be offered in the discipline of Forensic Biology include Casework, Database and Mitochondrial with the Toxicology challenges comprised of both Blood Alcohol and Blood Drug. The Forensic Biology Casework challenge will allow for stain identification. The Explosives challenge has been added to the already ASCLD/LAB® approved Trace offerings of Fiber, Paint, Glass and Ignitable Liquid Residue. Specific details on these product offerings is available by calling 952-471-1120 or by accessing the company's website, www.QualityForensics.com . > > > >As a company, Quality Forensics is committed to taking a leadership position in the sale and support of proficiency tests to the forensic community. Recognizing the importance of the actual design of the tests to be offered, Quality Forensics has established committees of forensic experts for each discipline offered. On an on-going basis, Quality Forensics intends to develop and support proficiency testing programs based on the recommendations of these focused committee members. > > > >For purchasing information and details on the proficiency test products of Quality Forensics, please visit www.QualityForensics.com or call 952-471-1120. > > > >Choose a Quality Path ... Choose a Quality Test! " > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- >multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html >--- > From daemon Sun May 25 10:12:13 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4PECDg20362 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 May 2003 10:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4PECC620356 for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 10:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SkipnCar@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id y.b8.40dc46fc (30970) for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 10:12:07 -0400 (EDT) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 10:12:06 EDT Subject: Re: Proficiency tests To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6011 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 147 Well said, Peter. Carla --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Sun May 25 11:24:06 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4PFO6E22275 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 May 2003 11:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4PFO5622269 for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 11:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dialup-67.75.198.34.dial1.seattle.level3.net ([67.75.198.34] helo=cp.calicopress.com) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19JxLy-0008OH-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sun, 25 May 2003 11:24:06 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030525081954.02c30060@pop.business.earthlink.net> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 08:22:32 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: Proficiency tests/challenges-Arson? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 262 Given all the problems Collaborative Testing (CTS) had with supplying the fire debris analysis samples, I am eager to see how this new company handles them. It's the volatility that makes these samples so damn difficult to supply with any consistency. John From daemon Sun May 25 20:21:39 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4Q0LdW29508 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 May 2003 20:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4Q0Lb629502 for ; Sun, 25 May 2003 20:21:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c345114a (12-252-188-87.client.attbi.com[12.252.188.87]) by attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <20030526002138003005ts76e>; Mon, 26 May 2003 00:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: <002701c3231c$c6398260$6701a8c0@c345114a> From: "Jamie" To: "Forens-L" , "Peter D. Barnett" References: <200305242010.h4OK9wUm001177@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> Subject: Re: Proficiency tests Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 18:20:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6238 So how would your "ideal" proficiency test be structured Pete?? James (Jamie) Crippin Director - WFLETC Western Forensic Law Enforcement Training Center (719) 544-1011 ph (719) 546-8841 pg (719) 544-0037 fx (719) 251-9215 cell "I would rather be irresponsible and right, than responsible and wrong" Winston Churchill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D. Barnett" To: "Forens-L" Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: Re: Proficiency tests > Are these "Proficiency challenges" because it is not possible to flunk a > challenge, but it is possible to flunk a "test?" How is a "challenge" > evaluated? If the challenge is Mt. Everest, and I get as far as buying a > pair of hiking boots, have I "met" the challenge, "passed" the challenge, > "failed" the challenge? What if I get to Base Camp IV, and fall into a > crevasse - have I met the challenge, shown proficiency? > > Rightly or, I think, wrongly, the way "Proficiency Tests" are used in the > forensic science business is like a pass-fail exam. If you "pass", you get > to keep doing what you were doing, claiming you are certified, etc. If you > "fail" (which means you have not gotten the answer that someone else has > determined to be the "right" answer) you have to stop doing those things > until some remediation occurs. This is not a "challenge" (to do as well as > you can do), but a "test" (to see if you can get an answer that someone > else has determined to be right). Let's call a test a test, and a challenge > a challenge. > > Pete Barnett > > At 12:08 PM 5/24/2003 -0600, Jamie wrote: > >I thought the group might find this interesting: > > > >" > >Quality Forensics, Inc. > >>From the Desk of Michael Kvasnik, President > > > > > > > >May 23, 2003 > > > > > > > >Hi, > > > >We are excited to share the news that Quality Forensics has now received > ASCLD/LAB® approval for proficiency challenges in the disciplines of > Forensic Biology (DNA) and Toxicology. Additionally, Quality Forensics has > been approved to increase their current offerings in the Trace discipline > with the Explosives proficiency challenge that will start shipping in July > 2003. The tests offered by Quality Forensics can be used to satisfy the > external proficiency testing requirements of the accreditation program of > ASCLD/LAB® or support a laboratory's internal competency and training > programs. > > > > > > > >Quality Forensics users include laboratories in local, State, Federal and > various International forensic labs. Upcoming shipments include Fiber and > Paint in June and Explosives in July. We still have tests available for > shipment if your laboratory would like to participate. > > > > >We invite you to visit our website www.QualityForensics.com for specific > product information and easy access to a Quality Forensics order form. The > website provides copies of the Preliminary Reports posted for both our > Glass and Ignitable Liquid Residue challenges offered earlier this year. > Check back for Final Reports including Subscriber Result Form summaries on > these products and for results of our other upcoming challenges. FYI, some > of our test takers chose the option to directly enter their test results > using our Subscriber Result Form area of the website. > > > > > >We welcome your comments and appreciate your feedback by phone or email at > your convenience. > > > > > > > >Thank you for your time and best regards, > > > >Michael Kvasnik, President > >Quality Forensics, Inc. > > > > > > > > Headquarters located at: 4300 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park, MN 55384 > > > > Office Phone: 952-471-1120; Cell Phone: 612-325-5371 > > > > Email: Info@QualityForensics.com > > > > > > > > www.QualityForensics.com > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > > > > > > > >FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE > > > >QUALITY FORENSICS ANNOUNCES APPROVED PROVIDER STATUS BY ASCLD/LAB® FOR > EXPLOSIVES, FORENSIC BIOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY PROFICIENCY TESTS > > > > Spring Park, Minnesota - May 19, 2003 > > > >Quality Forensics, Inc., a forensic proficiency testing services company, > is pleased to announce ASCLD/LAB® approval for proficiency challenges in > the disciplines of Forensic Biology (DNA) and Toxicology. Quality > Forensics has been approved to increase their current offerings in the > Trace discipline with the Explosives proficiency challenge that will start > shipping in July 2003. The tests offered by Quality Forensics can be used > to satisfy the external proficiency testing requirements of the > accreditation program of ASCLD/LAB® or support a laboratory's internal > competency and training programs. > > > > > > > >The Quality Forensics challenges to be offered in the discipline of > Forensic Biology include Casework, Database and Mitochondrial with the > Toxicology challenges comprised of both Blood Alcohol and Blood Drug. The > Forensic Biology Casework challenge will allow for stain identification. > The Explosives challenge has been added to the already ASCLD/LAB® approved > Trace offerings of Fiber, Paint, Glass and Ignitable Liquid Residue. > Specific details on these product offerings is available by calling > 952-471-1120 or by accessing the company's website, > www.QualityForensics.com . > > > > > > > > >As a company, Quality Forensics is committed to taking a leadership > position in the sale and support of proficiency tests to the forensic > community. Recognizing the importance of the actual design of the tests to > be offered, Quality Forensics has established committees of forensic > experts for each discipline offered. On an on-going basis, Quality > Forensics intends to develop and support proficiency testing programs based > on the recommendations of these focused committee members. > > > > > > > >For purchasing information and details on the proficiency test products of > Quality Forensics, please visit www.QualityForensics.com or call > 952-471-1120. > > > > > > > >Choose a Quality Path ... Choose a Quality Test! " > > > > > > > >--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > >multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > >--- > > From daemon Mon May 26 09:50:00 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4QDo0711866 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:50:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.upjs.sk (ns.upjs.sk [158.197.16.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4QDnx611860 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 09:49:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.upjs.sk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4QDm7u20107 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 26 May 2003 15:48:07 +0200 Received: from 158.197.16.30.upjs.sk ([158.197.114.97]) by mail.upjs.sk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h4QDm5C20080 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 15:48:06 +0200 Message-ID: <003701c3238d$a5f71460$6172c59e@197.16.30.upjs.sk> From: "Bobrov N." To: "FORENS-L" Subject: Request on liver injury Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:49:36 +0200 Organization: USL LF UPJS MIME-Version: 1.0 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 X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.12.4 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="windows-1250" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1855 Dear members of the list, I have a request on liver injury at traffic accident. There are two autopsy macrophotos of the liver I have uploaded on the site: http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4047959&a=30699527&pw Autopsy report (debriefed): liver size 29 x 15 x 9,5 cm, mass 1650 g, front edge is sharp, niveau of right rib arch, smooth surface, capsule is fine and smooth, covered with liquid blood, organ consistence is elastic, there are 4 superficial ruptures on the diaphragmal surface of the right lobe oriented transversally and obliquely, each up to 3 cm, there deep opened, longitudinally oriented rupture is on the visceral surface of the right lobe, crossed the gate (porta hepatis) 12,5 cm long, up to 6,5 cm wide, up to 6 cm deep, the parenchym is contused and soaked with blood, in other places the tissue cut surface is brownish-red color, blood saturation is not efficient, the structure of hepatic lobules is macroscopically good visible, v. portae and its main roots are seemed as not damaged or dilated, bile ducts are normally configured. There is 300 ml of liquid blood in the abdominal cavity. The photo 2 shows interesting autopsy finding: breaking of the gallstone as a sequence of impact of the trunk on the dashboard, with the contusion of the gallbladder (both photo 1 and 2). My questions are: 1) How many points has this liver by AIS-90? What is its contribution to the ISS? 2) Whether the showed injury is fatal or heavy, major, resp. dangerous for life? 3) If the injury is regareded as isolated, was it possible to save the patient's life in this case (e.g. traffic accident is on the road nerby the hospital? far from the hospital?) 4) What are your impressions on practical using of AIS/ISS method of injury standardisation? Thanks in advance. Nikita Bobrov Institute of Forensic Medicine Kosice, Slovakia From daemon Mon May 26 11:00:08 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4QF07g14173 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 2003 11:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4QF05614167 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 11:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (adsl-63-204-132-232.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.204.132.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id h4QF02Uo015371; Mon, 26 May 2003 08:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030526074107.00aabe60@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:53:39 -0700 To: "Jamie" , "Forens-L" From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Proficiency tests In-Reply-To: <002701c3231c$c6398260$6701a8c0@c345114a> References: <200305242010.h4OK9wUm001177@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1563 At 06:20 PM 5/25/03 -0600, Jamie wrote: >So how would your "ideal" proficiency test be structured Pete?? An excellent question, Jamie, which I wonder if much thought has ever been given to. The answer, it seems to me, depends on the purpose of the testing. The problem can be divided into two categories: analytical proficiency and, for lack of a better term, professional proficiency. Analytical proficiency is, I think, pretty simple: Send out some samples and see what the answers are that people get. (The problem comes in what do you do with the answers? Is there a "right" answer, and how is that determined? Is the right answer somehow determined by the answers that all responders get, or is it determined by some referee process? IF a responders does not get the "right" answer, what are the consequences?) But this test does not really get to the heart of the matter. The real issue is whether or not forensic scientists do a competent job in their investigation of a "case." The only way to measure that is to review the way a case is handled by the practitioner. So case review would be my choice for "proficiency testing." That review would be conducted by an independent organization, based on criteria established by the professional practitioners. The review would be of an actual case, and be conducted by actual practitioners. Now we just have to work out the details. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Mon May 26 13:45:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4QHj4w18399 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from la.znet.com (la.znet.com [207.167.96.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4QHj2618393 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:45:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zippnet.net (lats01-49.znet.net [207.167.96.49]) by la.znet.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/le1-la) with ESMTP id h4QHit63019922 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: rkeister@zippnet.net X-Envelope-To: Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:48:40 -0700 Subject: Re: Proficiency tests Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Rob Keister To: Forensic In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030526074107.00aabe60@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Message-Id: <492B946E-8FA2-11D7-931A-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2369 Pete, In this professional practitioners review system, would the review involve re-examination or re-analysis of the evidence or only the examination of the reports and notes of the person being tested? It seems that the option of retesting would need to always be there. Additional testing of casework evidence introduces a whole realm of complications. Others would know better than me, but it could be difficult for an independent criminalist to convince a client that their case is going to be reviewed by an independent organization of professional practitioners. Rob Keister Orange Co. Sheriff Dept. On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 07:53 AM, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > At 06:20 PM 5/25/03 -0600, Jamie wrote: >> So how would your "ideal" proficiency test be structured Pete?? > > An excellent question, Jamie, which I wonder if much thought has ever > been given to. > > The answer, it seems to me, depends on the purpose of the testing. > The problem can be divided into two categories: analytical proficiency > and, for lack of a better term, professional proficiency. Analytical > proficiency is, I think, pretty simple: Send out some samples and see > what the answers are that people get. (The problem comes in what do > you do with the answers? Is there a "right" answer, and how is that > determined? Is the right answer somehow determined by the answers > that all responders get, or is it determined by some referee process? > IF a responders does not get the "right" answer, what are the > consequences?) But this test does not really get to the heart of the > matter. > > The real issue is whether or not forensic scientists do a competent > job in their investigation of a "case." The only way to measure that > is to review the way a case is handled by the practitioner. So case > review would be my choice for "proficiency testing." That review > would be conducted by an independent organization, based on criteria > established by the professional practitioners. The review would be of > an actual case, and be conducted by actual practitioners. > > Now we just have to work out the details. > > Pete Barnett > > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > > http://www.fsalab.com > > Bumper Sticker: Eat Well, Stay Fit, Die Anyway From daemon Mon May 26 16:52:52 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4QKqqC22600 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 May 2003 16:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4QKqo622594 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 16:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PETER (pm9-82.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.82]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h4QKqnUm008360 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200305262052.h4QKqnUm008360@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:52:00 -0700 To: Forensic From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Proficiency tests In-Reply-To: <492B946E-8FA2-11D7-931A-000393D79C30@zippnet.net> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030526074107.00aabe60@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1539 At 10:48 AM 5/26/2003 -0700, Rob Keister wrote: >In this professional practitioners review system, would the review >involve re-examination or re-analysis of the evidence or only the >examination of the reports and notes of the person being tested? That depends on what the reviewers feel is necessary. The review would start with the report, and optionally request documentation. There may be a situation where reanalysis is necessary, but I suspect that with adequate documentation that would not be necessary very often. >Additional testing of casework evidence introduces a whole realm of >complications. Agreed - but if we intend to do meaningful review, we need to address that problem. >Others would know better than me, but it could be difficult for an >independent criminalist to convince a client that their case is going >to be reviewed by an independent organization of professional >practitioners. Why would clients be given a choice, or even informed? When your medical file is reviewed by a peer review panel for recertification of your physician, does your doctor call and ask your permission? I think it is obvious that are confidentiality issues that need to be addressed in this process, but that is not that hard. The idea should be that the people affected by the work we do deserve some confidentiality, but our work does not. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue May 27 01:48:54 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4R5msD01439 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 01:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (law8-oe35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.92]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4R5mq601433 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 01:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 26 May 2003 22:48:52 -0700 Received: from 66.61.75.204 by law8-oe35.law8.hotmail.com with DAV; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:48:52 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Brent Turvey" , References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 00:49:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2003 05:48:52.0907 (UTC) FILETIME=[A776DFB0:01C32413] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8871 Brent: Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the article you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I note that you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll take a moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for it - http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1052563951;start=0 As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this article from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold at least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to clarify, so that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be given credit for the article. I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private account ten minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the author. Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend of mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that goes with the job and I really detest that. It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER and the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's ruling, that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from the whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie Drake. Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere but paperback "true crime" books 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar with the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the term sim ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important to note that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into the province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware of his reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism and integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of ASFO, and if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and subscribes to their ethics. Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted wholesale in support of your allegations. As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They cannot decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that this is the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would correct your ignorance. Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you should fail to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact exist in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that date back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your critical thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that you are casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are concerned. As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld this information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and you have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have been surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless you think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in the Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do the reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the things the court concluded here? Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that Ms. Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that she will eventually regret. Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due diligence and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake brought an ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was investigated by the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics violation had occured. I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, despite the fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that he claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female victim post-mortem, wants to now see him released. AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they probably belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a hearing, after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot answer. You cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict the professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of Behavioral Profiling. 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore them? 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of individuals listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations from? 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization lies under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. If you did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. As your ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by other ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of your organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath would have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and ignored the complaint. I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization about you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in equal measure. Your organization only serves itself. Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered > perjured testimony: > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He is > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children: > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338) > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully moved > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to get > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > cross-examination. > From daemon Tue May 27 02:02:47 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4R62l701987 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 02:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta07.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta07.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.88]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4R62j601981 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 02:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gesteer ([63.60.42.138]) by mta07.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20030527060241.VBGR16123.mta07.mail.mel.aone.net.au@gesteer> for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 16:02:41 +1000 Message-ID: <013501c32415$abb86f10$6e00a8c0@gesteer> From: "Karen Cavanagh-Steer" To: References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:03:17 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 9925 Dear Mr Wheeler, I don't mean to be rude, but you have now been delegated to my ignore list. I do not care if you have legitimate reasons for your obvious dislike of certain individuals on this list, nor do I care if you continue to make snide comments about their abilities and ethics. Whatever fills your boots. I would prefer, however, if you did it in private. This is not the appropriate forum for your obnoxious diatribes. Cheers, Karen ----- Original Message ----- From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Brent Turvey" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Brent: > > Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the article > you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I note that > you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll take a > moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a > verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for it - > > http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=d isplay;num=1052563951;start=0 > > As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen > lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this article > from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold at > least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to clarify, so > that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be given > credit for the article. > > I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private account ten > minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your > private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one > operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the > author. > > Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend of > mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that goes > with the job and I really detest that. > > It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER and > the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's ruling, > that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from the > whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie > Drake. > > Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: > > 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness > 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere but > paperback "true crime" books > 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar with > the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the term sim > ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime > > Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important to note > that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell > Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into the > province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the > possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. > > I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware of his > reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he > expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism and > integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is > sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of ASFO, and > if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and > subscribes to their ethics. > > Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted > wholesale in support of your allegations. > > As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They cannot > decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that this is > the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would > correct your ignorance. > > Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you should fail > to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact exist > in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that date > back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you > yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". > > In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your critical > thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that you are > casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are concerned. > > As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly > surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in > countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some > instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld this > information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and you > have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have been > surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. > > In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a > defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless you > think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in the > Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do the > reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the > things the court concluded here? > > Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that Ms. > Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that she will > eventually regret. > > Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due diligence > and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake brought an > ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was investigated by > the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics violation > had occured. > > I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen > appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in > prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, despite the > fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that he > claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female victim > post-mortem, wants to now see him released. > > AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they probably > belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a hearing, > after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. > > I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot answer. You > cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict the > professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of Behavioral > Profiling. > > 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of > convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore them? > > 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of individuals > listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations from? > > 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization lies > under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? > > As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. If you > did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. As your > ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by other > ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of your > organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath would > have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and > ignored the complaint. > > I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization about > you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. > > All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile > organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in equal > measure. Your organization only serves itself. > > Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, > > Shaun > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM > Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > testimony > > > > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered > > perjured testimony: > > > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA > > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal > > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a > > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He > is > > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children: > > > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338) > > > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it > > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about > > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully > moved > > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to > get > > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > > cross-examination. > > From daemon Tue May 27 03:14:07 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4R7E7003340 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 03:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from power.connexus.net.au (power.connexus.net.au [203.12.22.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4R7E5603334 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 03:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LYNN (122-140-81.dsl.connexus.net.au [203.122.140.81]) by power.connexus.net.au (8.12.4/8.11.6) with SMTP id h4R6ic64074123; Tue, 27 May 2003 16:45:03 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from lynn@hyp.com.au) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service Message-ID: <007d01c3241c$78ee8e50$6400a8c0@LYNN> From: "Lynn Coceani" To: "shaun wheeler" Cc: "Brent Turvey" , References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:51:28 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 9788 Shaun - rack off! Unless you want another mouthful from me. Just go sink back into your esteemed position of sewage inspector and "forensic proctologist"??? )Haaa, haa - sorry but that bit really gets me laughing!) let the people for whom this listing is meant, get on with their business. You're a pest! Lynn ----- Original Message ----- From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Brent Turvey" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Brent: > > Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the article > you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I note that > you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll take a > moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a > verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for it - > > http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=d isplay;num=1052563951;start=0 > > As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen > lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this article > from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold at > least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to clarify, so > that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be given > credit for the article. > > I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private account ten > minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your > private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one > operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the > author. > > Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend of > mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that goes > with the job and I really detest that. > > It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER and > the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's ruling, > that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from the > whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie > Drake. > > Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: > > 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness > 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere but > paperback "true crime" books > 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar with > the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the term sim > ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime > > Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important to note > that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell > Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into the > province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the > possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. > > I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware of his > reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he > expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism and > integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is > sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of ASFO, and > if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and > subscribes to their ethics. > > Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted > wholesale in support of your allegations. > > As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They cannot > decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that this is > the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would > correct your ignorance. > > Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you should fail > to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact exist > in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that date > back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you > yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". > > In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your critical > thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that you are > casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are concerned. > > As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly > surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in > countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some > instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld this > information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and you > have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have been > surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. > > In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a > defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless you > think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in the > Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do the > reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the > things the court concluded here? > > Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that Ms. > Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that she will > eventually regret. > > Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due diligence > and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake brought an > ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was investigated by > the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics violation > had occured. > > I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen > appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in > prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, despite the > fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that he > claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female victim > post-mortem, wants to now see him released. > > AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they probably > belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a hearing, > after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. > > I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot answer. You > cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict the > professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of Behavioral > Profiling. > > 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of > convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore them? > > 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of individuals > listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations from? > > 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization lies > under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? > > As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. If you > did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. As your > ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by other > ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of your > organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath would > have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and > ignored the complaint. > > I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization about > you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. > > All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile > organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in equal > measure. Your organization only serves itself. > > Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, > > Shaun > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brent Turvey" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM > Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > testimony > > > > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered > > perjured testimony: > > > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA > > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal > > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a > > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He > is > > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children: > > > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338) > > > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it > > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about > > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully > moved > > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to > get > > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > > cross-examination. > > From daemon Tue May 27 11:27:01 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RFR0W14928 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx7.mail.ru (mx7.mail.ru [194.67.23.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4RFQx614922 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:26:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [195.54.8.159] (port=3017 helo=1fk4lshh6xzdwm) by mx7.mail.ru with smtp id 19KgLq-000Eaz-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 27 May 2003 19:26:58 +0400 Message-ID: <000f01c32464$5f22c6b0$9f0836c3@1fk4lshh6xzdwm> From: "Michael Martynenko" To: Subject: Silence of lambs Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:25:40 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="utf-8" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4RFR0X14928 Content-Length: 1257 Dear colleagues! We are investigating four cases of homicides of the young women that have been taking place within this month. All four murders have been accomplished at night, approximately in one place. In all cases the reason of death was mechanical asphyxia. In two cases took place strangulation, in two cases asphyxia was performed by hands. In two cases in a mouth and in a drink of victims there were alien bodies. All cases were accompanied by damages in the field of genitals and in the field of anus. In the last case there was a simultaneous murder of two young women. In all cases there were neither damage, except for specified, no traces of self-defense. All this allows us to assume, that all murders are accomplished by one person .Because of the absence of traces of self-defense we suggest, that victims have been resulted in unconsciousness first. If the criminal is guided by film, he operates with an electroshock. Whether there were similar cases? What traces are left by an electroshock? Thanks in advance. I shall be grateful for any information. Michael Martynenko MD Forensic pathologist Russia --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Tue May 27 12:06:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RG6nc18658 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.uri.edu (RockyPoint.uri.edu [131.128.1.58]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4RG6m618649 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:06:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.uri.edu [131.128.1.32]) by pete.uri.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4RG6nbY011164 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:06:49 -0400 Received: from DIRECTOR ([131.128.32.152]) by terms.uri.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h4RG6n7Y027255 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:06:49 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20030527120632.00e1e3b0@postoffice.uri.edu> X-Sender: dhi0251u@postoffice.uri.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:06:32 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Dennis Hilliard Subject: Examination gloves Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1148 Good Day, Our medical examiner has a case in which an examination glove (Latex or Vinyl) was found in the lung of a body upon autopsy. Once the glove is processed for DNA (inside) and latent prints (inside), she was wondering about tests to determine possible manufacturer of the glove product. I realize that an FTIR would help determine composition and possible relavance to some sources of gloves the police will consider. I was wondering if there are any studies that list members know about or have undertaken themselves to identify a source of such a piece of evidence. Do manufacturers have proprietary chemistries or are they like gasoline, so shared amoung so many distributors that it is virtually impossible to determine the source of origin. Is latex always latex (and vinyl always vinyl) or are there determinates that can narrow the suspect field. Thanks in advance for any help provided. Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. Director - RI State Crime Laboratory Adjunct Assistant Professor - BioMedical Sciences 220 Fogarty Hall - URI 41 Lower College Road Kingston, RI 02881-0809 Tel: 401-874-2893 Fax: 401-874-2181 email: dch@uri.edu From daemon Tue May 27 14:06:35 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RI6ZB23273 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 14:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web20510.mail.yahoo.com (web20510.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.226.145]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4RI6X623264 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 14:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030527180635.98329.qmail@web20510.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [209.232.103.80] by web20510.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:06:35 PDT Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Interesting article To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 579 To all - The article indicated below is making the rounds - - a compilation of all (recent and not-so-recent) forensic problems. Even though the author is guility of some hyperbole, it provides a reasonably accurate synopsis of problems that have occured in our field. Thought it might be of interest to the group . . . www.insightmag.com/news/436794.html Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com From daemon Tue May 27 15:55:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RJti026802 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 15:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 15:55:44 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-Id: <200305271955.h4RJti026802@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Content-Length: 685 Please reply to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Banning, Steven" To: "'Forens-L'" Subject: Re: Proficiency tests Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:29:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" How would you grade a proficiency test/challenge in an area where your answer might be determined by your training and experience (i.e. Firearms)? Would an inconclusive be a pass or a fail? If it is a fail, should you stop doing comparisons until some remediation occurs? From daemon Tue May 27 17:07:28 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RL7SU02132 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 17:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4RL7Q602126 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 17:07:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from PETER (pm9-50.nothingbutnet.net [207.167.85.50]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.12.6/8.12.8/jjb-ns1) with SMTP id h4RL7OUm028085 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200305272107.h4RL7OUm028085@ns1.nothingbutnet.net> X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:31:24 -0700 To: "'Forens-L'" From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Proficiency testing thread In-Reply-To: <200305271955.h4RJti026802@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: 1709 If the idea is to show that someone is "proficient", and that means able to conduct an examination at an acceptable level of performance, then training and experience is irrelevant. Do we accept substandard performance because the forensic scienctist lacks the training and experience that we expect all examiners to possess. Most professional evaluation processes (the ABC certification process as an example) establishes a certain level of performance on the testing instrument that all candidates are required to pass. If you "just miss" you don't pass. If you pass "with flying colors" or "barely pass" no one knows the diffrerence. In a proficiency test, any particular result (although I don't quite see how a firearms examination could be "inconclusive" -- there must be SOME conclusion that can be drawn from any examination) would be acceptable if, in the judgement of the peer reviewers, that answer is the proper one. Pete Barnett >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Banning, Steven" >To: "'Forens-L'" >Subject: Re: Proficiency tests >Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:29:28 -0500 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) >Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" > >How would you grade a proficiency test/challenge in an area where your >answer might be determined by your training and experience (i.e. Firearms)? >Would an inconclusive be a pass or a fail? If it is a fail, should you stop >doing comparisons until some remediation occurs? > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Tue May 27 17:12:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RLCNr02520 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 17:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us (www.fortworthgov.org [63.118.235.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4RLCH602514 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 17:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us BY ES903.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ; Tue May 27 16:12:06 2003 -0500 Received: from es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us ([172.16.6.18]) by es910.ci.fort-worth.tx.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 27 May 2003 16:12:05 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: FW: Interesting article Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:12:05 -0500 Message-ID: <1E84C1C79C624B4F84BDCFC1FC78047BA0EC32@es908.ci.fort-worth.tx.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Interesting article Thread-Index: AcMkeuZjZugQuQ0NQxmLySfG69FUigAE3Eog From: "Aviles, Phil J." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2003 21:12:05.0864 (UTC) FILETIME=[A03D5680:01C32494] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4RLCM602515 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2306 After reading this article, I feel compelled to respond to a couple of statements that were made concerning the Fort Worth lab. First of all, I have received no communication from the FBI regarding the acceptance of DNA results from this lab. We have been outsourcing all DNA work to Orchid-Cellmark (ASCLD Accredited) for one year. If there is a problem, the FBI has not made it known to anyone here. Secondly, and more importantly, the Fort Worth Crime Lab is NOT closed. We are alive and kicking, and plan on staying that way. Yes, we had a serious problem, but it was identified, and the appropriate action was taken. No, we are not accredited, however we will be moving to a new facility soon, and that will be a priority once we are settled in. The Texas legislature has passed a bill requiring all Texas crime labs to be accredited by September 2005. Yes, we are under investigation by the DA's office, and we welcome it. We are also doing an internal investigation, reviewing all STR DNA cases produced by this lab from day one. Our DNA section has been formally associated with the University of North Texas Health Science Center for technical oversight. Some of you may be familiar with Dr. Arthur Eisenberg. He is heading up the review and eventual certification of our DNA lab. I think I'll stop for now, but I felt that I had to clarify a few things with THE TRUTH! If anyone has any questions, I will be happy to discuss this off list. Philip J. Aviles Forensic Lab Supervisor Fort Worth Police Dept. Fort Worth, Texas -----Original Message----- From: Tom Abercrombie [mailto:jta@rocketmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:07 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Interesting article To all - The article indicated below is making the rounds - - a compilation of all (recent and not-so-recent) forensic problems. Even though the author is guility of some hyperbole, it provides a reasonably accurate synopsis of problems that have occured in our field. Thought it might be of interest to the group . . . www.insightmag.com/news/436794.html Tom Abercrombie, Criminalist III/Supervisor Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com From daemon Tue May 27 18:18:32 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RMIVN04484 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 18:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4RMIU604478 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 18:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NMRollaGal@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id y.7b.11ebde65 (15900) for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 18:18:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aol.com (mow-m17.webmail.aol.com [64.12.180.133]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v93.12) with ESMTP id MAILINID93-3e1c3ed3e42f3b0; Tue, 27 May 2003 18:18:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 18:18:23 -0400 From: NMRollaGal@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: internships question MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3424E26F.34B60064.0B622769@aol.com> X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 531 Hi, I am graduating in December with a degree in Biology and wanted to know if a Master's Degree in Forensic Science/Criminalistics would be worth it. I have always thought that is what I would want to do after getting a Bachelor's degree, but now I am not sure if this is a good degree to get. If I don't like it, then what else could I do with that kind of degree? Also, does anyone know about any kind of internship programs I could apply to to maybe help me figure out if this is what I want to go into? Thanks, Bonnie From daemon Tue May 27 18:33:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RMX4B05000 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 18:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from out006.verizon.net (out006pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.106]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4RMX3604994 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 18:33:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from RegisteredUser ([24.96.18.208]) by out006.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030527223303.OXRC25800.out006.verizon.net@RegisteredUser>; Tue, 27 May 2003 17:33:03 -0500 Message-ID: <002801c324a0$feb2bdc0$d0126018@RegisteredUser> From: "John" To: "Michael Martynenko" , References: <000f01c32464$5f22c6b0$9f0836c3@1fk4lshh6xzdwm> Subject: Re: Silence of lambs Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 18:40:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out006.verizon.net from [24.96.18.208] at Tue, 27 May 2003 17:33:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="utf-8" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2034 I'm not a forensic investigator, so take this for what it's worth, but I seem to remember seeing a show on CourtTV or A&E or one of the true crime investigation shows about JonBenet Ramsey in which there were small burn markings on the body left possibly from a taser. There were 2 wounds, I believe, in which the 2 prongs contacting the skin left 2 different size burns, 1 larger than the other due to the prong not being in complete contact with the skin. In each case, the burns were distanced equally from one another. Hope this helps in some way. John St Pete, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Martynenko" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Silence of lambs > Dear colleagues! > > We are investigating four cases of homicides of the young women that have been taking place within this month. All four murders have been accomplished at night, approximately in one place. In all cases the reason of death was mechanical asphyxia. In two cases took place strangulation, in two cases asphyxia was performed by hands. In two cases in a mouth and in a drink of victims there were alien bodies. All cases were accompanied by damages in the field of genitals and in the field of anus. In the last case there was a simultaneous murder of two young women. In all cases there were neither damage, except for specified, no traces of self-defense. All this allows us to assume, that all murders are accomplished by one person .Because of the absence of traces of self-defense we suggest, that victims have been resulted in unconsciousness first. If the criminal is guided by film, he operates with an electroshock. Whether there were similar cases? What traces are left by an electro! > shock? > > Thanks in advance. I shall be grateful for any information. > > > > Michael Martynenko MD > > Forensic pathologist > > Russia > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- From daemon Tue May 27 19:32:19 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4RNWI706592 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 May 2003 19:32:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ALPHA8.ITS.MONASH.EDU.AU (alpha8.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.1.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4RNWE606586 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 19:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thwack.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.1.72]) by vaxh.its.monash.edu.au (PMDF V5.2-31 #39306) with ESMTP id <01KWF4TS40CW9C3XMN@vaxh.its.monash.edu.au> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:24:08 +1000 Received: from thwack.its.monash.edu.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E7612C010; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:24:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (brain.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.125.5]) by thwack.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523D212C00C; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:24:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from nt_exchange.brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au [130.194.124.121]) by brain.vifp.monash.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27899; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:24:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 May 2003 09:28:59 +1000 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:28:59 +1000 From: Morris Odell Subject: forensic proctologists To: "'Lynn Coceani'" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Message-id: <07A064EA6042D4118A62009027F70E77339B71@nt_exchange.vifp.monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 10782 > -----Original Message----- Lynn Coceani wrote: > "forensic > proctologist"??? )Haaa, haa - sorry but that bit really gets > me laughing!) I don't want to be flippant, but there are some forensic practitioners who need to concern themselves with that part of the body. The sun mightn't shine there, but the spotlight of police investigation and court argument sometimes does. Dr Morris Odell Forensic Physician (and ocasional forensic proctologist, when I need to be) Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine > let the people for whom this listing is meant, get on with > their business. > You're a pest! > > Lynn > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "shaun wheeler" > To: "Brent Turvey" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:49 PM > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter > offered perjured > testimony > > > > Brent: > > > > Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look > at the article > > you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of > below. I note > that > > you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. > If you'll take > a > > moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is > not only a > > verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken > credit for it - > > > > > http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=ge > neral;action=d > isplay;num=1052563951;start=0 > > > > As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us > have seen > > lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has > copied this article > > from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since > you hold at > > least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll > want to clarify, > so > > that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that > should be given > > credit for the article. > > > > I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my > private account > ten > > minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has > appeared on your > > private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well > as the one > > operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody > else as the > > author. > > > > Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is > a friend of > > mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory > caveat that goes > > with the job and I really detest that. > > > > It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, > both on PACER and > > the publically available copy, as well as the US District > Court's ruling, > > that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their > opinion from the > > whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her > client, Robie > > Drake. > > > > Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: > > > > 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness > > 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found > anywhere but > > paperback "true crime" books > > 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other > witness familiar > with > > the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer > that the term > sim > > ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime > > > > Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's > important to > note > > that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than > Dr. Lowell > > Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably > move into the > > province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the > > possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. > > > > I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, > however, aware of > his > > reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he > > expressed confidence not only in his work but in his > professionalism and > > integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for > me this is > > sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice > past-president of ASFO, > and > > if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and > > subscribes to their ethics. > > > > Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted > > wholesale in support of your allegations. > > > > As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They > cannot > > decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly > presume that this > is > > the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system > works would > > correct your ignorance. > > > > Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief > that you should > fail > > to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, > does in fact exist > > in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in > publications that > date > > back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in > a book you > > yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". > > > > In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your > critical > > thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them > or that you > are > > casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are > concerned. > > > > As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, > this is hardly > > surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have > appeared in > > countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some > > instances. While I question whether or not the defense has > witheld this > > information from the court, the presumption is that they > did not and you > > have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that > you have been > > surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really > lost count. > > > > In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice > amounts to a > > defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really > stretching unless you > > think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the > attorney's in the > > Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, > why not do the > > reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't > always imply the > > things the court concluded here? > > > > Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I > think that Ms. > > Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf > here that she > will > > eventually regret. > > > > Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise > due diligence > > and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen > Drake brought > an > > ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter > was investigated > by > > the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics > violation > > had occured. > > > > I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out > here. Maureen > > appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who > married a man in > > prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear > that, despite > the > > fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the > appearance that he > > claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the > female victim > > post-mortem, wants to now see him released. > > > > AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they > probably > > belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, > held a hearing, > > after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. > > > > I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you > cannot answer. > You > > cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient > to indict the > > professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of > Behavioral > > Profiling. > > > > 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from > spouses of > > convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they > ignore them? > > > > 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations > of individuals > > listed above, who then do you think they should accept > allegations from? > > > > 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional > organization lies > > under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? > > > > As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because > you can't. If > you > > did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own > organization, ABP. As > your > > ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations > brought by other > > ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a > member of your > > organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that > Dr. McGrath would > > have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a > murderer" and > > ignored the complaint. > > > > I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own > organization > about > > you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. > > > > All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a > worthwhile > > organization who's aims serve their organization and the > public in equal > > measure. Your organization only serves itself. > > > > Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, > > > > Shaun > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brent Turvey" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM > > Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter > offered perjured > > testimony > > > > > > > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. > Walter has offered > > > perjured testimony: > > > > > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard > D. Walter, MA > > > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > > > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been > found by a Federal > > > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited > below, causing a > > > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > > > > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections > of the AAFS. > He > > is > > > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of > Murdered Children: > > > > > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 > (321 F.3d 338) > > > > > > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec ond-circuit/te > > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it > > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about > > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully > moved > > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to > get > > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > > cross-examination. > > From daemon Wed May 28 08:36:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4SCa2H17178 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 2003 08:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4SCa1617172 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 08:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LamarM@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id y.77.11c8b1c3 (1320) for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 08:35:59 -0400 (EDT) From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <77.11c8b1c3.2c06072d@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:35:57 EDT Subject: New GA Law To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 910 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1111 The article from the Atlanta Journal highlights a new Georgia law which allows new appeals of criminal convictions in certain cases, including the testing of biological evidence. The article also mentions preservation of evidence after convictions. It has always amazed me that the courts seem to have little concern for the preservation of evidence after trials. I recall evidence in murder cases in unsecured areas in the court clerk's office after a trial. In one instance, I had custody of a shotgun which was entered into evidence in a hearing some months before a trial. On the day of the trial the shotgun could not be located. A frantic search of the court house finally located the elusive weapon propped behind the door to the sheriff's office! Click here: ajc.com | Metro | Bill signed to expand DNA tests Regards, Lamar Miller Forensic Document Examiner Little Torch Key, Florida --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- From daemon Wed May 28 22:13:20 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4T2DKo03293 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (law8-oe63.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.198]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4T2DI603287 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 May 2003 19:13:18 -0700 Received: from 66.61.75.204 by law8-oe63.law8.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 29 May 2003 02:13:18 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Brent Turvey" , References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 00:49:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2003 02:13:18.0918 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF084660:01C32587] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8871 Brent: Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the article you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I note that you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll take a moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for it - http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1052563951;start=0 As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this article from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold at least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to clarify, so that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be given credit for the article. I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private account ten minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the author. Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend of mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that goes with the job and I really detest that. It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER and the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's ruling, that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from the whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie Drake. Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere but paperback "true crime" books 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar with the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the term sim ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important to note that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into the province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware of his reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism and integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of ASFO, and if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and subscribes to their ethics. Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted wholesale in support of your allegations. As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They cannot decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that this is the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would correct your ignorance. Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you should fail to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact exist in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that date back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your critical thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that you are casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are concerned. As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld this information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and you have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have been surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless you think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in the Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do the reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the things the court concluded here? Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that Ms. Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that she will eventually regret. Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due diligence and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake brought an ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was investigated by the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics violation had occured. I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, despite the fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that he claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female victim post-mortem, wants to now see him released. AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they probably belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a hearing, after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot answer. You cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict the professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of Behavioral Profiling. 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore them? 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of individuals listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations from? 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization lies under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. If you did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. As your ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by other ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of your organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath would have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and ignored the complaint. I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization about you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in equal measure. Your organization only serves itself. Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Turvey" To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered > perjured testimony: > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He is > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children: > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338) > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully moved > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to get > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > cross-examination. > From daemon Wed May 28 22:57:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4T2vXs04120 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (law8-oe65.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.200]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4T2vW604114 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 22:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 May 2003 19:57:33 -0700 Received: from 66.61.75.204 by law8-oe65.law8.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 29 May 2003 02:57:33 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Lynn Coceani" Cc: References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> <007d01c3241c$78ee8e50$6400a8c0@LYNN> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 21:58:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2003 02:57:33.0704 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D687880:01C3258E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1292 Lynn: I am disappointed to learn that the most I would merit would be a mere single mouthful. Help me out for a second though. You seem like a real helpful person. I was looking through this case, it's the Wisconsin v. Peter Kupaza case. This guy was testifying as some sort of expert and when asked what his position was with a police department he said "Sworn investigative witness". I've never heard of such a term, have you? If so, where? It is absolutely the most bizarre thing I've ever heard of. I'd share with you who it was that said it, but I don't want to spoil anything. Shaun forensic proctologist and "sworn investigative witness" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: "shaun wheeler" Cc: "Brent Turvey" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:51 AM Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Shaun - rack off! Unless you want another mouthful from me. Just go sink > back into your esteemed position of sewage inspector and "forensic > proctologist"??? )Haaa, haa - sorry but that bit really gets me laughing!) > let the people for whom this listing is meant, get on with their business. > You're a pest! > > Lynn > From daemon Wed May 28 23:02:59 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4T32w804548 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 May 2003 23:02:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (law8-oe46.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.18]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4T32u604540 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 23:02:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:02:58 -0700 Received: from 66.61.75.204 by law8-oe46.law8.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 29 May 2003 03:02:57 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Lynn Coceani" Cc: References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> <007d01c3241c$78ee8e50$6400a8c0@LYNN> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:03:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2003 03:02:58.0162 (UTC) FILETIME=[CECCD520:01C3258E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 11556 Lynn: The only "rack" I have handy is my gun rack and unfortunately it has a limited capacity of only 8 full length rifles and shotguns with a smattering of pistols and revolvers. I am, however, interviewing for additional racks and will announce the position more formally at some later date. In the meantime, I am hurt that the most I would merit is one more mouthful as opposed to several. I feel that this un-necessarily disparages me and demand either an additional two mouthfuls or an independent recount. Failing that, you seem to be a helpful person, so help me out: I found this term in some trial testimony in a case in Wisconsin. It's the Peter Kupaza trial. Have you ever heard of this term: "Sworn Investigative Witness" ????? Has anybody else heard of such a thing? Thanks in advance for your help, I'm gaining an altogether new appreciation for all the helpful Australians there are out there. Shaun Forensic Proctologist and "Sworn Investigative Witness (provisional)" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" To: "shaun wheeler" Cc: "Brent Turvey" ; Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:51 AM Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Shaun - rack off! Unless you want another mouthful from me. Just go sink > back into your esteemed position of sewage inspector and "forensic > proctologist"??? )Haaa, haa - sorry but that bit really gets me laughing!) > let the people for whom this listing is meant, get on with their business. > You're a pest! > > Lynn > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "shaun wheeler" > To: "Brent Turvey" ; > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:49 PM > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > testimony > > > > Brent: > > > > Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the article > > you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I note > that > > you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll take > a > > moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a > > verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for it - > > > > > http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=d > isplay;num=1052563951;start=0 > > > > As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen > > lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this article > > from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold at > > least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to clarify, > so > > that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be given > > credit for the article. > > > > I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private account > ten > > minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your > > private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one > > operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the > > author. > > > > Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend of > > mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that goes > > with the job and I really detest that. > > > > It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER and > > the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's ruling, > > that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from the > > whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie > > Drake. > > > > Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: > > > > 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness > > 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere but > > paperback "true crime" books > > 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar > with > > the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the term > sim > > ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime > > > > Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important to > note > > that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell > > Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into the > > province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the > > possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. > > > > I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware of > his > > reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he > > expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism and > > integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is > > sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of ASFO, > and > > if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and > > subscribes to their ethics. > > > > Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted > > wholesale in support of your allegations. > > > > As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They > cannot > > decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that this > is > > the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would > > correct your ignorance. > > > > Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you should > fail > > to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact exist > > in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that > date > > back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you > > yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". > > > > In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your > critical > > thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that you > are > > casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are > concerned. > > > > As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly > > surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in > > countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some > > instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld this > > information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and you > > have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have been > > surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. > > > > In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a > > defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless you > > think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in the > > Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do the > > reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the > > things the court concluded here? > > > > Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that Ms. > > Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that she > will > > eventually regret. > > > > Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due diligence > > and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake brought > an > > ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was investigated > by > > the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics > violation > > had occured. > > > > I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen > > appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in > > prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, despite > the > > fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that he > > claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female victim > > post-mortem, wants to now see him released. > > > > AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they > probably > > belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a hearing, > > after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. > > > > I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot answer. > You > > cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict the > > professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of > Behavioral > > Profiling. > > > > 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of > > convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore them? > > > > 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of individuals > > listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations from? > > > > 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization lies > > under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? > > > > As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. If > you > > did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. As > your > > ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by other > > ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of your > > organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath would > > have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and > > ignored the complaint. > > > > I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization > about > > you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. > > > > All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile > > organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in equal > > measure. Your organization only serves itself. > > > > Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, > > > > Shaun > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brent Turvey" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM > > Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > > testimony > > > > > > > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered > > > perjured testimony: > > > > > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA > > > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > > > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal > > > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a > > > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > > > > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. > He > > is > > > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children: > > > > > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338) > > > > > > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > > > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > > > > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that > it > > > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about > > > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully > > moved > > > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > > > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to > > get > > > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > > > cross-examination. > > > > > From daemon Thu May 29 03:42:43 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4T7ghX09444 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 03:42:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from power.connexus.net.au (power.connexus.net.au [203.12.22.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4T7ge609438 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 03:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from LYNN (122-140-81.dsl.connexus.net.au [203.122.140.81]) by power.connexus.net.au (8.12.4/8.11.6) with SMTP id h4T7WVRu051756; Thu, 29 May 2003 17:32:31 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from lynn@hyp.com.au) XAntiVirus: This e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Connexus Internet Service Message-ID: <050e01c325b5$7bb8c200$6400a8c0@LYNN> From: "Lynn Coceani" To: "shaun wheeler" Cc: References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> <007d01c3241c$78ee8e50$6400a8c0@LYNN> Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:39:39 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Disposition-Notification-To: "Lynn Coceani" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 13421 And we Australians can recognise the biggest load of crap I've ever read as well! Anybody who knows me already knows that if you try crawling to me I will totally ignore you. Just because we live down under, doesn't mean our brains are down under as well! Nor did I fall off the back of a turnip truck! You and I both know you are referring Brent Turvey - why don't you just say it. You keep insinuating he's my "best friend" or similar - just how thick are you? I've told you repeatedly, what Brent Turvey says and does is none of my business and I could care even less. And I wouldn't be bragging about owning so many "lethal weapons" either! I apologise if I came across as a helpful person - believe me it was not my intention! Go look up your own words that you don't understand from the same place you are quoting the Kupanza case - Brent Turvey's book - hypocrit! At the risk of repeating myself and losing your wonderful invaluable friendship - RACK OFF or you're going into the blocked list! Lynn ----- Original Message ----- From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Lynn Coceani" Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:03 PM Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony > Lynn: > > The only "rack" I have handy is my gun rack and unfortunately it has a > limited capacity of only 8 full length rifles and shotguns with a smattering > of pistols and revolvers. I am, however, interviewing for additional racks > and will announce the position more formally at some later date. > > In the meantime, I am hurt that the most I would merit is one more mouthful > as opposed to several. I feel that this un-necessarily disparages me and > demand either an additional two mouthfuls or an independent recount. Failing > that, you seem to be a helpful person, so help me out: I found this term in > some trial testimony in a case in Wisconsin. It's the Peter Kupaza trial. > > Have you ever heard of this term: > > "Sworn Investigative Witness" ????? > > Has anybody else heard of such a thing? > > Thanks in advance for your help, I'm gaining an altogether new appreciation > for all the helpful Australians there are out there. > > Shaun > Forensic Proctologist and "Sworn Investigative Witness (provisional)" > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lynn Coceani" > To: "shaun wheeler" > Cc: "Brent Turvey" ; > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:51 AM > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > testimony > > > > Shaun - rack off! Unless you want another mouthful from me. Just go sink > > back into your esteemed position of sewage inspector and "forensic > > proctologist"??? )Haaa, haa - sorry but that bit really gets me laughing!) > > let the people for whom this listing is meant, get on with their business. > > You're a pest! > > > > Lynn > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "shaun wheeler" > > To: "Brent Turvey" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:49 PM > > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > > testimony > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > > Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the > article > > > you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I note > > that > > > you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll > take > > a > > > moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a > > > verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for it - > > > > > > > > > http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=d > > isplay;num=1052563951;start=0 > > > > > > As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen > > > lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this > article > > > from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold at > > > least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to clarify, > > so > > > that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be > given > > > credit for the article. > > > > > > I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private account > > ten > > > minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your > > > private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one > > > operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the > > > author. > > > > > > Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend of > > > mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that > goes > > > with the job and I really detest that. > > > > > > It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER > and > > > the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's > ruling, > > > that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from > the > > > whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie > > > Drake. > > > > > > Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: > > > > > > 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness > > > 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere but > > > paperback "true crime" books > > > 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar > > with > > > the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the term > > sim > > > ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime > > > > > > Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important to > > note > > > that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell > > > Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into > the > > > province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the > > > possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. > > > > > > I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware of > > his > > > reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he > > > expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism and > > > integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is > > > sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of ASFO, > > and > > > if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and > > > subscribes to their ethics. > > > > > > Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted > > > wholesale in support of your allegations. > > > > > > As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They > > cannot > > > decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that this > > is > > > the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would > > > correct your ignorance. > > > > > > Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you should > > fail > > > to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact > exist > > > in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that > > date > > > back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you > > > yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". > > > > > > In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your > > critical > > > thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that you > > are > > > casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are > > concerned. > > > > > > As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly > > > surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in > > > countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some > > > instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld this > > > information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and you > > > have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have been > > > surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. > > > > > > In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a > > > defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless you > > > think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in > the > > > Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do the > > > reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the > > > things the court concluded here? > > > > > > Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that Ms. > > > Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that she > > will > > > eventually regret. > > > > > > Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due > diligence > > > and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake > brought > > an > > > ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was > investigated > > by > > > the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics > > violation > > > had occured. > > > > > > I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen > > > appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in > > > prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, despite > > the > > > fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that he > > > claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female > victim > > > post-mortem, wants to now see him released. > > > > > > AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they > > probably > > > belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a > hearing, > > > after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. > > > > > > I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot answer. > > You > > > cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict the > > > professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of > > Behavioral > > > Profiling. > > > > > > 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of > > > convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore them? > > > > > > 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of individuals > > > listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations from? > > > > > > 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization lies > > > under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? > > > > > > As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. If > > you > > > did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. As > > your > > > ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by > other > > > ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of > your > > > organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath > would > > > have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and > > > ignored the complaint. > > > > > > I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization > > about > > > you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. > > > > > > All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile > > > organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in equal > > > measure. Your organization only serves itself. > > > > > > Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, > > > > > > Shaun > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Brent Turvey" > > > To: > > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM > > > Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > > > testimony > > > > > > > > > > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has > offered > > > > perjured testimony: > > > > > > > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA > > > > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > > > > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a > Federal > > > > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing > a > > > > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > > > > > > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. > > He > > > is > > > > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered > Children: > > > > > > > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d > 338) > > > > > > > > > > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > > > > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > > > > > > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that > > it > > > > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify > about > > > > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully > > > moved > > > > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > > > > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend > to > > > get > > > > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > > > > cross-examination. > > > > > > > > From daemon Thu May 29 07:37:11 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TBbB113361 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 07:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h4TBbA613355 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 07:37:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4TBb6pt023886; Thu, 29 May 2003 07:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 07:37:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Lynn Coceani cc: shaun wheeler , Subject: [Forens-l] Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony In-Reply-To: <050e01c325b5$7bb8c200$6400a8c0@LYNN> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 15171 Just a quick note and plea. Many of us (well, me and one other guy, anyway) automatically sort mailing list posts into folders. We do this because *most* (and I really mean most this time) mailing lists prepend some identifier to the subject, e.g. [cooker], [staroffice], etc. When I read forens-l, I go to my forens-l folder and read it there. Otherwise, I assume that anything in my main mailing queue is either from friends or spam. I tend to ignore or delete anything that isn't obviously from a friend or of immediate interest. While forens-l is not set up to prepend and identifier, it would be very convenient if posters to the list could add this little bit to their subject lines. If people who *start* threads do it, then all the follow-ups will also carry it. It's just a little thing to think of, but for those of us who automatically triage the mail, it would be very helpful. Thanks! billo On Thu, 29 May 2003, Lynn Coceani wrote: > From: Lynn Coceani > > And we Australians can recognise the biggest load of crap I've ever read as > well! Anybody who knows me already knows that if you try crawling to me I > will totally ignore you. Just because we live down under, doesn't mean our > brains are down under as well! > > Nor did I fall off the back of a turnip truck! You and I both know you are > referring Brent Turvey - why don't you just say it. You keep insinuating > he's my "best friend" or similar - just how thick are you? I've told you > repeatedly, what Brent Turvey says and does is none of my business and I > could care even less. > > And I wouldn't be bragging about owning so many "lethal weapons" either! I > apologise if I came across as a helpful person - believe me it was not my > intention! Go look up your own words that you don't understand from the > same place you are quoting the Kupanza case - Brent Turvey's book - > hypocrit! > > At the risk of repeating myself and losing your wonderful invaluable > friendship - RACK OFF or you're going into the blocked list! > > Lynn > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "shaun wheeler" > To: "Lynn Coceani" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > testimony > > > > Lynn: > > > > The only "rack" I have handy is my gun rack and unfortunately it has a > > limited capacity of only 8 full length rifles and shotguns with a > smattering > > of pistols and revolvers. I am, however, interviewing for additional racks > > and will announce the position more formally at some later date. > > > > In the meantime, I am hurt that the most I would merit is one more > mouthful > > as opposed to several. I feel that this un-necessarily disparages me and > > demand either an additional two mouthfuls or an independent recount. > Failing > > that, you seem to be a helpful person, so help me out: I found this term > in > > some trial testimony in a case in Wisconsin. It's the Peter Kupaza trial. > > > > Have you ever heard of this term: > > > > "Sworn Investigative Witness" ????? > > > > Has anybody else heard of such a thing? > > > > Thanks in advance for your help, I'm gaining an altogether new > appreciation > > for all the helpful Australians there are out there. > > > > Shaun > > Forensic Proctologist and "Sworn Investigative Witness (provisional)" > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lynn Coceani" > > To: "shaun wheeler" > > Cc: "Brent Turvey" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 1:51 AM > > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > > testimony > > > > > > > Shaun - rack off! Unless you want another mouthful from me. Just go sink > > > back into your esteemed position of sewage inspector and "forensic > > > proctologist"??? )Haaa, haa - sorry but that bit really gets me > laughing!) > > > let the people for whom this listing is meant, get on with their > business. > > > You're a pest! > > > > > > Lynn > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "shaun wheeler" > > > To: "Brent Turvey" ; > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:49 PM > > > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered > perjured > > > testimony > > > > > > > > > > Brent: > > > > > > > > Over the past two weeks I've had time to take a closer look at the > > article > > > > you posted to this list, which I've included a snippet of below. I > note > > > that > > > > you failed to cite the original author when you posted it. If you'll > > take > > > a > > > > moment to look at this link you'll find that the article is not only a > > > > verbatim copy, but that a person named "Josh" has taken credit for > it - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/cgi/bbs/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=d > > > isplay;num=1052563951;start=0 > > > > > > > > As you might imagine with the rash of plagiarism many of us have seen > > > > lately, it occurred to me that certainly somebody has copied this > > article > > > > from someplace else and failed to give proper credit. Since you hold > at > > > > least one graduate degree, I feel confident that you'll want to > clarify, > > > so > > > > that there is no misunderstanding, exactly who it is that should be > > given > > > > credit for the article. > > > > > > > > I'll note that the same article was emailed by you to my private > account > > > ten > > > > minutes before it appeared here and likewise, it has appeared on your > > > > private/secret closed to the public discussion list as well as the one > > > > operated by Maurice Godwin. None of you have cited anybody else as the > > > > author. > > > > > > > > Before getting too far here I'll make plain that Richard is a friend > of > > > > mine. These days apologists seem to forget the obligatory caveat that > > goes > > > > with the job and I really detest that. > > > > > > > > It seems to me having studied the 2d Circuit's opinion, both on PACER > > and > > > > the publically available copy, as well as the US District Court's > > ruling, > > > > that the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit cut their opinion from > > the > > > > whole cloth provided by Sally Wasserman on behalf of her client, Robie > > > > Drake. > > > > > > > > Their decision rested in part on some of the following details: > > > > > > > > 1. The late notice of a scheduled witness > > > > 2. That the term used, "sexual picquerism" cannot be found anywhere > but > > > > paperback "true crime" books > > > > 3. That the appellant, being unable to find any other witness familiar > > > with > > > > the term despite twenty years time, could reasonably infer that the > term > > > sim > > > > ply did not exist in the lexicon of violent crime > > > > > > > > Before scrutinizing the opinion of the Court, I think it's important > to > > > note > > > > that Richard had no less an authority to recommend him than Dr. Lowell > > > > Levine. It seems to me that before the court can reasonably move into > > the > > > > province of prosecutorial misconduct they first have to consider the > > > > possibility that Levine did not use his reputation wisely. > > > > > > > > I am only somewhat familiar with Levine's work, I am, however, aware > of > > > his > > > > reputation. When I spoke with Dr. Harry Mincer in August of 1999, he > > > > expressed confidence not only in his work but in his professionalism > and > > > > integrity. Mincer is not given to idle endorsements so for me this is > > > > sufficient to dispose of the matter. He is twice past-president of > ASFO, > > > and > > > > if I am not mistaken Levine is a diplomate of that organization and > > > > subscribes to their ethics. > > > > > > > > Now to the substance of the 2d Circuit's opinion, which you adopted > > > > wholesale in support of your allegations. > > > > > > > > As was pointed out before, the 2d Circuit is not a trial court. They > > > cannot > > > > decide the issue of guilt or innocence. You mistakenly presume that > this > > > is > > > > the case when even a simple primer on how the legal system works would > > > > correct your ignorance. > > > > > > > > Since you purport to be a profiler, it is beyond belief that you > should > > > fail > > > > to note that the term the 2d Circuit took exception to, does in fact > > exist > > > > in the lexicon of violent crime. It is documented in publications that > > > date > > > > back over a hundred years, furthermore, it is documented in a book you > > > > yourself require your students to buy at your "training website". > > > > > > > > In short, Brent, I'm left to conclude that you either abandon your > > > critical > > > > thinking skills when it isn't to your advantage to use them or that > you > > > are > > > > casual and flippant where serious allegations of this nature are > > > concerned. > > > > > > > > As regards the question of short notice prior to trial, this is hardly > > > > surprising and again, you acquit yourself poorly. You have appeared in > > > > countless cases trying to testify with barely hours notice in some > > > > instances. While I question whether or not the defense has witheld > this > > > > information from the court, the presumption is that they did not and > you > > > > have at least made it as far as voir dire. I'll grant that you have > been > > > > surpressed what, about twenty or so times now? I've really lost count. > > > > > > > > In any event, for the court to conclude that late notice amounts to a > > > > defacto proof of collusion or conspiracy is really stretching unless > you > > > > think somebody should bring a bar complaint against the attorney's in > > the > > > > Alex Dale Thomas case? Is that what you believe? If not, why not do > the > > > > reasonable thing and mention that late notice doesn't always imply the > > > > things the court concluded here? > > > > > > > > Finally let's get into the heart of the matter because I think that > Ms. > > > > Wasserman has crossed into some very dangerous legal turf here that > she > > > will > > > > eventually regret. > > > > > > > > Attorney's are expected, as members of the bar, to exercise due > > diligence > > > > and present their arguments in good faith. In 1995, Maureen Drake > > brought > > > an > > > > ethics charge to AAFS against Richard Walter. The matter was > > investigated > > > by > > > > the ethics committee and they concluded unanimously that no ethics > > > violation > > > > had occured. > > > > > > > > I'll note a few facts that seem appropriate to point out here. Maureen > > > > appears to be one of those poor unfortunate souls who married a man in > > > > prison who is serving life without parole. It would appear that, > despite > > > the > > > > fact that he has confessed to the murder, despite the appearance that > he > > > > claims to have accidentally shot the victims and bitten the female > > victim > > > > post-mortem, wants to now see him released. > > > > > > > > AAFS, rather than commend the allegations to the file13 drawer they > > > probably > > > > belonged in, took them seriously, examined them at length, held a > > hearing, > > > > after which they concluded the investigation exonerating Richard. > > > > > > > > I will now ask you some fairly blunt questions which you cannot > answer. > > > You > > > > cannot answer them because your replies will be sufficient to indict > the > > > > professional credibility of your own organization, the Academy of > > > Behavioral > > > > Profiling. > > > > > > > > 1. Should professional organizations take allegations from spouses of > > > > convicted and confessed murderers seriously, or should they ignore > them? > > > > > > > > 2. If you believe that they should ignore the allegations of > individuals > > > > listed above, who then do you think they should accept allegations > from? > > > > > > > > 3. If an individual who is a member of a professional organization > lies > > > > under oath, what action do you think they should take against them? > > > > > > > > As I said, Brent, you won't answer these questions because you can't. > If > > > you > > > > did, I'd point out the hypocrisy rife in your own organization, ABP. > As > > > your > > > > ethics chair confirmed, ABP only investigates allegations brought by > > other > > > > ABP members, not the public at large. If Richard had been a member of > > your > > > > organization rather than ABP, I harbor little doubt that Dr. McGrath > > would > > > > have simply said "Oh, don't sweat it. She's married to a murderer" and > > > > ignored the complaint. > > > > > > > > I'll note that I tendered an ethics complaint to your own organization > > > about > > > > you and your colleague John Baeza. It was never investigated. > > > > > > > > All in all I think AAFS did the right thing and they are a worthwhile > > > > organization who's aims serve their organization and the public in > equal > > > > measure. Your organization only serves itself. > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your usual ad hominem, > > > > > > > > Shaun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Brent Turvey" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:27 PM > > > > Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > > > > testimony > > > > > > > > > > > > > Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has > > offered > > > > > perjured testimony: > > > > > > > > > > Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, > MA > > > > > (http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society > > > > > (http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a > > Federal > > > > > Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, > causing > > a > > > > > previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered. > > > > > > > > > > Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the > AAFS. > > > He > > > > is > > > > > also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered > > Children: > > > > > > > > > > DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d > > 338) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te > > > > > st3/01-2217.opn.html > > > > > > > > > > "The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening > that > > > it > > > > > intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify > > about > > > > > psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution > successfully > > > > moved > > > > > to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the > > > > > announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a > weekend > > to > > > > get > > > > > a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his > > > > > cross-examination. > > > > > > > > > > > > From daemon Thu May 29 09:01:46 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TD1kh15580 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 09:01:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web41004.mail.yahoo.com (web41004.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.93.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4TD1i615574 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 09:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030529130144.23659.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web41004.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:01:44 PDT Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 06:01:44 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: [Forens-l] DO NOT RESPOND To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 816 Uncivil, multi-page diatribes, such as those that appear on this list with some frequency, are an attention-seeking device. List members should not reward the offensive poster with any response. None is called for. Silence, in this case, does not imply agreement, just annoyance. A few years back, we had a "student" member who regularly harrangued us with similar messages. After many attempts were made by many members to get him to calm down and be civil, we finally got him to go away by simply ignoring him. P.S. Anyone who feels obliged to respond to THIS post is requested to do so off-list. ===== 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 From daemon Thu May 29 09:50:14 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TDoEk17389 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 09:50:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 09:50:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1493 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Banning, Steven" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Proficiency testing Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:33:18 -0500 The CTS proficiency samples in arson and drugs are pretty straight forward. The drug or ignitable liquid is there or it isn't. But a firearm/toolmark examination seems to require more "subjectivity". Are three consecutive striae enough for you or do you require more? I have seen cases were inconclusives are reported. In fact, inconclusives can be further subdivided: * Some agreement of individual and class characteristics but insufficient for identification. * Agreement of class characteristics without agreement or disagreement or disagreement of individual characteristics due to absence, insufficiency, or lack of reproducibility. * Agreement of class characteristics and disagreement of individual characteristics, but insufficient for elimination. It is easy for somebody to make a proficiency in which they know whether that tool made the mark or not. To actually make the identification or elimination seems to be another story. So how do you grade the examiner's decision on just pass/fail. My background is about 10 years in Drugs and Arson examination. I have recently started training in Firearms. I've gone from results that are pretty much black and white to an area that has shades of gray. Steve Banning [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Thu May 29 13:46:49 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4THknF24566 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 13:46:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: From: "French, Tim" To: "'Forens-L list'" Subject: [forens] Hemastix Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:46:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 828 Does anyone on the list work in a lab where either laboratory personnel or Crime Scene personnel use Hemastix for presumptive blood testing? I am looking for some feedback regarding how Crime Scene Technicians are using the product. Are they trained to simply report a positive (or negative) reaction or are they fully trained in presumptive testing, how it works, false positives, etc. If used in the field is there a written SOP, or are the techs simply taught to use it as a tool as they would an ALS for possible semen stain location. Is there a minimum size below which they are told not to test the stain for preservation purposes (DNA)? Thanks for any assistance. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] From daemon Thu May 29 15:02:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TJ22r27354 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:02:02 -0400 (EDT) X-WebMail-UserID: mmulawka@students.uiuc.edu Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:01:53 -0500 From: "M. Mulawka" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00003242, 00002221 Subject: [forens] career advice again Message-ID: <3F2CD88A@webmail.uiuc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Infinite Mobile Delivery (Hydra) SMTP v3.62.01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1348 Once again, I am asking anyone for some career advice. :) I want to do something in forensics, where I can work out in the field or in the lab, but I don't want to only work in the lab or vice versa. I am more than halfway to getting a Bachelors Degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Illinois in Champaign, but do I really need it? I mean, I haven't taken any classes that have to do with the biology of forensics, DNA fingerprinting, crime scene processing, etc. because that school doesn't offer any of those classes. Will that degree allow me to pursue a career in forensics? Should I transfer to a school that offers an undergrad degree in Forensic Science? What if I do decide to transfer to another school that offers the Forensics degree, but it isn't as prestigious as UIUC, then all my hard work in high school to get a good GPA and on the ACT was for nothing? I just don't know what to do because my original plan was forensic pathology, and I would love to go to medical school, but I just don't think my GPA is good enough to get there. But I know I want to definitely do something with forensics, like the biology of forensics or ballistics. I'm so confused! (Thanks in advance for whomever responds with advice ;) Mary Ann Mulawka [EndPost by "M. Mulawka" ] From daemon Thu May 29 16:31:33 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TKVXH00031 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 16:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030529203132.63430.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:31:32 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3F2CD88A@webmail.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1871 Get a solid grounding in the sciences. Then go to John jay College and get a masters in Forensic Science. You'll be golden! --- "M. Mulawka" wrote: > Once again, I am asking anyone for some career > advice. :) > > I want to do something in forensics, where I > can work out in the field or in > the lab, but I don't want to only work in the > lab or vice versa. I am more > than halfway to getting a Bachelors Degree in > Molecular and Cellular Biology > at the University of Illinois in Champaign, but > do I really need it? I mean, > I haven't taken any classes that have to do > with the biology of forensics, DNA > fingerprinting, crime scene processing, etc. > because that school doesn't offer > any of those classes. Will that degree allow > me to pursue a career in > forensics? Should I transfer to a school that > offers an undergrad degree in > Forensic Science? What if I do decide to > transfer to another school that > offers the Forensics degree, but it isn't as > prestigious as UIUC, then all my > hard work in high school to get a good GPA and > on the ACT was for nothing? > > I just don't know what to do because my > original plan was forensic pathology, > and I would love to go to medical school, but I > just don't think my GPA is > good enough to get there. But I know I want to > definitely do something with > forensics, like the biology of forensics or > ballistics. > > I'm so confused! (Thanks in advance for > whomever responds with advice ;) > > Mary Ann Mulawka > > [EndPost by "M. Mulawka" ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From daemon Thu May 29 16:31:37 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TKVbe00040 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 16:31:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20030529203132.63430.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:31:32 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <3F2CD88A@webmail.uiuc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1871 Get a solid grounding in the sciences. Then go to John jay College and get a masters in Forensic Science. You'll be golden! --- "M. Mulawka" wrote: > Once again, I am asking anyone for some career > advice. :) > > I want to do something in forensics, where I > can work out in the field or in > the lab, but I don't want to only work in the > lab or vice versa. I am more > than halfway to getting a Bachelors Degree in > Molecular and Cellular Biology > at the University of Illinois in Champaign, but > do I really need it? I mean, > I haven't taken any classes that have to do > with the biology of forensics, DNA > fingerprinting, crime scene processing, etc. > because that school doesn't offer > any of those classes. Will that degree allow > me to pursue a career in > forensics? Should I transfer to a school that > offers an undergrad degree in > Forensic Science? What if I do decide to > transfer to another school that > offers the Forensics degree, but it isn't as > prestigious as UIUC, then all my > hard work in high school to get a good GPA and > on the ACT was for nothing? > > I just don't know what to do because my > original plan was forensic pathology, > and I would love to go to medical school, but I > just don't think my GPA is > good enough to get there. But I know I want to > definitely do something with > forensics, like the biology of forensics or > ballistics. > > I'm so confused! (Thanks in advance for > whomever responds with advice ;) > > Mary Ann Mulawka > > [EndPost by "M. Mulawka" ] ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 [EndPost by John Lentini ] From daemon Thu May 29 16:54:17 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TKsHm01453 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 16:54:17 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3F2CD88A@webmail.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1 February 07, 2003 Message-ID: From: kbrewer@nsp.state.ne.us Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:53:48 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on OAK/NSP(Release 6.0.1CF1 | March 06, 2003) at 05/29/2003 03:54:17 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 2970 A degree in molecular and cellular biology is an ideal degree for a forensic DNA analyst. Having college courses related to the forensic sciences, although helpful, is not always necessary to get an entry level job in forensics. "M. Mulawka" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent by: cc: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statg Subject: [forens] career advice again en.ncsu.edu 05/29/2003 02:01 PM Please respond to forens Once again, I am asking anyone for some career advice. :) I want to do something in forensics, where I can work out in the field or in the lab, but I don't want to only work in the lab or vice versa. I am more than halfway to getting a Bachelors Degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Illinois in Champaign, but do I really need it? I mean, I haven't taken any classes that have to do with the biology of forensics, DNA fingerprinting, crime scene processing, etc. because that school doesn't offer any of those classes. Will that degree allow me to pursue a career in forensics? Should I transfer to a school that offers an undergrad degree in Forensic Science? What if I do decide to transfer to another school that offers the Forensics degree, but it isn't as prestigious as UIUC, then all my hard work in high school to get a good GPA and on the ACT was for nothing? I just don't know what to do because my original plan was forensic pathology, and I would love to go to medical school, but I just don't think my GPA is good enough to get there. But I know I want to definitely do something with forensics, like the biology of forensics or ballistics. I'm so confused! (Thanks in advance for whomever responds with advice ;) Mary Ann Mulawka [EndPost by "M. Mulawka" ] [EndPost by kbrewer@nsp.state.ne.us] From daemon Thu May 29 17:04:34 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TL4YI02200 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 17:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:04:17 -0700 From: "Joel Duncan" To: Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 2.0.11 ; DOJ HDC IT Procureme X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4TL4X602195 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 2765 >>> mmulawka@students.uiuc.edu 05/29/03 12:01PM >>> Once again, I am asking anyone for some career advice. :) I want to do something in forensics, where I can work out in the field or in the lab, but I don't want to only work in the lab or vice versa. I am more than halfway to getting a Bachelors Degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Illinois in Champaign, but do I really need it? Every job vacancy I see, is primarily interested in a solid, natural science degree like Chemistry or Biology. Application of that scientific training is much easier to come by. I mean, I haven't taken any classes that have to do with the biology of forensics, DNA fingerprinting, crime scene processing, etc. because that school doesn't offer any of those classes. Ahh, but you must have, the DNA Advisory board requires that proficient DNA Analysts have taken Biochemistry, Genetics, Molecular Biology, & (I think ) Quantitative Analysis. Are those not part of your program? Will that degree allow me to pursue a career in forensics? Yes, yes, yes. Should I transfer to a school that offers an undergrad degree in Forensic Science? No, but call an area crime lab and find out what it takes to intern/volunteer. What if I do decide to transfer to another school that offers the Forensics degree, but it isn't as prestigious as UIUC, then all my hard work in high school to get a good GPA and on the ACT was for nothing? I can't recall the last time some one cared what my high school GPA or SAT/ACT scores were. I just don't know what to do because my original plan was forensic pathology, and I would love to go to medical school, but I just don't think my GPA is good enough to get there. But I know I want to definitely do something with forensics, like the biology of forensics or ballistics. For now, that desire is enough, keep researching the field, talking to people, and getting a realistic picture of what criminalistics is, that's the only way you'll figure out what you really want to do. I'm so confused! (Thanks in advance for whomever responds with advice ;) Mary Ann Mulawka [EndPost by "M. Mulawka" ] ******************************************************************* Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ******************************************************************* [EndPost by "Joel Duncan" ] From daemon Thu May 29 18:12:02 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TMC1104153 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 18:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006e01c3262f$53fbb8b0$ba0042ac@davelaptop> From: "Dave Khey" To: Subject: [forens] Fw: openforensics.org launched Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 18:12:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1685 Perhaps some of you may be interested in this.......... Cheers, Dave Khey David Khey Graduate Assistant Center for Studies in Criminology and Law Department of Sociology Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Florida 201 Walker Hall PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 Tel: 352-392-1025 Fax: 352-392-5065 DKhey@ufl.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Wright" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:57 PM Subject: openforensics.org launched > This post is to announce the launching of openforensics.org, a site for > the open discussion of digital evidence analysis and related issues. > Over 3 years in the making, it's intended to serve as a central point > for new and experienced analysts to find information and tools, and a > forum for everyone to share information and help solve problems. The > site is also a home for open-source computer forensics tools, including > a commercial-class cross-platform suite currently reaching version 1.0 > status. We're still in the process of getting things put together and > posted, but we've rushed the deployment given the current discussions > relating to the establishments of open standards and documentation in > the community. We look forward to your comments and suggestions as we > move forward together. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service. > For more information on this free incident handling, management > and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com > [EndPost by "Dave Khey" ] From daemon Thu May 29 18:37:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TMbrK05317 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 18:37:53 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Hemastix Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:38:02 -0600 Message-ID: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE403BD@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hemastix Thread-Index: AcMmCnXmaVZb0tAGTqOkxxW/hvefyAAI2Cqw From: "Jeff Baker" To: , "Forens-L list" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4TMbp605307 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1887 I worked as a CSI Supervisor for the Aurora (Colorado) P.D. and they were using Hemastix for presumptive testing at scenes. One of the chemists set up a test and we had beakers with diluted (sheep) blood at varying concentrations: neat; 1:10 (1 part blood to 10 parts distilled water;) 1:100; 1:1000; 1:10,000; 1:100,000; and 1:1,000,000. The hemastix were used (dipped into the solution) to familiarize the CSI with the color reaction. A noticeable reaction was visible with each of the tests. CSI liked them because they were easy. They do have a shelf life although we kept on using them well past that expiration date because this is a non-intended (non-health care) use of the product. We eventually switched to phenolphthalein (along with etoh & hydrogen peroxide) when we determined that the hemastix were too costly. -Jeff Baker- -----Original Message----- From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.org] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:47 AM To: 'Forens-L list' Subject: [forens] Hemastix Does anyone on the list work in a lab where either laboratory personnel or Crime Scene personnel use Hemastix for presumptive blood testing? I am looking for some feedback regarding how Crime Scene Technicians are using the product. Are they trained to simply report a positive (or negative) reaction or are they fully trained in presumptive testing, how it works, false positives, etc. If used in the field is there a written SOP, or are the techs simply taught to use it as a tool as they would an ALS for possible semen stain location. Is there a minimum size below which they are told not to test the stain for preservation purposes (DNA)? Thanks for any assistance. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] [EndPost by "Jeff Baker" ] From daemon Thu May 29 18:37:53 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TMbrN05318 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 18:37:53 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Hemastix Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:38:02 -0600 Message-ID: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE403BD@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Hemastix Thread-Index: AcMmCnXmaVZb0tAGTqOkxxW/hvefyAAI2Cqw From: "Jeff Baker" To: , "Forens-L list" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4TMbp605308 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1887 I worked as a CSI Supervisor for the Aurora (Colorado) P.D. and they were using Hemastix for presumptive testing at scenes. One of the chemists set up a test and we had beakers with diluted (sheep) blood at varying concentrations: neat; 1:10 (1 part blood to 10 parts distilled water;) 1:100; 1:1000; 1:10,000; 1:100,000; and 1:1,000,000. The hemastix were used (dipped into the solution) to familiarize the CSI with the color reaction. A noticeable reaction was visible with each of the tests. CSI liked them because they were easy. They do have a shelf life although we kept on using them well past that expiration date because this is a non-intended (non-health care) use of the product. We eventually switched to phenolphthalein (along with etoh & hydrogen peroxide) when we determined that the hemastix were too costly. -Jeff Baker- -----Original Message----- From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.org] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:47 AM To: 'Forens-L list' Subject: [forens] Hemastix Does anyone on the list work in a lab where either laboratory personnel or Crime Scene personnel use Hemastix for presumptive blood testing? I am looking for some feedback regarding how Crime Scene Technicians are using the product. Are they trained to simply report a positive (or negative) reaction or are they fully trained in presumptive testing, how it works, false positives, etc. If used in the field is there a written SOP, or are the techs simply taught to use it as a tool as they would an ALS for possible semen stain location. Is there a minimum size below which they are told not to test the stain for preservation purposes (DNA)? Thanks for any assistance. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] [EndPost by "Jeff Baker" ] From daemon Thu May 29 19:41:03 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4TNf3S06914 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 19:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.3 Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:40:26 -0700 From: "Josh Spatola" To: Subject: Re: [forens] career advice - more of it! Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Guinevere: 2.0.11 ; DOJ HDC IT Procureme X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id h4TNf3T06914 Content-Length: 2687 Mary Ann Mulawka, >>I want to do something in forensics, where I can work out in the field or in the lab, but I don't want to only work in the lab or vice versa. I would say that in this flourishing economic climate that it's more important to find the job first and then figure out preferences second. However, being a general criminalist usually allows for crime scene response as well as laboratory analysis depending on the agency that you are working for. As was already mentioned a natural science degree is usually all that is required for this general criminalistic work. The degree you are pursuing, while being one of the natural sciences, is much slated toward work in the DNA program. However, it definitely can get you into a crime lab. Forensic science courses are always appreciated, but not usually required. Unfortunately, the most important thing is that you must have at least a 750 Verbal SAT score and any Math score above 50 to apply. Or, as I like to call it, a good sense of humor. >>I know I want to definitely do something with forensics, like the biology of forensics or ballistics. I constantly say aloud to no one in particular that I want to definitely do something with forensic biology or ballistics, but people just look at me funny and tell me to get back into the Drug Analysis area (my point being, sometimes you have to pay your dues in the high volume, less glamorous drug and blood alcohol areas before you even get to consider doing what section you'd prefer to work in - hmm...unless you can consider blood alcohol part of the forensic biology section). I highly recommend a crime lab internship and reading an intro book like Saferstein or something. This will help give an overview of the various sections in the crime lab and direct you toward one that you'd be most interested in. Did any of this help? Did I just basically repeat what everyone else said? Oh, well. Sorry about that. Good luck and have fun. Josh ******************************************************************* Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ******************************************************************* --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Josh Spatola" ] From daemon Thu May 29 22:06:26 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4U26Qh09527 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 22:06:26 -0400 (EDT) To: forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 21:59:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again Message-ID: <20030529.215933.-795551.0.foraviva@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 9 From: aviva lerner Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 977 it seems like your questions were basically answered by the rest of the group. i second the motion that you stay in your current bach. program. the science background is crucial, and the application you can definitely learn on the job or as an intern. you cannot get the science foundation from hanging around a crime lab! regarding your concern of working only in a lab setting: have no fear. many who deal with biological evidence spend a lot of time at the crime scene collecting the evidence. of course, it depends on the crime lab. and then there's sometimes court, where you may spend time as an expert witness. (after which you may decide that you don't mind spending so much time in the lab.) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! [EndPost by aviva lerner ] From daemon Thu May 29 23:42:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4U3g4A11520 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 2003 23:42:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: References: <20030529203132.63430.qmail@web41008.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:42:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2003 03:42:03.0577 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F308290:01C3265D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 767 John: Just a quick question, are there many opportunities for somebody without the scientific background but with a masters in forensic science, say as a "generalist"? Do they pay as much as forensic scientists with knowledge in such areas or are they generally a little less well renumerated? Thanks in advance. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: ; Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again > Get a solid grounding in the sciences. Then go > to John jay College and get a masters in Forensic > Science. You'll be golden! > > > --- "M. Mulawka" [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From daemon Fri May 30 00:06:44 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4U46hT12341 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 00:06:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Lynn Coceani" Cc: References: <011b01c31682$802c1cc0$e2bced18@sitka.ak.net> <007d01c3241c$78ee8e50$6400a8c0@LYNN> <050e01c325b5$7bb8c200$6400a8c0@LYNN> Subject: [forens] Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured testimony Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 23:07:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2003 04:06:43.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1008750:01C32660] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 3994 Lynn: It's nice to see that jingoism hasn't died yet. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lynn Coceani" > And we Australians can recognise the biggest load of crap I've ever read as > well! This isn't exactly what I'd call a persuasive or remarkable statement. I'd like to think that any country could smell a big load of crap but so far I've never seen a study to suggest who has the most sensitive olfactory lobes. I'll look forward to reading your research. In the meantime, I've always found it obnoxious when writers use the enobling 'we' unless they are siamese twins or have a mouse in their pocket. >Anybody who knows me already knows that if you try crawling to me I > will totally ignore you. Just because we live down under, doesn't mean our > brains are down under as well! My girlfriend is an Australian citizen as are several of my co-workers. Collectively they are pretty persuasive argument in against the notion that Australians are not intelligent, but I admit that there does seem to be mounting evidence that they may not be a representative sampling. > > Nor did I fall off the back of a turnip truck! Truly a credit to the skills of the many fine Australian turnip truck drivers. >You and I both know you are referring Brent Turvey - why don't you just say it. Not quite. My questions were intended for Brent Turvey. The person referred to in his allegations, which he posted to this list two weeks and a few days ago, is Richard Walter. >You keep insinuating he's my "best friend" or similar - just how thick are you? Lynn, if it makes you happy to read this, far be it from me to 'dodge' the issue. Brent Turvey is no friend of mine. There. Happy? > I've told you repeatedly, what Brent Turvey says and does is none of my business and I > could care even less. Which is why, when he posted the allegations about Richard, you said.........well you posted.......well now come to think of it, you didn't say anything, Lynn. Lynn, you have confused me here. On one hand, I'd like to believe you are being a truthful person about how much you don't like hearing what Brent says, yet when he posts stuff to the list like his attack on Richard, you say nothing. When I comment on what he says, you do say something. Is it possible that you really have no objections at all to what he says, so long as he is attacking somebody else? And that what you *do* object to is when somebody else comments on it? > > And I wouldn't be bragging about owning so many "lethal weapons" either! The last time I checked your government decided that the average ordinary every day australian couldn't be trusted with firearms so they took them all away. I take it that's changed? I > apologise if I came across as a helpful person - believe me it was not my intention! It will be tough, but I'll try to get over it. > Go look up your own words that you don't understand from the > same place you are quoting the Kupanza case - Brent Turvey's book - > hypocrit! That is not correct. I have about a hundred pages of the trial testimony and the specific portion I am referring to can be found on page 1326, which says: "I am commissioned investigative witness at Sitka Police Department which is in Sitka, Alaska" This is not subject to debate. It is simply what the record reflects. > > At the risk of repeating myself and losing your wonderful invaluable > friendship - RACK OFF or you're going into the blocked list! I take it this means you also won't reply to threads that don't interest you anymore? At least not until somebody else says something about them? > > Lynn > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "shaun wheeler" > To: "Lynn Coceani" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered perjured > testimony > [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From daemon Fri May 30 00:30:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4U4UIJ13033 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 00:30:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Originating-IP: [66.61.75.204] X-Originating-Email: [shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] From: "shaun wheeler" To: "Forens-L list" References: <44C9E6938137A54AB9AAA9723DE70E9FE403BD@admnts61.co.arapahoe.co.us> Subject: Re: [forens] Hemastix Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 23:31:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 May 2003 04:30:17.0210 (UTC) FILETIME=[2BEDDDA0:01C32664] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 621 Jeff: I have a question about the use of luminol. After reading what is available, I was left with the impression that luminol reacts to the iron present in heme. The closest I've come to a plain language discussion of it describes the iron in heme as a catalyst for the reaction between the hydrogen peroxide and the luminol. The reason I ask is I have a document in which somebody said that luminol actually reacts to oxygen. If that was the case, I would think it would be virtually useless anywhere but an anaerobic environment. Thanks in advance. Shaun [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] From daemon Fri May 30 09:15:18 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4UDFIU22618 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 09:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:15:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 705 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1904 04:41:49 -0700 Subject: Re: [forens] Fw: openforensics.org launched From: Mike & Donna Eyring To: on 5/29/03 3:12 PM, Dave Khey at dkhey@ufl.edu wrote: > Perhaps some of you may be interested in this.......... > > Cheers, > > Dave Khey > > >> This post is to announce the launching of openforensics.org, a site for >> the open discussion of digital evidence analysis and related issues. >>(snip) We look forward to your comments and suggestions as we >> move forward together. So, sign me on. Thanks for the work! Mike Eyring [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Fri May 30 09:17:38 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4UDHcS23066 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 09:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:17:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: Subject: [forens] forward Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 1768 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hicks, Gretchen D" To: "'Forens-L list'" Subject: RE: [forens] Hemastix Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 07:58:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Tim, Crime scene investigators will sometimes use the hemastix as a means for weeding out stains at the scene. If stain is positive with the hemastix, then the investigators will bring the stain to the laboratory for presumptive testing, etc. In theory, this alleviates the need for them to be the 'expert' in presumptive testing and puts the burden on the chemists. Gretchen Hicks Maine State Police Crime Laboratory -----Original Message----- From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.org] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 1:47 PM To: 'Forens-L list' Subject: [forens] Hemastix Does anyone on the list work in a lab where either laboratory personnel or Crime Scene personnel use Hemastix for presumptive blood testing? I am looking for some feedback regarding how Crime Scene Technicians are using the product. Are they trained to simply report a positive (or negative) reaction or are they fully trained in presumptive testing, how it works, false positives, etc. If used in the field is there a written SOP, or are the techs simply taught to use it as a tool as they would an ALS for possible semen stain location. Is there a minimum size below which they are told not to test the stain for preservation purposes (DNA)? Thanks for any assistance. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 [EndPost by "French, Tim" ] [EndPost by Basten ] From daemon Fri May 30 20:35:30 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4V0ZUS09519 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 20:35:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] forwarded message Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:35:52 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <001d01c3270c$977a4790$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2003 00:35:28.0769 (UTC) FILETIME=[88FA1F10:01C3270C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 6476 Whether "inconclusive" is considered an acceptable result on a PT is a tricky question. The problem with TM PTs is that there is no way to ensure that all the samples are equally discriminating. For example - the test provider buys 100 of the same screw drivers and 300 of the same door strike plates. Each examiner is to receive a screw driver and three plates, and asked whether or not the screw driver made the mark on each plate. The test provider used each screw driver to make a single mark on a single plate (which each examiner is expected to associate with the included driver) and a different screw driver to mark the other 2 plates in each set (which the examiners are expected to eliminate). The problem is, how to ensure that all 100 of the marks on the "positive" plates will be equally distinct and identifiable? Even if you devise a mechanism to make the marks (which should produce more consistent results) rather than using human beings, some marks might still be more distinct than others, so you can't be certain that the test is of exactly the same difficulty - some marks might be poor enough to justifiably be called "inconclusive." Sometimes, due to the specific materials used, most of the marks will be of relatively poor detail. If you look at the CTS PT results for toolmarks, there have been test cycles where more than two thirds of the examiners returned results of "inconclusive," which means that either the test samples were poorly prepared or the majority of examiners have substandard capabilities (I believe it's the former - these kind of PTs are notoriously difficult to prepare properly and consistently). With FA exams, you can be sure of much greater consistency in samples, since you can use a single firearm to fire all 100 of the "positive" test samples, with very little difference between them. In either case, the standard of "correct" answers for subjective exams like these seems to be the consensus answer of the test group - if the majority returned "inconclusive" as their result, management is probably going to judge "inconclusive" to be an acceptable answer. Even if a significant minority said "inconclusive" that might still be considered acceptable because of the possibility of variation between individual samples. But if the vast majority (let's say more than 90%) of the examinees were able to make correct associations and eliminations of all items, then "inconclusive" would likely be deemed a PT failure. It's really a judgment call on the part of management. For more objective exams like drug, flammable residue, and DNA analysis, pass/fail is a much easier determination. You either correctly make the ID or you don't, and if you don't it's a clearly a PT failure because there is always sufficient sample to make a conclusive determination - there are no legitimate "inconclusives" in the kind of samples sent for routine proficiency testing. Conversely, in the "research" tests, where they push the limit of detection to very low levels or intentionally obscure the results with unusual contaminants or other complications rarely found in typical case work, there can conceivably be legitimate "inconclusive" results just as there are in real cases, but the point of most PT programs is not to test the limits of your abilities with the most difficult of samples, but rather to test your proficiency in routine analysis. I remember in some of the early PTs for flammable residues, there were many complaints about what were said to be unrealistically low levels of identifiable residues being used in the tests and labeling it a "failure" when many failed to detect them. It was argued that the level of detection was far below that expected of examiners in routine work, and so while these tests might be useful for labs specializing in arson investigation (and therefore having exceptional capabilities), they were not useful tests for the average lab. The same was true with some of the early drug exams, with very low levels of drugs, or very unusual "designer" type drugs, or other things the average lab rarely if ever experiences. These were not realistic tests of the average examiner's ability to perform routine work, but might be suitable for examiners with many years of experience and much higher than average abilities, or specialty labs having additional instruments and capabilities not possessed by most labs. This is why the two levels of PTs are now offered, so management can do the type of proficiency testing best suited to the nature of their own analysts' assigned casework. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Basten Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:50 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Banning, Steven" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Proficiency testing Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:33:18 -0500 The CTS proficiency samples in arson and drugs are pretty straight forward. The drug or ignitable liquid is there or it isn't. But a firearm/toolmark examination seems to require more "subjectivity". Are three consecutive striae enough for you or do you require more? I have seen cases were inconclusives are reported. In fact, inconclusives can be further subdivided: * Some agreement of individual and class characteristics but insufficient for identification. * Agreement of class characteristics without agreement or disagreement or disagreement of individual characteristics due to absence, insufficiency, or lack of reproducibility. * Agreement of class characteristics and disagreement of individual characteristics, but insufficient for elimination. It is easy for somebody to make a proficiency in which they know whether that tool made the mark or not. To actually make the identification or elimination seems to be another story. So how do you grade the examiner's decision on just pass/fail. My background is about 10 years in Drugs and Arson examination. I have recently started training in Firearms. I've gone from results that are pretty much black and white to an area that has shades of gray. Steve Banning [EndPost by Basten ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From daemon Fri May 30 20:39:23 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4V0dNs09873 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 20:39:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] career advice again Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:39:46 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <001e01c3270d$22f670a0$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3F2CD88A@webmail.uiuc.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2003 00:39:22.0785 (UTC) FILETIME=[14762110:01C3270D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 4515 As others have hinted, you don't need a degree in forensic science to enter this field. In fact, most lab directors prefer a degree in chemistry or biology, although a forensic science degree from a school with a good reputation is just fine. The main thing is, lab directors want you to have a thorough education in the basic sciences, and that means a traditional science degree is all you need - the forensic applications of science can effectively be taught on the job. Conversely, a forensic science degree would be worthless if it was from a poor program that didn't give you a firm classical science foundation, because labs don't have the resources to teach you basic science (universities are better suited for that). It wouldn't matter what you learned about forensic applications if your knowledge of the underlying basic science was inadequate. Good forensic science programs (e.g., John Jay College, University of Alabama, George Washington University, etc.) will concentrate on a good classical science education, and the law enforcement applications actually form a minority of the studies. Unfortunately, there are also half-baked forensic science programs that don't give you enough hard science, and these need to be avoided. They are the reason that crime lab directors generally prefer traditional degrees. So if you really want to transfer to a good forensic science program, that would be fine, but there's really no reason to. Mastering a science is what you need to focus on, and you're doing that in your current program, so my advice is to stick with it where you are. Your BS degree in molecular biology is all you need to get a job in a forensic laboratory, and it makes you particularly suited to the DNA analysis section. Concentrate on doing well where you are, and you'll be all set to enter the field when you graduate. It's a small field with relatively few job openings, though, so do everything you can to set yourself above the crowd - try to get an internship in a crime lab during your junior or senior year (this is one area where forensic science programs have an advantage, as they will often arrange internships for you); choose forensic science topics for any research projects, literature reports, or compositions you are assigned; start reading up on forensic science to learn as much as you can on your own (especially about any particular specialty you are interested in, like DNA analysis); tour a crime lab and ask the supervisors there what they look for in an applicant and tailor your electives accordingly; learn about the specific characteristics of the labs that you think you might apply to when you graduate and focus on what they do and the needs they have that you might be able to fill; etc. Good luck! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of M. Mulawka Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:02 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] career advice again Once again, I am asking anyone for some career advice. :) I want to do something in forensics, where I can work out in the field or in the lab, but I don't want to only work in the lab or vice versa. I am more than halfway to getting a Bachelors Degree in Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Illinois in Champaign, but do I really need it? I mean, I haven't taken any classes that have to do with the biology of forensics, DNA fingerprinting, crime scene processing, etc. because that school doesn't offer any of those classes. Will that degree allow me to pursue a career in forensics? Should I transfer to a school that offers an undergrad degree in Forensic Science? What if I do decide to transfer to another school that offers the Forensics degree, but it isn't as prestigious as UIUC, then all my hard work in high school to get a good GPA and on the ACT was for nothing? I just don't know what to do because my original plan was forensic pathology, and I would love to go to medical school, but I just don't think my GPA is good enough to get there. But I know I want to definitely do something with forensics, like the biology of forensics or ballistics. I'm so confused! (Thanks in advance for whomever responds with advice ;) Mary Ann Mulawka [EndPost by "M. Mulawka" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From daemon Fri May 30 20:44:04 2003 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id h4V0i4U10269 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 May 2003 20:44:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] career advice again Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:44:28 -0400 Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <001f01c3270d$cac98b50$6c00a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2003 00:44:04.0347 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC4914B0:01C3270D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Length: 2718 There are very few "generalists" anymore - most have been around for many years, and "new" ones are pretty much unheard of. Even in labs with a "generalist" tradition, new hires are assigned to one or a very few specific specialties. Forensic examinations are simply too complex (there is too much to know) these days for anyone to competently be a true generalist. The maxim "a jack of all trades is a master of none" applies, and so you must instead be a master of one or a few specialties. There is very little room for anyone without a science background in crime labs these days - generally the only possible opportunities lie in fingerprint or firearms/toolmarks examinations, or handwriting comparison, and even in these areas a science degree is preferred today. I have to question the value and validity of any forensic science program that would award an MS in Forensic Science without requiring the student to obtain "the scientific background," since a thorough science background should be central to any legitimate forensic science program. Finally, pay scales are based primarily on experience, secondarily on advanced educational status, and in the third place (I was tempted to say "tertiarily" but I don't think that is a legitimate word) on competition for qualified candidates in those few fields where shortages exist - not on the type of work performed. A "generalist" (if there really were such a thing today) would likely be paid no more and no less than a specialist with a similar degree of experience and education. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of shaun wheeler Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:43 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again John: Just a quick question, are there many opportunities for somebody without the scientific background but with a masters in forensic science, say as a "generalist"? Do they pay as much as forensic scientists with knowledge in such areas or are they generally a little less well renumerated? Thanks in advance. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Lentini" To: ; Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [forens] career advice again > Get a solid grounding in the sciences. Then go > to John jay College and get a masters in Forensic > Science. You'll be golden! > > > --- "M. Mulawka" [EndPost by "shaun wheeler" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ]