From forens-owner Wed Nov 1 05:12:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA00947 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:12:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA00942 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:12:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from thuis (uu212-190-0-158.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.158]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04922; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:12:18 +0100 (CET) From: "Gerrit Volckeryck" To: "- On-Line Forensic Discussion Group' 'ForensL" Cc: Subject: Books on Crime Investigation by Rod Englert Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:12:58 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear all, On behalf of Heikki Majamaa I'm searching for some information about two books on crime investigation which should have been written by Mr. Rod Englert. A search on www.Amazon.com and www.BookFinder.com didn't yield any useful results. Does anybody know anything about these books or the author ? Maybe we spelled his name wrong ? Every idea will be appreciated. thanks, Gerrit Gerrit Volckeryck laboratoriumcommissaris Gerechtelijke Politie Laboratorium voor Technische en Wetenschappelijke Politie WTC III Simon Bolivarlaan 30 1000 Brussel - België tel. +32 2 208 48 31 mobile : +32 486 68 32 42 fax. +32 2 208 48 50 gerrit.volckeryck@village.uunet.be http://gallery.uunet.be/gerrit.volckeryck/index.htm From forens-owner Wed Nov 1 08:13:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02552 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02547 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:13:48 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id 5.f7.42348ba (4406); Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:12:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:12:42 EST Subject: Re: Books on Crime Investigation by Rod Englert To: gerrit.volckeryck@village.uunet.be, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: Heikki.majamaa@krp.poliisi.fi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Check with John King Books out of Detroit. They've found a couple of rare or out of print books for me. Here's their site address: http://www.rarebooklink.com/index.html If you can't pull up the site, their e-mail address is: kingbooks@aol.com In a message dated 11/1/00 5:34:22 AM, gerrit.volckeryck@village.uunet.be writes: << On behalf of Heikki Majamaa I'm searching for some information about two books on crime investigation which should have been written by Mr. Rod Englert. A search on www.Amazon.com and www.BookFinder.com didn't yield any useful results. Does anybody know anything about these books or the author ? Maybe we spelled his name wrong ? Every idea will be appreciated. >> Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Wed Nov 1 11:29:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05046 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:29:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05041 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 11:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:20:09 -0600 Message-ID: <4E0277823564D411905E00A0C9EA331845C65A@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "Forens (E-mail)" , "Forensic-ScienceEGroup (E-mail)" Subject: FW: The Fourth Amendment Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:28:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO >From The Atlantic, October 2000: This is an interesting perspective on the Fourth Amendment. (There are also good articles on police training post-Columbine, the origins of AIDS and the national "Health Care" debate in this issue.) Dave Hause http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/10/budiansky.htm From forens-owner Wed Nov 1 17:50:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09505 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:50:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA09500 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:50:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 1 Nov 2000 22:50:50 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:50:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Mamlind@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Hair analysis Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:50:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04456.2E016636" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04456.2E016636 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Melinda, Here's a compilation of what I received from others. Labs performing drug screens on hair: Psychemedics Corporation 1-800-522-7424 Culver City, CA National Medical Services, Willow Grove, PA, 800-522-6671, www.nmslab.com (recommended by a half dozen different people) U. S. Drug Testing Corporation, Chicago, Ill Park-Gilman Clinics, Inc., Burlingame, CA 415-259-7564 (Corporate HQ, labs in both northern [Walnut Creek] and southern [Irvine] California) Trichotech, Ltd., Cardiff, Wales, U.K. Kriminaltechnisches Privatinstitut Mag.Bluemelhuber GmbH Robert Stolzstr.18 A-4020 Linz Dr.Friederike Bluemelhuber (www.ktpi.at) Bruce Goldberger at University of Florida E-mail: bruce-goldberger@ufl.edu TIG Labs (The Infinity Group) 411 S Hydraulic Wichita, KS 67211 316 262-5779 Price: $ 55/specimen APL (Associated Pathologists Laboratories) 4230 S Burnham Las Vegas, NV 800-433-2750 American Toxicology Institute Las Vegas, NV Contact: Kathleen Rhode As for the controversy, it revolves around the issue of environmental contamination of hair samples and passive exposure concerns. Some studies seem to show that hair samples can be effectively cleansed of contamination prior to analysis, while others seem to show that contamination may result in drugs being absorbed into the hair matrix rather than merely deposited on the surface, and so cannot be eliminated via pre-analysis cleansing procedures. So if you get drugs in/on your hair by walking through a room where drugs were being smoked, could you be falsely accused of drug use yourself due to this environmental contamination? Then there is the other issue of innocent passive exposure to drugs (simply by breathing the air at a party, in a car-pool, etc.) resulting in drugs entering the body at low levels and being incorporated into the hair matrix without the subject ever actually using drugs themselves. You've heard of passive tobacco smoke inhalation as a health concern; the principle with regard to illegal drugs is the same. The low levels of drugs sought and detected in hair exams may make this a valid concern, whereas the established cut-off standards for urine and blood samples pretty much eliminate this concern for those types of samples. For these reasons, some hold the view that hair drug testing is unreliable, or at least is less reliable that urine or blood drug testing. This then is the controversy - you can find drugs in a hair sample, but if you do, what does that mean? What conclusion regarding the subject's use or non-use of illegal drugs can be justifiably reached? Does it prove they personally used drugs or does it simply mean they may have innocently been exposed to other people's drug use? The answers to these questions are still a matter of dispute in both legal and scientific circles. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Mamlind@aol.com [mailto:Mamlind@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 8:07 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Hair analysis Robert, I am new to list and have a question. First, any replies you received I did not see show up on this list. And, I am very curious about what the controversy is over hair analysis for cocaine, and I am sure there are others, so if you could give me and others some info on the controversy it would be greatly appreciated. I am a Criminal Justice major and always looking for info on all subjects criminal. Thanks, MaryAnn ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04456.2E016636 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Hair analysis

Melinda,

Here's a compilation of what I received from = others.

Labs performing drug screens on hair:

Psychemedics Corporation 1-800-522-7424 Culver City, = CA

National Medical Services, Willow Grove, PA, = 800-522-6671, www.nmslab.com (recommended by a half dozen different = people)

U. S. Drug Testing Corporation, Chicago, Ill

Park-Gilman Clinics, Inc., Burlingame, CA = 415-259-7564 (Corporate HQ, labs in both northern [Walnut Creek] and = southern [Irvine] California)

Trichotech, Ltd., Cardiff, Wales, U.K.

Kriminaltechnisches Privatinstitut
Mag.Bluemelhuber GmbH
Robert Stolzstr.18
A-4020 Linz
Dr.Friederike Bluemelhuber
(www.ktpi.at)

Bruce Goldberger at University of Florida
E-mail: bruce-goldberger@ufl.edu

TIG Labs (The Infinity Group)
411 S Hydraulic
Wichita, KS 67211
316 262-5779       = Price:  $ 55/specimen

APL (Associated Pathologists Laboratories)
4230 S Burnham
Las Vegas, NV
800-433-2750

American Toxicology Institute
Las Vegas, NV
Contact:  Kathleen Rhode

As for the controversy, it revolves around the issue = of environmental contamination of hair samples and passive exposure = concerns.  Some studies seem to show that hair samples can be = effectively cleansed of contamination prior to analysis, while others = seem to show that contamination may result in drugs being absorbed into = the hair matrix rather than merely deposited on the surface, and so = cannot be eliminated via pre-analysis cleansing procedures.  So if = you get drugs in/on your hair by walking through a room where drugs = were being smoked, could you be falsely accused of drug use yourself = due to this environmental contamination?  Then there is the other = issue of innocent passive exposure to drugs (simply by breathing the = air at a party, in a car-pool, etc.) resulting in drugs entering the = body at low levels and being incorporated into the hair matrix without = the subject ever actually using drugs themselves.  You've heard of = passive tobacco smoke inhalation as a health concern; the principle = with regard to illegal drugs is the same.  The low levels of drugs = sought and detected in hair exams may make this a valid concern, = whereas the established cut-off standards for urine and blood samples = pretty much eliminate this concern for those types of samples.  = For these reasons, some hold the view that hair drug testing is = unreliable, or at least is less reliable that urine or blood drug = testing.

This then is the controversy - you can find drugs in = a hair sample, but if you do, what does that mean?  What = conclusion regarding the subject's use or non-use of illegal drugs can = be justifiably reached?  Does it prove they personally used drugs = or does it simply mean they may have innocently been exposed to other = people's drug use?  The answers to these questions are still a = matter of dispute in both legal and scientific circles.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Mamlind@aol.com [mailto:Mamlind@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 8:07 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Hair analysis


Robert,

I am new to list and have a question.  First, = any replies you received I did
not see show up on this list.  And, I am very = curious about what the
controversy is over hair analysis for cocaine, and I = am sure there are
others, so if you could give me and others some info = on the controversy it
would be greatly appreciated. I am a Criminal = Justice major and always
looking for info on all subjects criminal.

Thanks,

MaryAnn

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04456.2E016636-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 1 21:34:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11624 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:34:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f143.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.143]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11619 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:33:42 -0800 Received: from 63.49.14.8 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:33:42 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.49.14.8] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: KJohn39679@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: 16 innocents executed since '77? Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:33:42 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2000 02:33:42.0472 (UTC) FILETIME=[50DA4C80:01C04475] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO John and List: This is the fruit of years of abuse of the writ and the appellate process. Some circuits have clerks winnowing the case load before the judges even see it. However you care to characterize this, it means that you're relying on a lawyer clerking in their office to decide whether or not they even see your case, much less hear it. The bitter harvest that abolitionists have reaped was fairly predictable. It's implications did not stop with those sentenced to death, but even those sentenced to life imprisonment or less. A moratorium or even ending capital punishment will not change the system. It will only change the sentence. The only way to alter the outcome is to alter the ethical choices and accountability of the attorney's who file these writs, perhaps holding 'experts' somewhat accountable for their conduct, even if, as somebody in Los Angeles said, "somethings going on here". The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty act was a step in that direction, but it falls short of being a solution. It binds fact finding back to the state level, where it really should have been all along. Maybe then, the appellate process won't be so clogged that the courts have to winnow the wheat from the chaff to reach to the cases that really need the most attention. Shaun >From: KJohn39679@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Fwd: 16 innocents executed since '77? >Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:55:58 EST > > >In a message dated 10/30/00 2:52:41 PM, Martinyant writes: > ><< Reasonable Doubts: _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Thu Nov 2 17:24:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26462 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26457 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:24:04 -0500 (EST) From: Flannery64@aol.com Received: from Flannery64@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.2d.2fafb9b (3929) for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:23:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2d.2fafb9b.27334355@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:23:17 EST Subject: question re cause of death To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2d.2fafb9b.27334355_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_2d.2fafb9b.27334355_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some of you may remember my questions about an autopsy some months back. I'm helping research the biography of a gentleman who died under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Here's one (possibly last) question: Cause of death was listed as 1. cardiac arrhythmia, 2. myocardial ischemia. Would that be translatable in layman's terms as a heart attack? If not, is there a simple way to explain it in non-medical terms? Anne --part1_2d.2fafb9b.27334355_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some of you may remember my questions about an autopsy some months back.  I'm
helping research the biography of a gentleman who died under somewhat
mysterious circumstances.  Here's one (possibly last) question:

Cause of death was listed as 1. cardiac arrhythmia, 2. myocardial ischemia.  
Would that be translatable in layman's terms as a heart attack?  If not, is
there a simple way to explain it in non-medical terms?

Anne --part1_2d.2fafb9b.27334355_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 2 21:25:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA28907 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:25:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host000012.arnet.net.ar [200.45.0.12] (may be forged)) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA28902 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:25:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24224 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 02:19:48 -0000 Received: ThePolice Version 0.02 by GCM Received: AntiBombing Version 0.08 by GCM Received: from host000005.arnet.net.ar (HELO mail2.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.5) by host000012.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 02:19:48 -0000 Received: from fito ([200.45.15.19]) by mail2.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:19:44 -0300 Message-ID: <00fd01c0453d$a026e8c0$130f2dc8@fito> From: "Adolfo E. Scatena" To: "forens" Subject: Ph.D. Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:47:54 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C04516.8E071600" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C04516.8E071600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This has little to do with Forensic Science but I do not have other way = to clear it. What is the meaning of PH.D?. Obviously is Philosophy Doctor . but (This = may be nonsense ) what if it is a M.D. also. What is the place of a PhD = for a medical doctor, it is previous to the medical school? As you can see I am not familiar with ameridan deducational sistem, = degrres or diplomas. TK. Adolfo Scatena MD Medico Forense, 2=AA circunscripcion judicial Prov de Rio Negro Gral. Roca, Rio Negro=20 ARGENTINA ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C04516.8E071600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This has little to do with Forensic Science but I do not have other = way to=20 clear it.
 
What is the meaning of PH.D?. Obviously is Philosophy Doctor . but = (This=20 may be nonsense ) what if it is a M.D. also. What is the place of a = PhD for=20 a medical doctor, it is previous to the medical school?
 
As you can see I am not familiar with ameridan deducational sistem, = degrres=20 or diplomas.
 
TK.
 
Adolfo Scatena MD
Medico Forense, 2=AA circunscripcion judicial = Prov de=20 Rio Negro
Gral. Roca, Rio Negro
ARGENTINA
 
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C04516.8E071600-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 00:07:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00793 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:07:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00788 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:07:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24653 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 05:07:37 -0000 Received: from access-4-15.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.84) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 05:07:37 -0000 Message-ID: <0bbd01c04553$62628600$0b0d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <2d.2fafb9b.27334355@aol.com> Subject: Re: question re cause of death Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:03:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO "1. cardiac arrhythmia" means "I couldn't identify an anatomic cause of death but it was probably his heart" (all hearts are isorythymic, that is, flatline, at autopsy) although sometimes there is actual documentation if the EMS folks get there soon enough, "2. myocardial ischemia" probably means "and his coronary vessels were narrow but I didn't find any discrete obstruction, so it was probably his heart." (Ischemia means inadequate blood flow; autopsy state hearts do not have blood flow.) Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 4:23 PM Subject: question re cause of death Some of you may remember my questions about an autopsy some months back. I'm helping research the biography of a gentleman who died under somewhat mysterious circumstances. Here's one (possibly last) question: Cause of death was listed as 1. cardiac arrhythmia, 2. myocardial ischemia. Would that be translatable in layman's terms as a heart attack? If not, is there a simple way to explain it in non-medical terms? Anne From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 00:15:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00956 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00951 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:14:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27152 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 05:14:57 -0000 Received: from access-4-15.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.84) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 05:14:57 -0000 Message-ID: <0bc701c04554$68313a80$0b0d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: "forens" References: <00fd01c0453d$a026e8c0$130f2dc8@fito> Subject: Re: Ph.D. Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:10:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Ph.D. is generally a research-based doctoral degree, while those of us with M.D. have graduated from the appropriate higher level school, but typically, in US usage, have not done a thesis (as opposed to the Germans, for example. who require a thesis for the M.D. degree.) Ph.D. combined with M.D. may come either before or after medical school; if before, it may indicate a change in career plans after graduate school (or an initial failure to be admitted to medical school); if after medical school, probably represents a serious interest in basic research. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adolfo E. Scatena" To: "forens" Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 6:47 PM Subject: Ph.D. This has little to do with Forensic Science but I do not have other way to clear it. What is the meaning of PH.D?. Obviously is Philosophy Doctor . but (This may be nonsense ) what if it is a M.D. also. What is the place of a PhD for a medical doctor, it is previous to the medical school? As you can see I am not familiar with ameridan deducational sistem, degrres or diplomas. TK. Adolfo Scatena MD Medico Forense, 2ª circunscripcion judicial Prov de Rio Negro Gral. Roca, Rio Negro ARGENTINA From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 05:58:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04288 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:58:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.18]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04283 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:58:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17143 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:57:53 GMT Received: from Brutonpc (bruton-day-pc.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.40]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10770 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:57:49 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001103105653.006991e8@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:56:53 +0000 To: "forens" From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Re: Ph.D. In-Reply-To: <00fd01c0453d$a026e8c0$130f2dc8@fito> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi all, Just to add my two-penneth further to David Hause's excellent definition: Here in the U.K., there is no outward difference between the title of say, a Doctor of Chemistry (which I am currently aiming for) or a Doctor of Medicine. Both get called "Doctor" - which could be quite embarrassing if you imagine a frantic stewardess on a flight asking "is there is a doctor on the 'plane?" ;) (To which I would probably reply, "why yes, which fingerprints do you want enhancing?" ;P) The letters "Ph.D." (and occasionally you see "D.Phil.") do stand for a Doctor of Philosophy, implying that the holder has been involved in a significant piece of research of original work that contributes to the "general wealth of knowledge". This is documented in the form of a thesis, and has to be "defended" orally, in examination by at least two examiners. A medical doctor, on the other hand (here in the U.K., at any rate), has "served" his or her "time" by studying for six years - equivalent in time, at least, to an undergraduate and postgraduate degree (three years a-piece). Following successful completion of his or her formal studies, an "honorary" doctorate is bestowed, even though, in comparison with the earlier description of a Ph.D., a significant piece of original research has not been done. Hence, medical doctors are called "doctors". >From what very little I understand of the American Education System, an "M.D." is a distinct qualification for Medical Doctors... And I'm afraid that is about it! Hope this helps! :) Warm regards to all, Geoff. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 06:39:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04708 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:39:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA04703 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:39:29 -0500 (EST) From: Alikatt@aol.com Received: from Alikatt@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.8.c441037 (16937) for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:38:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8.c441037.2733fdcd@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:38:53 EST Subject: blood/semen swabs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8.c441037.2733fdcd_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_8.c441037.2733fdcd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When a wet swab is taken of blood or semen at a crime scene, how long can it stay in a sealed container (for transport back to the lab) before being dried, before degradation starts to occur? Also, once a sample is dried, how long can it stay in a sealed container before being frozen? --part1_8.c441037.2733fdcd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When a wet swab is taken of blood or semen at a crime scene, how long can it
stay in a sealed container (for transport back to the lab) before being
dried, before degradation starts to occur?   Also, once a sample is dried,
how long can it stay in a sealed container before being frozen?
--part1_8.c441037.2733fdcd_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 08:01:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05611 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:01:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r07.mail.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05606 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:01:09 -0500 (EST) From: Puffy0495@aol.com Received: from Puffy0495@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.97.c94a0c5 (1782); Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:00:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <97.c94a0c5.273410db@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:00:11 EST Subject: Re: blood/semen swabs To: Alikatt@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 109 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO When taking a swab from a crime scene I would recommend not packaging it until it is dry. If you have a lab available to you go get an empty pipette tip rack. These are very good for standing the swabs up in and allowing to dry. Also if possible you could cut the stain out of where you found it instead of swabbing it up. Once a stain is dried the best storage is frozen storage, dried stains can be left at room temperature for long periods of time with no significant effects......this has been discussed at our state TWGDAM meetings and I think there will be something published soon on the storage of stains in different environments. Sorry I cannot remember the agency that a coworker called about that but I could find out if you wish. Scott C. Milne From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 11:59:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08987 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:59:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail023.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA08982 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:59:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29701 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2000 16:58:33 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail023.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Nov 2000 16:58:33 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 3 Nov 2000 16:54:55 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Nov 03 08:58:07 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 08:57:22 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 08:56:47 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Alikatt@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: blood/semen swabs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO t is best to attempt to air dry the swab as soon as possible. A simple way to do this is to take a polyethylene pipette tip, cut a piece off of the narrow end and slide it inverted over the stick portion of the swab. The tip then acts as a tent for the business end of the swab keeping it free from contamination and allowing the swab the opportunity to dry. Take the swab and place it in a clean manilla envelope, label and seal it. This is the most effective way to handle this kind of evidence. Another method is to take a clay block with you to the scene and put the inverted swabs into the block and allow them to air dry as you process the scene. When dry or nearly so, place them into a clean manila envelope, label, seal and transport. To give credit to the person who devised the first methodis only right. The idea of the Chisum stick was proposed by Jerrry Chisum, a criminalist who worked for the California Department of Justice, who has since retired. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> 11/03 3:38 AM >>> When a wet swab is taken of blood or semen at a crime scene, how long can it stay in a sealed container (for transport back to the lab) before being dried, before degradation starts to occur? Also, once a sample is dried, how long can it stay in a sealed container before being frozen? From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 12:53:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10177 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10172 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:53:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:53:15 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["C. Chan" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id MAA10173 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:44:43 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["C. Chan" ] >From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 09:44:42 2000 Received: from mail-hub3.weeg.uiowa.edu (mail-hub3.weeg.uiowa.edu [128.255.56.23]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07385 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from green.weeg.uiowa.edu (IDENT:4681@green.weeg.uiowa.edu [128.255.56.25]) by mail-hub3.weeg.uiowa.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1/blue-mh-1.6) with ESMTP id IAA13566; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:44:39 -0600 Received: from localhost (cschan@localhost) by green.weeg.uiowa.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1/blue-client-3.2) with ESMTP id IAA95062; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:44:38 -0600 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:44:37 -0600 (CST) From: "C. Chan" X-Sender: cschan@green.weeg.uiowa.edu To: "Adolfo E. Scatena" cc: forens Subject: Re: Ph.D. In-Reply-To: <00fd01c0453d$a026e8c0$130f2dc8@fito> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id JAA07386 In the US, a PhD in a science related field means an any where from 4 to 8 years of study involving course work and more importantly, research-based thesis work, usually resulting in publications in scientific journals. Every dept has slightly different criteria. PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. Of course, this is done after one gets a bachelor's degree. An MD is a medical degree but could be specializing in any field of medicine. You need to have a Bachelor's degree before getting into medical school. An MD/PhD is getting quite common these days. It is usually a joint program where a person is trained to become a medical doctor and at the same time also gets some training in science by doing some bench work. It typically takes a longer time than a 'pure' PhD. Of course, one could pursue a MD and a PhD separately too. Either one can come before the other. ChuiSien On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Adolfo E. Scatena wrote: > This has little to do with Forensic Science but I do not have other way to clear it. > > What is the meaning of PH.D?. Obviously is Philosophy Doctor . but (This may be nonsense ) what if it is a M.D. also. What is the place of a PhD for a medical doctor, it is previous to the medical school? > > As you can see I am not familiar with ameridan deducational sistem, degrres or diplomas. > > TK. > > Adolfo Scatena MD > Medico Forense, 2ª circunscripcion judicial Prov de Rio Negro > Gral. Roca, Rio Negro > ARGENTINA > > From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 13:06:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10420 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r09.mail.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10412 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:39 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.a0.bb61ee4 (3962); Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember you all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more damage. Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness By Josh White Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's degree and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions in some cases and to help defendants go free in others. All for a fee. Yesterday, after uncovering what they called a trail of fraud crossing several states, Prince William County prosecutors sewed up convictions against Stocco, 33, for perjury and obtaining money by false pretenses in the Manassas case. They said they had stopped a man who manipulated the criminal justice system across the country for profit. Authorities in other states are investigating Stocco's testimony in cases there, including those in which he helped win convictions, according to officials. Stocco faces up to 20 years in prison when he is sentenced in January in Prince William, and he was taken into custody yesterday after a judge revoked his bond. Prosecutors said they are recommending 10 years of probation, with the condition that Stocco not testify in the United States again. Stocco's attorney, David Schertler, said yesterday that he "accepts responsibility" and "recognizes the seriousness of what he has done." The two guilty pleas in Prince William County Circuit Court end nearly two years of inquiry into Stocco's background, during which investigators said they learned that he lied about credentials to boost his status and collect thousands of dollars in expert-witness fees. Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert called Stocco's case a brazen example of fraud sullying the nation's courtrooms. "Anyone who would misrepresent themselves poses a real threat to our system," Ebert said. "These hired guns need to be qualified. I hope this sends a message to other frauds out there trying to uptrip our criminal justice syst em." The charges against Stocco arose from the prosecution of Billy Leon Smalls and Jennifer Nicole Talley, who were convicted of murder in the scalding death of 2-year-old Sade Naomi Hatfield. Prosecutors and defense attorneys said Stocco was prepared to testify that Sade's burns were accidental. A Prince William judge barred Stocco from testifying as an expert after prosecutors grilled him Feb. 26, 1999. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Sandra Sylvester said she suspected something when she looked at Stocco's 10-page resume, which is filled with embellishments and false qualifications. After he was not allowed to testify in Prince William, Stocco bought two degrees from the University of San Moritz, which requires no course work and mails out degrees for cash, the prosecutor said. "After he left here, he bolstered his transcripts to get qualified elsewhere," Sylvester said. "He realized he didn't get qualified and needed more on his resume. This guy sets out to tip the scales of justice toward whoever is paying him." According to transcripts of testimony in several jurisdictions, Stocco said he had investigated hundreds of child-abuse cases as a state police officer in New Jersey and had attended surgical procedures for burn victims. But Gary Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had instead patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal investigations or surgeries. Each time Stocco was allowed by a judge to testify as an expert witness, it boosted his qualifications. It's a cycle that worries prosecutors. "It lowers the respect all of us have for the justice system, and it really does harm to society," said Victor Vieth, director of the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse in Alexandria. "There's certainly a lot of guys who get away with this, and prosecutors often don't have the time or the resources to go after them. The folks in Prince William did a great service to the whole country by weeding this guy out." Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 13:51:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA10982 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:51:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from Pearl.co.san-diego.ca.us ([63.200.213.11]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10977 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:51:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from dpwexchange.dpw.co.san-diego.ca.us ([170.213.6.166]) by Pearl.co.san-diego.ca.us (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0) with ESMTP id AAA4966 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:33 -0800 Received: by DPWEXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:57 -0800 Message-ID: <31D1C84B2F18D2119D6A00805F57D3C401791C71@DPWEXCHANGE> From: "Lowe,Donald" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Meeting Announcement - California Association of Toxicologists Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:48:56 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C045C6.B86D8400" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C045C6.B86D8400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear colleague, I want to inform you of the upcoming California Association of Toxicologists Workshop (jointly sponsored by CAT and the Society of Forensic Toxicologists) and Quarterly Meeting to be held November 10 and 11, 2000 in San Diego, CA. The Friday workshop, "Chemistry of Derivatization" is being hosted by Sarah Kerrigan of the California DOJ BFS Toxicology Laboratory. The Saturday meeting, hosted by Matt Beatie and Gregory Priebe of LabCorp OTS, will have presentations covering some issues regarding drugs in alternative specimens, work using electrospray ionization and tandem mass spectrometry and indoor air quality toxicology. Agenda, workshop and meeting registration forms and hotel registration information can be found at the CAT Home Page, http://www.Cal-tox.org Russ Lowe CAT President ------_=_NextPart_001_01C045C6.B86D8400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Meeting Announcement - California Association of = Toxicologists

Dear colleague,

I want to inform you of the upcoming = California Association of Toxicologists Workshop (jointly sponsored by = CAT and the Society of Forensic Toxicologists) and Quarterly Meeting to = be held November 10 and 11, 2000 in San Diego, CA.  The Friday = workshop, "Chemistry of Derivatization" is being hosted by = Sarah Kerrigan of the California DOJ BFS Toxicology Laboratory.  = The Saturday meeting, hosted by Matt Beatie and Gregory Priebe of = LabCorp OTS, will have presentations covering some issues regarding = drugs in alternative specimens, work using electrospray ionization and = tandem mass spectrometry and indoor air quality toxicology.  = Agenda, workshop and meeting registration forms and hotel registration = information can be found at the CAT Home Page, http://www.Cal-tox.org

Russ Lowe
CAT President


------_=_NextPart_001_01C045C6.B86D8400-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 16:30:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13507 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from night.its.uiowa.edu (night.its.uiowa.edu [128.255.56.106]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13502 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns-mx.uiowa.edu (IDENT:CLImodem358-200910WedDec3118000119690telnet_cmd10056@portal-4.weeg.uiowa.edu [128.255.56.104]) by night.its.uiowa.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1/ns-mx-1.11) with SMTP id PAA20776 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:30:35 -0600 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001103153103.00696fd0@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> X-Sender: cschan@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:31:03 -0600 To: "forens" From: Chui Sien Chan Subject: Re: Ph.D. In-Reply-To: <00fd01c0453d$a026e8c0$130f2dc8@fito> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In the US, a PhD in a science related field means an any where from 4 to 8 years of study involving course work and more importantly,=20 research-based thesis work, usually resulting in publications in scientific journals. Every dept has slightly different criteria. PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. Of course, this is done after one gets a bachelor's degree. An MD is a medical degree but could be specializing in any field of medicine. You need to have a Bachelor's degree before getting into medical school. An MD/PhD is getting quite common these days. It is usually a joint program where a person is trained to become a medical doctor and at the same time also gets some training in science by doing some bench work. It typically takes a longer time than a 'pure' PhD. Of course, one could pursue a MD and a PhD separately too. Either one can come before the other. ChuiSien At 09:47 PM 11/2/00 -0300, Adolfo E. Scatena wrote:=20 >>>> This has little to do with Forensic Science but I do not have other way to clear it. =20 What is the meaning of PH.D?. Obviously is Philosophy Doctor . but (This may be nonsense ) what if it is a M.D. also. What is the place of a PhD for a medical doctor, it is previous to the medical school? =20 As you can see I am not familiar with ameridan deducational sistem, degrres or diplomas. =20 TK. =20 Adolfo Scatena MD Medico Forense, 2=AA circunscripcion judicial Prov de Rio Negro Gral. Roca, Rio Negro=20 ARGENTINA =20 <<<<<<<< From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 17:33:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14192 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:33:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14187 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:33:10 -0500 (EST) From: Flannery64@aol.com Received: from Flannery64@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.15.b3c6497 (16634) for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:32:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <15.b3c6497.273496fd@aol.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:32:29 EST Subject: Re: question re cause of death To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15.b3c6497.273496fd_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_15.b3c6497.273496fd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for your help, Dave. I think I get it. Anne In a message dated 11/2/00 9:12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > "1. cardiac arrhythmia" means "I couldn't identify an anatomic cause of > death but it was probably his heart" (all hearts are isorythymic, that is, > flatline, at autopsy) although sometimes there is actual documentation if > the EMS folks get there soon enough, "2. myocardial ischemia" probably means > "and his coronary vessels were narrow but I didn't find any discrete > obstruction, so it was probably his heart." (Ischemia means inadequate > blood flow; autopsy state hearts do not have blood flow.) > Dave Hause > --part1_15.b3c6497.273496fd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for your help, Dave.  I think I get it.  

Anne

In a message dated 11/2/00 9:12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dwhause@rollanet.org writes:


"1. cardiac arrhythmia" means "I couldn't identify an anatomic cause of
death but it was probably his heart" (all hearts are isorythymic, that is,
flatline, at autopsy) although sometimes there is actual documentation if
the EMS folks get there soon enough, "2. myocardial ischemia" probably means
"and his coronary vessels were narrow but I didn't find any discrete
obstruction, so it was probably his heart."  (Ischemia means inadequate
blood flow;  autopsy state hearts do not have blood flow.)
Dave Hause


--part1_15.b3c6497.273496fd_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 17:55:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14445 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:55:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14440 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:55:39 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.f4.42c71ee (1839) for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:55:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:55:03 EST Subject: Hair Symposium To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Back a while ago a member of the list advised me that he has a copy of the Proceedings of the 1983 Symposium on Hair analysis which was held at the FBI Academy. Don't remember who that was but he offered to provide me a copy if I could not get it elsewhere. Well, can't get it elsewhere. Can the anonymous benefactor reidentify himself and remake the offer. Would really like to have a copy. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri Nov 3 21:48:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA16451 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f260.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.135]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA16446 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:48:18 -0800 Received: from 63.49.12.193 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:48:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.49.12.193] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: Sidg@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:48:17 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2000 02:48:18.0007 (UTC) FILETIME=[AF89D670:01C04609] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Barbara and List: The point you raise is a good one. I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable training in such areas. The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any qualifications to do so. Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let the jury decide weight and credibility. Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense witnesses, do you? Shaun >From: Sidg@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember >you >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more >damage. > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > >By Josh White >Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's >degree >and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms >in >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions >in snip.... >But Gary >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had >instead >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal >investigations or surgeries. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Sat Nov 4 12:35:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23640 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:35:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from m15.boston.juno.com (m15.boston.juno.com [63.211.172.78]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23635 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:35:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"pfKP4fM9dHbWyUuR1qetfss/Wi8oLkLsXeSQjwJV3KKw7qOjsGh0mw=="> Received: (from knarfgerg@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id FM22TZBG; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 12:35:04 EST To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:24:11 -0800 Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Melissa Jacob ] (fwd) Message-ID: <20001104.092858.-456225.2.knarfgerg@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-8,10-108 X-Juno-Att: 0 X-Juno-RefParts: 0 From: Greg R Frank Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi all, You say you can not determine caliber size by the corresponding wound size. How about if the "wound" is through something solid, such as a traffic sign. Could you make test fires with different calibers, produce different size holes and make a comparison with the questioned hole? Greg On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:08:02 -0500 (EST) Basten writes: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:04:44 -0800 > From: James Roberts > To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from[Melissa > Jacob ] (fwd) > > "I know that the further away, the larger the entrance > wound, " > > What you "know" is incorrect! Our books, movies and TV have > perpetuated large amount of myth. shrouding firearms. Many people > "know" that the exit is always larger than the entrance. Bullets > "knock people down" etc. very little of it true. As Bill Oliver > points out you can't even tell the size of the bullet from the wound > much less the distance (See AFTE Oct. '87 p 433: Lattig, Sizing > Shotgun Slug Entrance Wounds) > > Range determination analysis is not done by measuring the size of > the wound with the slight exception of some shotgun entry wounds. > Which if larger than cylinder with very raged edges, but not yet > showing separate pellet holes or only a few, may provide some range > information. So if you change from gunshot to shotgun wound you may > start to make some sense. Range determination is conducted based > upon the spread of the shot of a shotgun pattern or upon the spread > of the powder patten (and primer residue if close enough) in other > arms. Each gun and ammunition combination should be tested in each > case when possable. Many times a firearm of the same make, model > and barrel length will create a different pattern. There are some > guidelines but they are rough estimations that are not heavily > relied upon if testing can be conducted properly. You will find a > discussion of this in DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds (which Dr. House > suggested as I'm proofing this). > > Jim Roberts > > > James L. Roberts > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > (805) 654-2308 > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > >>> "Basten" 10/30/00 07:41AM >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from [Melissa > Jacob ] > > >From forens-owner Mon Oct 30 10:00:15 2000 > Received: from sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > (sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu [130.74.120.71]) > by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id > KAA01380 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:15 > -0500 (EST) > Received: from [130.74.116.217] ([130.74.116.217]) > by sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP > id JAA14132 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:03:58 > -0600 (CST) > X-Sender: pgjacob@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:00:41 -0600 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > From: Melissa Jacob > Subject: Gunshot wounds and distance > > Hello all, > I was wondering if there were any good references out there that > discuss > the size of a gunshot entrance wound and the distance from which the > muzzle > was when fired. I know that the further away, the larger the > entrance > wound, and I know that there have been experiments done on the known > weapon > itself to determine how far away the shooter (or muzzle) was. But > are > there some general guidelines for a certain caliber and type of > bullet and > gun? > > Thanks in advance, > Melissa > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From forens-owner Sat Nov 4 19:31:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26890 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26885 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from earthlink.net (dialup-209.246.80.251.NewYork2.Level3.net [209.246.80.251]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25466 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:31:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3A04AA4D.6748D77A@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 19:31:10 -0500 From: Lu Ann Horstman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en]C-compaq (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I would like the opinion of anyone familiar with methods of handwriting examination to give an opinion on an expert who would render an opinion as to whether the handwriting of a deceased celebrity was authentic, without referring to the subject's known signature, when such exemplars were readily available. Thanks. ramblingal@earthlink.net From forens-owner Sat Nov 4 22:09:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28280 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:09:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA28275 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:09:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24797 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2000 03:09:16 -0000 Received: from access-7-18.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.19) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2000 03:09:16 -0000 Message-ID: <0ccf01c046d4$c39aff60$0b0d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:01:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This cries out for a citation. Or at least some sort of disclaimer like "which I pointed out to the prosecutor at ..." Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Barbara and List: The point you raise is a good one. I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable training in such areas. The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any qualifications to do so. Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let the jury decide weight and credibility. Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense witnesses, do you? Shaun >From: Sidg@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember >you >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more >damage. > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > >By Josh White >Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's >degree >and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms >in >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions >in snip.... >But Gary >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had >instead >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal >investigations or surgeries. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Sun Nov 5 00:23:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA29520 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from proxy2.ba.best.com (root@proxy2.ba.best.com [206.184.139.14]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA29515 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 00:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from computername (oak3f-36.pacific.net [209.209.26.36]) by proxy2.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with SMTP id VAA28303 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:21:46 -0800 (PST) From: "Sarah L. Spalding" To: Subject: Arson Investigation Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:20:55 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear List Members, While milling around career options a friend of mine suggested arson investigation. While he is a wonderful source of information, I would like to hear from other people as well. If you have some "words of wisdom" you could share with me about the related education needed and the field in general please respond to me off list. Many thanks in advance, Sarah From forens-owner Sun Nov 5 17:28:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08301 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:28:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host000012.arnet.net.ar [200.45.0.12] (may be forged)) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08296 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:28:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25645 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2000 22:28:05 -0000 Received: ThePolice Version 0.02 by GCM Received: AntiBombing Version 0.08 by GCM Received: from host000004.arnet.net.ar (HELO mail1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.4) by host000012.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 5 Nov 2000 22:28:05 -0000 Received: from fito ([200.45.15.96]) by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:28:03 -0300 Message-ID: <00b101c04778$c81c0120$190f2dc8@fito> From: "Adolfo E. Scatena" To: "forens" Subject: PhD Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:34:28 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C0475F.698D3160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C0475F.698D3160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you all for your help. You have been very nice. Dr Adolfo Scatena Medico Forense, 2=AA circunscripcion judicial Prov de Rio Negro Gral. Roca, Rio Negro=20 ARGENTINA ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C0475F.698D3160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you all for your help. You have been very nice.
 
Dr Adolfo Scatena
Medico Forense, 2=AA circunscripcion judicial = Prov de=20 Rio Negro
Gral. Roca, Rio Negro
ARGENTINA
------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C0475F.698D3160-- From forens-owner Sun Nov 5 22:06:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA11054 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:06:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp04.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA11048 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:06:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13748 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2000 02:08:57 -0000 Received: from dialup68.sccol-tnt-1.usit.net ([216.80.161.68]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.34 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Nov 2000 02:08:57 -0000 Received: by DIALUP68.SCCOL-TNT-1.USIT.NET with Microsoft Mail id <01C0476C.F96EC480@DIALUP68.SCCOL-TNT-1.USIT.NET>; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:11:33 -0500 Message-ID: <01C0476C.F96EC480@DIALUP68.SCCOL-TNT-1.USIT.NET> From: "Robert M. Sears" To: "'Forens-l'" Subject: Forensic Science Programs Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:10:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id WAA11049 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I was recently asked by several students at a career day program which universities offered degrees in Forensic Science. Although my initial advice was to get a BS in an applied science (e.g. chemistry or biology), this did not actually answer the question. If you know of a university which provides a bachelors degree or masters degree in Forensic Science please email me of list or on list with the name of the university and where it is located. If possible also indicate if the offer any subspecialties such as a degree in Forensic Toxicology. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 06:12:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA14940 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:12:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.18]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA14935 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:12:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12253 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:12:25 GMT Received: from Brutonpc (bruton-day-pc.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.40]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA09647 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:12:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001106111219.00782980@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 11:12:19 +0000 To: "'Forens-l'" From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Re: Forensic Science Programs In-Reply-To: <01C0476C.F96EC480@DIALUP68.SCCOL-TNT-1.USIT.NET> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 09:10 PM 11/5/00 -0500, Robert M. Sears wrote: >I was recently asked by several students at a career day program which universities offered degrees in Forensic Science. Although my initial advice was to get a BS in an applied science (e.g. chemistry or biology), this did not actually answer the question. If you know of a university which provides a bachelors degree or masters degree in Forensic Science please email me of list or on list with the name of the university and where it is located. If possible also indicate if the offer any subspecialties such as a degree in Forensic Toxicology. Perhaps a little further afield than you intended, but... University of Bradford, U.K., Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences: B.Sc. (Hons) Chemistry with Pharmaceutical & Forensic Science (3 yr). I think they might also be offering a 4 yr undergraduate Masters programme - if you're interested, check out their website: www.brad.ac.uk Hope this helps and warm regards to all (from the very cold & wet United Kingdom!) -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 07:18:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA15609 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us ([170.63.30.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA15604 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:18:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1225 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2000 12:15:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us) (146.243.113.218) by cpsc1.cpc.state.ma.us with SMTP; 6 Nov 2000 12:15:31 -0000 Message-ID: <3A06A150.35B645EA@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:17:20 -0500 From: stephanie page X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SHAUN WHEELER CC: Sidg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Who is this witness? Every one should know so that he doesn't get retained or used by either side. It benefits neither side to have someone like this involved in court. Stephanie Page SHAUN WHEELER wrote: > Barbara and List: > > The point you raise is a good one. > > I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the > reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying > science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. > > That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his > client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, > Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable > training in such areas. > > The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical > examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any > qualifications to do so. > > Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find > the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. > > To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that > he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges > seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let > the jury decide weight and credibility. > > Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense > witnesses, do you? > > Shaun > > >From: Sidg@aol.com > >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com > >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" > >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > > > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember > >you > >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was > >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more > >damage. > > > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > > > >By Josh White > >Washington Post Staff Writer > >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > > > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in > >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator > >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. > >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the > >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's > >degree > >and a master's degree from a university in London. > >>From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms > >in > >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director > >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions > >in > > snip.... > > >But Gary > >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had > >instead > >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal > >investigations or surgeries. > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 09:25:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17347 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from web116.yahoomail.com (web116.mail.yahoo.com [205.180.60.89]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA17342 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25765 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Nov 2000 14:25:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20001106142504.25764.qmail@web116.yahoomail.com> Received: from [24.25.215.247] by web116.yahoomail.com; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 06:25:04 PST Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:25:04 -0800 (PST) From: Dawn Warnock Subject: Re: Forensic Science Programs To: "'Forens-l'" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO While I am only familiar with the program at the University of Illinois at Chicago(www.uic.edu), there are quite a few. There is a very good listing on the AAFS website, www.aafs.org; check under education. They have contact information for undergraduate and graduate programs. Hope this helps. Dawn Warnock --- "Robert M. Sears" wrote: > I was recently asked by several students at a career > day program which universities offered degrees in > Forensic Science. Although my initial advice was to > get a BS in an applied science (e.g. chemistry or > biology), this did not actually answer the question. > If you know of a university which provides a > bachelors degree or masters degree in Forensic > Science please email me of list or on list with the > name of the university and where it is located. If > possible also indicate if the offer any > subspecialties such as a degree in Forensic Toxicology. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 09:28:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17502 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17491 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:28:57 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id l.4f.3162f86 (4544); Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:28:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4f.3162f86.273819fa@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:28:10 EST Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" To: spage@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us, shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/6/00 7:18:36 AM, spage@cpcs1.cpc.state.ma.us writes: << Who is this witness? Every one should know so that he doesn't get retained or used by either side. It benefits neither side to have someone like this involved in court. Stephanie Page >> His name is Gary S. Stocco. He can be found in the Prince William County Jail in Virginia. (Unless he's out on bail.) PWCo actually started checking into him a year ago or more according to The Post. They did a really good job. I just hope that they discredit the testimony he's already given... I wonder how many people have gotten away with murder (literally) or how many innocent people have been convicted because of this guy... That's really scary. Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 09:38:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17697 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:38:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from fourier.sag.gwu.edu ([128.164.127.160]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17692 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:38:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by fourier.sag.gwu.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G3L00FASXZBJ5@fourier.sag.gwu.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:37:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:50:29 -0500 (EST) From: Isaac Benjamin Rockoff Subject: Re: Forensic Science Programs In-reply-to: <20001106142504.25764.qmail@web116.yahoomail.com> To: Dawn Warnock Cc: "'Forens-l'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I'm currently in the Masters program at George Washington University. They offer a general program in forensic science, as well as specializations in microbiology, toxicology, and chemistry. I believe they are currently discussing a bachelor's program. Also, there is the John Jay school in New York City. They have a master's program as well. Isaac Rockoff MFS Candidate-GWU From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 09:39:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17830 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:39:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17825 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:39:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.217]) by services.state.mo.us (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eA6EdBJ07871; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:39:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3A06C28A.284440ED@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:39:06 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg R Frank CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Melissa Jacob ] (fwd) References: <20001104.092858.-456225.2.knarfgerg@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Greg, As you suggested, you could try shooting various caliber bullets into a given material such as a sign. Besides the intra sample variation (difference between different calibers) you might also need to do inter sample variation (how much difference with the same caliber). However, even if you come up with statistical differences between the different calibers and high reproducibility with the same calibers, you still may have a problem. What if your questioned hole in the sign was fired at an angle? What if the bullet was wobbling a bit by the time it hit the sign? If the sign is very thick will some of the outer layer of the bullet be shaved off making the hole slightly smaller? I don't know the answers but it is worth some research. If you try it, let us all know how it turns out. Jenny Greg R Frank wrote: > Hi all, > > You say you can not determine caliber size by the corresponding wound > size. How about if the "wound" is through something solid, such as a > traffic sign. Could you make test fires with different calibers, produce > different size holes and make a comparison with the questioned hole? > > Greg > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:08:02 -0500 (EST) Basten > writes: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:04:44 -0800 > > From: James Roberts > > To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > > from[Melissa > > Jacob ] (fwd) > > > > "I know that the further away, the larger the entrance > > wound, " > > > > What you "know" is incorrect! Our books, movies and TV have > > perpetuated large amount of myth. shrouding firearms. Many people > > "know" that the exit is always larger than the entrance. Bullets > > "knock people down" etc. very little of it true. As Bill Oliver > > points out you can't even tell the size of the bullet from the wound > > much less the distance (See AFTE Oct. '87 p 433: Lattig, Sizing > > Shotgun Slug Entrance Wounds) > > > > Range determination analysis is not done by measuring the size of > > the wound with the slight exception of some shotgun entry wounds. > > Which if larger than cylinder with very raged edges, but not yet > > showing separate pellet holes or only a few, may provide some range > > information. So if you change from gunshot to shotgun wound you may > > start to make some sense. Range determination is conducted based > > upon the spread of the shot of a shotgun pattern or upon the spread > > of the powder patten (and primer residue if close enough) in other > > arms. Each gun and ammunition combination should be tested in each > > case when possable. Many times a firearm of the same make, model > > and barrel length will create a different pattern. There are some > > guidelines but they are rough estimations that are not heavily > > relied upon if testing can be conducted properly. You will find a > > discussion of this in DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds (which Dr. House > > suggested as I'm proofing this). > > > > Jim Roberts > > > > > > James L. Roberts > > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > > (805) 654-2308 > > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > > > >>> "Basten" 10/30/00 07:41AM >>> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) > > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > > from [Melissa > > Jacob ] > > > > >From forens-owner Mon Oct 30 10:00:15 2000 > > Received: from sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > > (sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu [130.74.120.71]) > > by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id > > KAA01380 > > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:15 > > -0500 (EST) > > Received: from [130.74.116.217] ([130.74.116.217]) > > by sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP > > id JAA14132 > > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:03:58 > > -0600 (CST) > > X-Sender: pgjacob@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > > Message-Id: > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:00:41 -0600 > > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > From: Melissa Jacob > > Subject: Gunshot wounds and distance > > > > Hello all, > > I was wondering if there were any good references out there that > > discuss > > the size of a gunshot entrance wound and the distance from which the > > muzzle > > was when fired. I know that the further away, the larger the > > entrance > > wound, and I know that there have been experiments done on the known > > weapon > > itself to determine how far away the shooter (or muzzle) was. But > > are > > there some general guidelines for a certain caliber and type of > > bullet and > > gun? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Melissa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! > Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! > Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 10:13:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18406 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:13:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from fozzie.webservepro.com (root@fozzie.webservepro.com [205.160.44.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18401 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:13:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (64-209-54-124.nas5.APV.gblx.net [64.209.54.124]) by fozzie.webservepro.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10308 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:13:36 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Elvis Terrier" To: Subject: Books on Crime Investigation by Rod Englert Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:12:35 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 10:13 AM Dear all, On behalf of Heikki Majamaa I'm searching for some information about two books on crime investigation which should have been written by Mr. Rod Englert. A search on www.Amazon.com and www.BookFinder.com didn't yield any useful results. Does anybody know anything about these books or the author ? Maybe we spelled his name wrong ? Every idea will be appreciated. . . . . . . . . . Hi, I contacted Mr. Englert about your quest and he said that he has no books — but does have lots of handouts and lecture materials. Let me know if I can put you in touch with him directly. Catten From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 11:01:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19218 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail014.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA19213 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24110 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2000 16:00:49 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail014.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Nov 2000 16:00:49 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 6 Nov 2000 15:56:54 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Nov 06 08:00:23 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:59:38 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 07:58:57 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: knarfgerg@juno.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Melissa Jacob ] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Yes, you can determine a rough caliber size by examining bullet holes in much more rigid or substantial targets. Occasionally one might be able to determine the type of firearm because of telltale markings of the general rifling characteristics. Not necessarily all the time but sometimes. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Greg R Frank 11/04 9:24 AM >>> Hi all, You say you can not determine caliber size by the corresponding wound size. How about if the "wound" is through something solid, such as a traffic sign. Could you make test fires with different calibers, produce different size holes and make a comparison with the questioned hole? Greg On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:08:02 -0500 (EST) Basten writes: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:04:44 -0800 > From: James Roberts > To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from[Melissa > Jacob ] (fwd) > > "I know that the further away, the larger the entrance > wound, " > > What you "know" is incorrect! Our books, movies and TV have > perpetuated large amount of myth. shrouding firearms. Many people > "know" that the exit is always larger than the entrance. Bullets > "knock people down" etc. very little of it true. As Bill Oliver > points out you can't even tell the size of the bullet from the wound > much less the distance (See AFTE Oct. '87 p 433: Lattig, Sizing > Shotgun Slug Entrance Wounds) > > Range determination analysis is not done by measuring the size of > the wound with the slight exception of some shotgun entry wounds. > Which if larger than cylinder with very raged edges, but not yet > showing separate pellet holes or only a few, may provide some range > information. So if you change from gunshot to shotgun wound you may > start to make some sense. Range determination is conducted based > upon the spread of the shot of a shotgun pattern or upon the spread > of the powder patten (and primer residue if close enough) in other > arms. Each gun and ammunition combination should be tested in each > case when possable. Many times a firearm of the same make, model > and barrel length will create a different pattern. There are some > guidelines but they are rough estimations that are not heavily > relied upon if testing can be conducted properly. You will find a > discussion of this in DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds (which Dr. House > suggested as I'm proofing this). > > Jim Roberts > > > James L. Roberts > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > (805) 654-2308 > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > >>> "Basten" 10/30/00 07:41AM >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from [Melissa > Jacob ] > > >From forens-owner Mon Oct 30 10:00:15 2000 > Received: from sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > (sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu [130.74.120.71]) > by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id > KAA01380 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:15 > -0500 (EST) > Received: from [130.74.116.217] ([130.74.116.217]) > by sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP > id JAA14132 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:03:58 > -0600 (CST) > X-Sender: pgjacob@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:00:41 -0600 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > From: Melissa Jacob > Subject: Gunshot wounds and distance > > Hello all, > I was wondering if there were any good references out there that > discuss > the size of a gunshot entrance wound and the distance from which the > muzzle > was when fired. I know that the further away, the larger the > entrance > wound, and I know that there have been experiments done on the known > weapon > itself to determine how far away the shooter (or muzzle) was. But > are > there some general guidelines for a certain caliber and type of > bullet and > gun? > > Thanks in advance, > Melissa > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 11:15:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19491 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:15:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19476 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:05:42 -0600 Message-ID: <4E0277823564D411905E00A0C9EA331845C676@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Me lissa Jacob ] Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:13:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO With the probable further requirements that the target be soft/thin enough and the bullet hard enough that the bullet perforates without significant deformation. And the bullet must perforate -- the window glass struck by a BB, leaving a small hole (smaller than BB diameter) on one side and a much larger conical crater on the other is a different phenomenon. (Observation based on some remarkable craters in steel targets from bullets known to be much smaller than the crater.) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Greg Laskowski [mailto:glaskows@co.kern.ca.us] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 9:59 AM To: knarfgerg@juno.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from[Melissa Jacob ] Yes, you can determine a rough caliber size by examining bullet holes in much more rigid or substantial targets. Occasionally one might be able to determine the type of firearm because of telltale markings of the general rifling characteristics. Not necessarily all the time but sometimes. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Greg R Frank 11/04 9:24 AM >>> Hi all, You say you can not determine caliber size by the corresponding wound size. How about if the "wound" is through something solid, such as a traffic sign. Could you make test fires with different calibers, produce different size holes and make a comparison with the questioned hole? Greg On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:08:02 -0500 (EST) Basten writes: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:04:44 -0800 > From: James Roberts > To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from[Melissa > Jacob ] (fwd) > > "I know that the further away, the larger the entrance > wound, " > > What you "know" is incorrect! Our books, movies and TV have > perpetuated large amount of myth. shrouding firearms. Many people > "know" that the exit is always larger than the entrance. Bullets > "knock people down" etc. very little of it true. As Bill Oliver > points out you can't even tell the size of the bullet from the wound > much less the distance (See AFTE Oct. '87 p 433: Lattig, Sizing > Shotgun Slug Entrance Wounds) > > Range determination analysis is not done by measuring the size of > the wound with the slight exception of some shotgun entry wounds. > Which if larger than cylinder with very raged edges, but not yet > showing separate pellet holes or only a few, may provide some range > information. So if you change from gunshot to shotgun wound you may > start to make some sense. Range determination is conducted based > upon the spread of the shot of a shotgun pattern or upon the spread > of the powder patten (and primer residue if close enough) in other > arms. Each gun and ammunition combination should be tested in each > case when possable. Many times a firearm of the same make, model > and barrel length will create a different pattern. There are some > guidelines but they are rough estimations that are not heavily > relied upon if testing can be conducted properly. You will find a > discussion of this in DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds (which Dr. House > suggested as I'm proofing this). > > Jim Roberts > > > James L. Roberts > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > (805) 654-2308 > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > >>> "Basten" 10/30/00 07:41AM >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from [Melissa > Jacob ] > > >From forens-owner Mon Oct 30 10:00:15 2000 > Received: from sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > (sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu [130.74.120.71]) > by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id > KAA01380 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:15 > -0500 (EST) > Received: from [130.74.116.217] ([130.74.116.217]) > by sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP > id JAA14132 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:03:58 > -0600 (CST) > X-Sender: pgjacob@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:00:41 -0600 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > From: Melissa Jacob > Subject: Gunshot wounds and distance > > Hello all, > I was wondering if there were any good references out there that > discuss > the size of a gunshot entrance wound and the distance from which the > muzzle > was when fired. I know that the further away, the larger the > entrance > wound, and I know that there have been experiments done on the known > weapon > itself to determine how far away the shooter (or muzzle) was. But > are > there some general guidelines for a certain caliber and type of > bullet and > gun? > > Thanks in advance, > Melissa > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 11:32:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19870 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:32:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19864 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:31:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id IAA08322 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:31:57 -0800 (PST) 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 IAA08306 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:31:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.5); Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:31:55 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:30:42 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:30:31 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: knarfgerg@juno.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submissionfrom[Melissa Jacob ] (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1618037143084-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id LAA19866 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO You can make only limited statements. In the example you give (a hole in a traffic sign is not a wound) you can eliminate projectiles that are physically to large if you can show that they perforated not just penetrated and that the projectile did not fragment, etc. The elasticity of metal does not cause it to produce a smaller hole than the projectile (by enough to have much effect); however, the deformation that the metal takes on depends on velocity, angle of impact and metal involved among other things. A small bullet can at times cause quite a bit larger hole. A large bullet can fragment and part perforate and part not. Quite a few variable are involved so there are limits on what can be determined. What you can say becomes less as the material becomes more elastic in nature. In other words you have to consider what information you have and what you can say from it, each case is different. Wounds are so highly variable that you are very limited, I'm sure the pathologists on the list will fill you in there quite well. Jim Roberts James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "Greg R Frank" 11/04/00 09:24AM >>> Hi all, You say you can not determine caliber size by the corresponding wound size. How about if the "wound" is through something solid, such as a traffic sign. Could you make test fires with different calibers, produce different size holes and make a comparison with the questioned hole? Greg On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:08:02 -0500 (EST) Basten writes: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:04:44 -0800 > From: James Roberts > To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from[Melissa > Jacob ] (fwd) > > "I know that the further away, the larger the entrance > wound, " > > What you "know" is incorrect! Our books, movies and TV have > perpetuated large amount of myth. shrouding firearms. Many people > "know" that the exit is always larger than the entrance. Bullets > "knock people down" etc. very little of it true. As Bill Oliver > points out you can't even tell the size of the bullet from the wound > much less the distance (See AFTE Oct. '87 p 433: Lattig, Sizing > Shotgun Slug Entrance Wounds) > > Range determination analysis is not done by measuring the size of > the wound with the slight exception of some shotgun entry wounds. > Which if larger than cylinder with very raged edges, but not yet > showing separate pellet holes or only a few, may provide some range > information. So if you change from gunshot to shotgun wound you may > start to make some sense. Range determination is conducted based > upon the spread of the shot of a shotgun pattern or upon the spread > of the powder patten (and primer residue if close enough) in other > arms. Each gun and ammunition combination should be tested in each > case when possable. Many times a firearm of the same make, model > and barrel length will create a different pattern. There are some > guidelines but they are rough estimations that are not heavily > relied upon if testing can be conducted properly. You will find a > discussion of this in DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds (which Dr. House > suggested as I'm proofing this). > > Jim Roberts > > > James L. Roberts > Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > (805) 654-2308 > James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > >>> "Basten" 10/30/00 07:41AM >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:16 -0500 (EST) > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission > from [Melissa > Jacob ] > > >From forens-owner Mon Oct 30 10:00:15 2000 > Received: from sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > (sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu [130.74.120.71]) > by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id > KAA01380 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:00:15 > -0500 (EST) > Received: from [130.74.116.217] ([130.74.116.217]) > by sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP > id JAA14132 > for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:03:58 > -0600 (CST) > X-Sender: pgjacob@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:00:41 -0600 > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > From: Melissa Jacob > Subject: Gunshot wounds and distance > > Hello all, > I was wondering if there were any good references out there that > discuss > the size of a gunshot entrance wound and the distance from which the > muzzle > was when fired. I know that the further away, the larger the > entrance > wound, and I know that there have been experiments done on the known > weapon > itself to determine how far away the shooter (or muzzle) was. But > are > there some general guidelines for a certain caliber and type of > bullet and > gun? > > Thanks in advance, > Melissa > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 11:48:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20107 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:48:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from duke.electric.net (duke.electric.net [216.18.11.193]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA20102 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:48:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 83680 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2000 16:48:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO relay.electric.net) (@127.0.0.1) by duke.electric.net with SMTP; 6 Nov 2000 16:48:31 -0000 Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by relay.electric.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id IAA83453; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:48:26 -0800 (PST) X-EMC-Authenticated-Sender: Received: from adsl-63-194-69-58.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net(63.194.69.58), claiming to be "heaven" via SMTP by relay.electric.net, id smtpdA83172; Mon Nov 6 08:48:21 2000 Reply-To: From: "Barbara Troyer-Turvey" To: "Greg Laskowski" , Cc: "Forensic-Science@Egroups. Com" Subject: RE: blood/semen swabs Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:47:57 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO To my understanding, Jerry has further developed this idea into SwabShield. Please see: http://www.swabshield.com/ Barb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barbara Troyer-Turvey, Director of Forensic Services ~ barb@corpus-delicti.com Knowledge Solutions LLC, http://www.corpus-delicti.com ~ Online Forensic Science Courses ~ http://www.forensic-science.com/ ~ Forensic Science Bookstore ~ http://www.corpus-delicti.com/bookstore.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Greg Laskowski Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 8:57 AM To: Alikatt@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: blood/semen swabs t is best to attempt to air dry the swab as soon as possible. A simple way to do this is to take a polyethylene pipette tip, cut a piece off of the narrow end and slide it inverted over the stick portion of the swab. The tip then acts as a tent for the business end of the swab keeping it free from contamination and allowing the swab the opportunity to dry. Take the swab and place it in a clean manilla envelope, label and seal it. This is the most effective way to handle this kind of evidence. Another method is to take a clay block with you to the scene and put the inverted swabs into the block and allow them to air dry as you process the scene. When dry or nearly so, place them into a clean manila envelope, label, seal and transport. To give credit to the person who devised the first methodis only right. The idea of the Chisum stick was proposed by Jerrry Chisum, a criminalist who worked for the California Department of Justice, who has since retired. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> 11/03 3:38 AM >>> When a wet swab is taken of blood or semen at a crime scene, how long can it stay in a sealed container (for transport back to the lab) before being dried, before degradation starts to occur? Also, once a sample is dried, how long can it stay in a sealed container before being frozen? From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 16:23:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23978 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from postoffice.uts.edu.au (mail1.itd.uts.edu.au [138.25.22.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23973 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:23:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from home ([138.25.16.172]) by postoffice.uts.edu.au (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mail1 Aug 8 2000 13:22:32) with SMTP id G3MGQ800.H2O; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:22:56 +1100 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001107082212.009445d0@mailbox.uts.edu.au> X-Sender: croux@mailbox.uts.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:22:12 +1100 To: Geoff Bruton , "'Forens-l'" From: Claude Roux Subject: Re: Forensic Science Programs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001106111219.00782980@pop.brad.ac.uk> References: <01C0476C.F96EC480@DIALUP68.SCCOL-TNT-1.USIT.NET> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO If you are willing to travel even further and come Down Under, we offer a B.App.Sc. (Hons) in Forensic Science, and postgraduate studies (i.e. M.Sc. and Ph.D.) by research. Please check our URL (see signature) or www.uts.edu.au. Some info for students is also listed on the web site of the National Institute of Forensic Science (www.nifs.com.au). Hope this helps. Regards Claude At 11,12 6.11.00 +0000, Geoff Bruton wrote: >At 09:10 PM 11/5/00 -0500, Robert M. Sears wrote: >>I was recently asked by several students at a career day program which >universities offered degrees in Forensic Science. Although my initial >advice was to get a BS in an applied science (e.g. chemistry or biology), >this did not actually answer the question. If you know of a university >which provides a bachelors degree or masters degree in Forensic Science >please email me of list or on list with the name of the university and >where it is located. If possible also indicate if the offer any >subspecialties such as a degree in Forensic Toxicology. > >Perhaps a little further afield than you intended, but... > >University of Bradford, U.K., Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences: >B.Sc. (Hons) Chemistry with Pharmaceutical & Forensic Science (3 yr). > >I think they might also be offering a 4 yr undergraduate Masters programme >- if you're interested, check out their website: www.brad.ac.uk > >Hope this helps and warm regards to all (from the very cold & wet United >Kingdom!) >-G. > >Geoff Bruton >Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences >University of Bradford >United Kingdom > ================================================================ Dr Claude Roux Forensic Science Course Co-ordinator Dept. of Chemistry, Materials and Forensic Science University of Technology Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, AUSTRALIA, 2007 Tel: +61 2 9514 17 18 Fax: +61 2 9514 14 60 Email: Claude.Roux@uts.edu.au http://www.science.uts.edu.au/depts/cmf/index.html From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 16:58:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24409 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r03.mail.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24404 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:58:52 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.12.47eb0bd (1782) for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:58:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12.47eb0bd.2738837c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:58:20 EST Subject: Expert testimony of highly questionable scientific validity To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO November 6, 2000 In capital cases, is `expert' testimony valid? By HENRY WEINSTEIN The Los Angeles Times LUBBOCK, Texas - Could it be that American courts have a looser standard for evidence when a person's life is at stake than when a corporation is defending its money? That stark question is increasingly being raised by lawyers, legal scholars and, most recently, a highly regarded conservative federal judge. It is at the heart of appeals in two pending death-penalty cases, including that of one man, Miguel Angel Flores, who is scheduled to be executed this week in Texas. At issue is how much leeway scientists, doctors and other expert witnesses should have to present opinions to juries. In the two states that lead the nation in executions - Texas and Virginia - the law asks juries to decide if a defendant is likely to be ``a continuing threat to society.'' Prosecutors frequently use psychiatric experts to offer their opinions on that question. Particularly in Texas, the psychiatrists almost never examine the defendants in person, but virtually always predict with a strong degree of certainty - sometimes 100 percent certainty - that the defendant will commit a violent act in the future. Testimony of that sort has been used in cases of more than 100 people on death row in Texas alone, according to a recent study. Such predictions are widely discounted among scientists and would almost certainly never be allowed in a civil suit - a case over a defective product, for example - legal experts on both sides of the death penalty debate say. The gap between what is allowed in the two different types of cases is at the heart of appeals being filed by lawyers for Flores and another Texas inmate, Joe Lee Guy. Several studies have suggested that attempts to predict a person's dangerousness are wrong more often than right. And the American Psychiatric Association for many years has taken the position that ``medical knowledge has simply not advanced to the point where long-term predictions ... may be made with even reasonable accuracy.'' One of the most frequently used psychiatrists in Texas death penalty cases is E. Clay Griffith, 75, now retired and living in Dallas. He testified against both Flores and Guy. In an interview, Griffith said he has testified in more than 145 capital cases in Texas - almost always for the prosecution. ``I didn't lose any,'' he said. There are currently at least 122 death row inmates in Texas whose trials included testimony from a psychiatrist about future dangerousness, according to a search of court records by the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit organization that specializes in capital appeals. Interviewing Flores would not have helped his assessment, Griffith said, adding that sometimes examining the defendant ``is a hindrance in comparison to a hypothetical question.'' In both the Flores and Guy cases, Griffith said there was an overwhelming likelihood that the defendants would commit violent acts in the future. He did not interview either man. In Guy's case, Griffith said there was a ``99, 100 percent'' certainty that the defendant would commit a violent act in the future . Griffith based his prediction on a long hypothetical question posed by a prosecutor describing the crimes and a review of some of the defendants' medical and school records. ``I don't believe a psychiatrist can respond to a reasonable degree of medical certainty on a hypothetical question about the future dangerousness of a defendant he has never examined,'' said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, chairman of the psychiatry department at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and also vice president of the APA. Judges have moved steadily to rein in the use of expert witnesses. The rule in civil cases is now that expert testimony must be ``not only relevant but reliable'' before judges should allow juries to hear it. Judges should only allow experts to testify in civil trials if the theory they are putting forth has been rigorously tested and found reliable by the scientific community, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1993 case. The two lines of cases create dramatically different rules, legal experts say. ``Courts are taking the issue of `reliability' of expert testimony more seriously in civil cases than criminal cases. We seem to value money more than human life,'' said Myrna Raeder, a professor at Southwestern University Law School in Los Angeles. Raeder said she expects to see more and more challenges to expert testimony that is offered by prosecutors in death-penalty cases. Already, she notes, some courts have rejected expert testimony that would have been routinely accepted in the past - on hair evidence, for example, and handwriting analysis. The sharpest recent criticism of the current rules has come from an unexpected source - U.S. Appeals Court Judge Emilio Garza of San Antonio. He is a conservative jurist who was appointed by President Bush in 1991. In a recent court opinion involving Flores, Garza said psychiatric testimony predicting dangerousness ``is, to put it bluntly, unreliable and unscientific.'' The judge acknowledged that the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling bound him, but went on to write that ``it is as true today as it was in 1983 that neither the (Supreme) Court nor the state of Texas has cited a single reputable scientific source contradicting the unanimous conclusion of professionals in this field that psychiatrist predictions of long-term future violence are wrong more often than they are right.'' Garza's view, however, was rejected by the two other judges who heard Flores' appeal with him. From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 17:20:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24784 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:20:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA24779 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 6 Nov 2000 22:20:35 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:20:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Forensic Science Programs Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:20:19 -0500 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C0483F.BF2A8BF0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0483F.BF2A8BF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" The below sites list dozens of forensic programs around the USA and the rest of the world. http://users.erols.com/lebeau/ http://maples-center.ufl.edu/school-s.htm Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Robert M. Sears [mailto:robsears@usit.net] Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 9:11 PM To: 'Forens-l' Subject: Forensic Science Programs I was recently asked by several students at a career day program which universities offered degrees in Forensic Science. Although my initial advice was to get a BS in an applied science (e.g. chemistry or biology), this did not actually answer the question. If you know of a university which provides a bachelors degree or masters degree in Forensic Science please email me of list or on list with the name of the university and where it is located. If possible also indicate if the offer any subspecialties such as a degree in Forensic Toxicology. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0483F.BF2A8BF0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhQWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcLAAYAEQAUABMAAQAhAQEggAMADgAAANAHCwAG ABEAFAATAAEAIQEBCYABACEAAAA5MUJGOThDMEVDQjNENDExODFCMzEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQAWBwEE gAEAHgAAAFJFOiBGb3JlbnNpYyBTY2llbmNlIFByb2dyYW1zAG8KAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEDkAYA pAkAADMAAAADAN4/5AQAAAMANgAAAAAAAwADgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAACdqAQAe AASACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAAAAQAAAA5LjAACwANgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AEYAAAAABoUAAAAAAAADAAWACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAAYAIIAYAAAAA AMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAACwAGgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAAAAADAAKA CCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMAB4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABGFAAAA AAAAAwAIgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAGIUAAAAAAAAeAAmACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AAA2hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAKgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAN4UAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAA AB4AC4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADiFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAACAQkQAQAAAMMDAAC/AwAA SQUAAExaRnX1FbUxAwAKAHJjcGcxMjXiMgNDdGV4BUEBAwH3/wqAAqQD5AcTAoAP8wBQBFY/CFUH shElDlEDAQIAY2jhCsBzZXQyBgAGwxEl9jMERhO3MBIsETMI7wn3tjsYHw4wNREiDGBjAFAzCwkB ZDM2FlALpiBU4GhlIGJlF7AH4ACQGw6wBCBsBAAFQGRveuMJ8AQgb2YgAhAYIA3CzCBwA2AJwGFt BCAKwCEIYG5kIHQdAVVTfkEf8CBFGCAeER6xIHJ3cQWwbGQuCqIKhAqAaMECQHA6Ly91FBAUAB4u BJAG8CQABaBtL2ziZR0wYXUvIvsAwAtQGQeQLWMJ8A6wci51NGZsJBBkJRAE8GhvLQbwLSQAI1Bt IppCbxhiIFAT8QIgcywgoEYtQUJDIpRGHvYaQx0AbR4BIpRSZWc+aQIgB0ASIAUQB4AgTNMBoAWw YXQFsHkilC0AHCBJIEAHMAOgUml2sxKBCFBtbSAwHaB5EiGSbCTAZ2UqBXQuKRC3CJEmcCmRTCKa IpQtMiIuTwUQK+AsEk0HkHNh7y+gMiMqBQNhOgfxHTAAIM8F0DBABmAT8SBbAMADELUtEDoDYGIU EBPxQCPA6R2gLm4UIF0ilAZgAjAlNGBTIDFheSmQTm/nLnAG0BKBMDUpkAHQOUCgIDk6MTEpEE0i lBJUNeAgJypkLWwncTcldWJqBZA3sSpnU3pjCJBuJnApEB+FMQ8KukkiIGEEIBggJnJsLzD9PwBr CYAdIC8wFBAucSwhPR4QdQEAAjAf4QVAYSB+YwrACeAFwDgRH2YiIGj5DeBoIC7xLnEdkQiQHpL+ ZgSQP/EBAAnCBCALgDwfTTBAQTXAJ4B1Z0MgbY8vMAuAQ7EsIWFkdg3gtyIRPwEtECAvoEFyQgXw /0URA5EmEAtQCJAgUATwPNT6KEYwZzBAE9ArEy0wHqCNBcBiK/AXsGd5KSmQlyBwBAAeMGkgUG5v QXHdO+B1B0A/kgCAdxKBIHJecQpQHhAr8TBASR7AefkIYCBrTNAH4B6xQZBDR/8vMELkH3FHwAEA H+EdIADQ/x0AF7FMcUSjS2IAwB4QI+H/UlZFHz0BJiE/AB0QKxA1of9G4FKxHsAd8wWxAiAd5APw /yBwIGMsEFYEIHJQCSDyQuD/REFT4AVATGEXsEGwDrAicOlO4nBvBBBpAmAdEAdA/ylQU+EuAFqC U+Ah1EQTIOHzQDE7oHNwBZAHMUPDXaC/QxE/AUGQU48fUDpQeA3gC0vDIoV9YYAAHgBwAAEAAAAa AAAARm9yZW5zaWMgU2NpZW5jZSBQcm9ncmFtcwAAAAIBcQABAAAAGwAAAAHAR591a++p5GayPRHU gbMQAJZLhXoAH3cMoAADACYAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAACwACAAEAAAAeAEIQAQAAADIAAAA8MDFDMDQ3 NkMuRjk2RUM0ODBARElBTFVQNjguU0NDT0wtVE5ULTEuVVNJVC5ORVQ+AAAAAwD9P+QEAAADAAlZ AQAAAEAAOQAA7yC/P0jAAQMA8T8JBAAAHgAxQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAaQAAAAAAe ADBAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAADABlAAAAAAAMAgBD/////CwDyEAEAAAACAUcAAQAAADgA AABjPVVTO2E9IDtwPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT007bD1FWENIMS0wMDExMDYyMjIwMTlaLTE0NzU2 AAIB+T8BAAAAWAAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIg Q09NTSBDT0xML09VPUlSQ0MvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1SUEFSU09OUwAeAPg/AQAAAA8AAABS b2JlcnQgUGFyc29ucwAAHgA4QAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAgH7PwEAAABYAAAAAAAAANyn QMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT01NIENPTEwvT1U9SVJDQy9D Tj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPVJQQVJTT05TAB4A+j8BAAAADwAAAFJvYmVydCBQYXJzb25zAAAeADlA AQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAABAAAcw1D0cvz9IwAFAAAgw8Isqvz9IwAEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABS RTogAAAAAB4AHQ4BAAAAGgAAAEZvcmVuc2ljIFNjaWVuY2UgUHJvZ3JhbXMAAAAeADUQAQAAAD0A AAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMxMTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1N0FEQkQ3NTNAZXhjaDEuaXJjYy5jYy5m bC51cz4AAAAACwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMABhD4IcYDAwAHEDUDAAADABAQAAAAAAMAERABAAAA HgAIEAEAAABlAAAAVEhFQkVMT1dTSVRFU0xJU1RET1pFTlNPRkZPUkVOU0lDUFJPR1JBTVNBUk9V TkRUSEVVU0FBTkRUSEVSRVNUT0ZUSEVXT1JMREhUVFA6Ly9VU0VSU0VST0xTQ09NL0xFQkVBVQAA AAACAX8AAQAAAD0AAAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMxMTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1N0FEQkQ3NTNAZXhj aDEuaXJjYy5jYy5mbC51cz4AAAAAFCw= ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0483F.BF2A8BF0-- From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 17:35:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25194 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA25189 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 6 Nov 2000 22:35:12 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:34:56 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:34:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04841.C9EAE524" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04841.C9EAE524 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Have my own examples? Don't get me started, the whole list would regret it! ;) I've talked of several in past discussions or debates, but I could easily go on for hours. I see them on a regular basis. They're like a Medusa - expose one who then is discredited and slinks off to more fertile fields elsewhere, and two others rise in his place! But Shawn, defense experts aren't the only "prostituted witnesses" out there, sad to say. The "Fred Zains" of the profession are certainly far fewer in number than their counterparts working for the defense, but as expert witnesses testifying for the prosecution they have the potential to do far greater harm. Any such miscreants smear the reputations of the majority of honest, competent, impartial forensic experts, in both the public and private sectors. They also harm a lot of innocent people (defendants and victims) and undermine public confidence in both the judicial system and in scientists. Until judges start to demand proof of credentials/expertise before allowing "experts" to testify, and prosecutors start routinely prosecuting for perjury those who misrepresent themselves, this sort of thing will continue unabated. Our growing accreditation and certification programs help a lot (and would help much more if judges made them prerequisites for expert testimony), but then you must still deal with the bogus certification programs and diploma mills. Attorneys, prosecution and defense alike, have got to start doing a better job of investigating "expert" credentials, both those of their own witnesses and those of their opponent's witnesses. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: SHAUN WHEELER [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:48 PM To: Sidg@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Barbara and List: The point you raise is a good one. I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable training in such areas. The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any qualifications to do so. Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let the jury decide weight and credibility. Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense witnesses, do you? Shaun >From: Sidg@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember >you >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more >damage. > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > >By Josh White >Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's >degree >and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms >in >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions >in snip.... >But Gary >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had >instead >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal >investigations or surgeries. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04841.C9EAE524 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Roving Burn "Expert"

Have my own examples?  Don't get me started, the = whole list would regret it! ;)

I've talked of several in past discussions or = debates, but I could easily go on for hours.  I see them on a = regular basis.  They're like a Medusa - expose one who then is = discredited and slinks off to more fertile fields elsewhere, and two = others rise in his place!

But Shawn, defense experts aren't the only = "prostituted witnesses" out there, sad to say.  The = "Fred Zains" of the profession are certainly far fewer in = number than their counterparts working for the defense, but as expert = witnesses testifying for the prosecution they have the potential to do = far greater harm.  Any such miscreants smear the reputations of = the majority of honest, competent, impartial forensic experts, in both = the public and private sectors.  They also harm a lot of innocent = people (defendants and victims) and undermine public confidence in both = the judicial system and in scientists.

Until judges start to demand proof of = credentials/expertise before allowing "experts" to testify, = and prosecutors start routinely prosecuting for perjury those who = misrepresent themselves, this sort of thing will continue = unabated.  Our growing accreditation and certification programs = help a lot (and would help much more if judges made them prerequisites = for expert testimony), but then you must still deal with the bogus = certification programs and diploma mills.  Attorneys, prosecution = and defense alike, have got to start doing a better job of = investigating "expert" credentials, both those of their own = witnesses and those of their opponent's witnesses.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: SHAUN WHEELER [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.c= om]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:48 PM
To: Sidg@aol.com
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert"


Barbara and List:

The point you raise is a good one.

I have found a so-called expert who has variously = testified about the
reliability of serological testing, despite any = expertise in the underlying
science, and an utter lack of certification in that = are.

That same expert testified only last year, about the = likelyhood that his
client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers = wife near Fort Riley,
Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a = dearth of any cognizable
training in such areas.

The same expert questioned the findings of a board = certified medical
examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode = of death, despite any
qualifications to do so.

Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this = expert continues to find
the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus = testimony.

To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of = expertise is. I do know that
he has made false statements under oath concerning = his training, yet judges
seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the = case at hand and let
the jury decide weight and credibility.

Don't happen to have any of your own examples of = prostituted defense
witnesses, do you?

Shaun



>From: Sidg@aol.com
>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, = thequill@tampabay.rr.com
>Subject: Roving Burn "Expert"
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST
>
>I dug this article up out of today's Washington = Post. I think I remember
>you
>all talking about being able to buy the types of = "credentials" this guy was
>using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught = him before he did any more
>damage.
>
>Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness
>
>By Josh White
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06
>
>When he tried to testify in the case of a = scalded child in Manassas in
>February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an = experienced burn investigator
>who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana = college.
>Five months later, officials said, he took the = stand in Ohio and told the
>court he was an expert in the epidemiology of = burns with a bachelor's
>degree
>and a master's degree from a university in = London.
>From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials = and opinions in courtrooms
>in
>Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, = testifying as the executive director
>of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has = worked to gain convictions
>in

snip....

>But Gary
>Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said = yesterday that Stocco had
>instead
>patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved = in any criminal
>investigations or surgeries.
_______________________________________________________________= __________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own = public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04841.C9EAE524-- From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 18:13:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25730 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (root@yowie.cc.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25725 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from cadaver22.anatomy.uq.edu.au ([130.102.138.29]) by yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA23138; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:13:05 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001107091336.00686f10@student.uq.edu.au> X-Sender: s330991@student.uq.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:13:36 +1100 To: Geoff Bruton , "'Forens-l'" From: Dayman Steptoe Subject: Re: Forensic Science Programs In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001106111219.00782980@pop.brad.ac.uk> References: <01C0476C.F96EC480@DIALUP68.SCCOL-TNT-1.USIT.NET> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO If you're up for an extended holiday, come to Brisbane, Australia... Griffith University maintains postgraduate course/s in Forensic Science. Their website: http://www.gu.edu.au/ua/aa/hbk/fsscisub5.html Dayman Steptoe __________________________________________ At 11:12 AM 11/6/00 +0000, Geoff Bruton wrote: >At 09:10 PM 11/5/00 -0500, Robert M. Sears wrote: >>I was recently asked by several students at a career day program which >universities offered degrees in Forensic Science. Although my initial >advice was to get a BS in an applied science (e.g. chemistry or biology), >this did not actually answer the question. If you know of a university >which provides a bachelors degree or masters degree in Forensic Science >please email me of list or on list with the name of the university and >where it is located. If possible also indicate if the offer any >subspecialties such as a degree in Forensic Toxicology. > >Perhaps a little further afield than you intended, but... > >University of Bradford, U.K., Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences: >B.Sc. (Hons) Chemistry with Pharmaceutical & Forensic Science (3 yr). > >I think they might also be offering a 4 yr undergraduate Masters programme >- if you're interested, check out their website: www.brad.ac.uk > >Hope this helps and warm regards to all (from the very cold & wet United >Kingdom!) >-G. > >Geoff Bruton >Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences >University of Bradford >United Kingdom > > _______________________________________________________ Dayman Steptoe JP(Qual). Forensic Osteology & DNA Analysis (PhD studies) Department of Anatomical Sciences & INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCE incorporating The Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology The Centre for Drug Design and Development ARC Special Research Centre for Functional and Applied Genomics The University of Queensland St. Lucia QLD 4072, AUSTRALIA From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 18:53:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26130 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:53:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA26125 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 6 Nov 2000 23:52:16 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:52:20 -0800 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE047F13B@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:52:18 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO You are absolutely right. I do think it needs more than certification, though. The most competent person in the world, who might be a little too eager to please, or has allowed his/her ego to get a little too inflated, can do a great deal of harm in individual cases by deluding himself into believing he can see something that no one else can (that bullet came from that gun, there are other shoeprints there, etc.) in order to get more "positive strokes". In these instances, it is incumbent upon individual practicioners to report these people to the professional societies of which they are members, & those societies must take action. This would then give prosecutors and defense attorneys the ammo to feed to judges & shoot down people who go beyond the bounds of good science (even though the person does not have any nefarious intentions). Just my two cents. Jeff Thompson, F-ABC Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:35 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Have my own examples? Don't get me started, the whole list would regret it! ;) I've talked of several in past discussions or debates, but I could easily go on for hours. I see them on a regular basis. They're like a Medusa - expose one who then is discredited and slinks off to more fertile fields elsewhere, and two others rise in his place! But Shawn, defense experts aren't the only "prostituted witnesses" out there, sad to say. The "Fred Zains" of the profession are certainly far fewer in number than their counterparts working for the defense, but as expert witnesses testifying for the prosecution they have the potential to do far greater harm. Any such miscreants smear the reputations of the majority of honest, competent, impartial forensic experts, in both the public and private sectors. They also harm a lot of innocent people (defendants and victims) and undermine public confidence in both the judicial system and in scientists. Until judges start to demand proof of credentials/expertise before allowing "experts" to testify, and prosecutors start routinely prosecuting for perjury those who misrepresent themselves, this sort of thing will continue unabated. Our growing accreditation and certification programs help a lot (and would help much more if judges made them prerequisites for expert testimony), but then you must still deal with the bogus certification programs and diploma mills. Attorneys, prosecution and defense alike, have got to start doing a better job of investigating "expert" credentials, both those of their own witnesses and those of their opponent's witnesses. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: SHAUN WHEELER [ mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com ] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:48 PM To: Sidg@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Barbara and List: The point you raise is a good one. I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable training in such areas. The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any qualifications to do so. Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let the jury decide weight and credibility. Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense witnesses, do you? Shaun >From: Sidg@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember >you >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more >damage. > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > >By Josh White >Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's >degree >and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms >in >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions >in snip.... >But Gary >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had >instead >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal >investigations or surgeries. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com . Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com . From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 19:58:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA26761 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:58:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail016.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT001.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA26756 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:58:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11820 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2000 00:58:22 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by mail016.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 7 Nov 2000 00:58:22 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 7 Nov 2000 00:54:26 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Nov 06 16:57:56 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 16:57:10 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 16:52:18 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: thompsoj@HBPD.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Unfortunately, these days all you have to do is have a published book or you trapse around the country or the world and put on a dog and pony show for this or that agency or group and voila, you are a recognized expert. On the otherhand you can dangle a list of all the professional organizations to which you belong, along with an obscure degree or title and you've hit the jackpot. It's even better when you can state that you have worked for both sides, so that makes you doubly impeccable! As for certification, while it has its merits, it has some problems because the aforementioned people tend to be great test takers besides being BS artists. I always recommend a good voir dire and have an expert sitting with counsel to assist in cross examination. It may be time consuming and initially expensive, but worthwhile in the long run. It is also good to keep a book on those 'so called' experts. And sometimes we in the profession need to have enough intestinal fortitude to bring up ethics charges against the miscreants if they are members of various 'professional' societies. Believe me, there is nothing more time consuming and gut wrenching then having to defend your opinions and conclusions especially when court transcripts are available. There, I've vented! Have a good evening, and I'll take Minnesota tonight by two touchdowns. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Thompson, Jeff" 11/06 3:52 PM >>> You are absolutely right. I do think it needs more than certification, though. The most competent person in the world, who might be a little too eager to please, or has allowed his/her ego to get a little too inflated, can do a great deal of harm in individual cases by deluding himself into believing he can see something that no one else can (that bullet came from that gun, there are other shoeprints there, etc.) in order to get more "positive strokes". In these instances, it is incumbent upon individual practicioners to report these people to the professional societies of which they are members, & those societies must take action. This would then give prosecutors and defense attorneys the ammo to feed to judges & shoot down people who go beyond the bounds of good science (even though the person does not have any nefarious intentions). Just my two cents. Jeff Thompson, F-ABC Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:35 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Have my own examples? Don't get me started, the whole list would regret it! ;) I've talked of several in past discussions or debates, but I could easily go on for hours. I see them on a regular basis. They're like a Medusa - expose one who then is discredited and slinks off to more fertile fields elsewhere, and two others rise in his place! But Shawn, defense experts aren't the only "prostituted witnesses" out there, sad to say. The "Fred Zains" of the profession are certainly far fewer in number than their counterparts working for the defense, but as expert witnesses testifying for the prosecution they have the potential to do far greater harm. Any such miscreants smear the reputations of the majority of honest, competent, impartial forensic experts, in both the public and private sectors. They also harm a lot of innocent people (defendants and victims) and undermine public confidence in both the judicial system and in scientists. Until judges start to demand proof of credentials/expertise before allowing "experts" to testify, and prosecutors start routinely prosecuting for perjury those who misrepresent themselves, this sort of thing will continue unabated. Our growing accreditation and certification programs help a lot (and would help much more if judges made them prerequisites for expert testimony), but then you must still deal with the bogus certification programs and diploma mills. Attorneys, prosecution and defense alike, have got to start doing a better job of investigating "expert" credentials, both those of their own witnesses and those of their opponent's witnesses. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: SHAUN WHEELER [ mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com ] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:48 PM To: Sidg@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Barbara and List: The point you raise is a good one. I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable training in such areas. The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any qualifications to do so. Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let the jury decide weight and credibility. Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense witnesses, do you? Shaun >From: Sidg@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember >you >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more >damage. > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > >By Josh White >Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's >degree >and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms >in >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions >in snip.... >But Gary >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had >instead >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal >investigations or surgeries. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com . Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com . From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 20:48:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27255 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:48:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27250 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-86.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.86]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id eA71mrS03875 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:48:53 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001106165050.00aa6580@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 17:10:34 -0800 To: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" In-Reply-To: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE047F13B@HBPDMAIL01> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 03:52 PM 11/6/00 -0800, Thompson, Jeff wrote: >You are absolutely right. I do think it needs more than certification, >though. Certification is good, accreditation has its place, but the primary quality check is peer review. This is the way it is done in the rest of the science enterprise. And by peer review I don't mean where someone sits down with a check list and a pile of paper and makes sure all of the boxes on the check list can be checked off. I mean peer review where someone takes the problem and tries to solve it and see if the same answer is obtained the second time. To accommodate the necessary peer review in a forensic context requires some steps that are not necessary in most science peer review due to such things as limitations of sample, unknowable starting conditions, often changing variables as new information becomes available, and last, but certainly not least, limitations in the necessary financial and professional resources. Until the profession figures out a way to address these issues (some are easy, some may be impossible to address), you can be sure there will be those who will take advantage of the system. It is apparent that the legal system pretty much likes the situation the way it is or else greater efforts would have been made to change it. If ethical and knowledgeable forensic scientists acknowledge that the system has its flaws, the only people who are going to change it are those forensic scientists. Those changes can be made in two ways: First by improvements in professional practice to accommodate peer review (sample preservation, evidence documentation, and thorough report writing are three areas which could stand improvement, generally); and, second, by becoming involved in activities designed to enhance the availability of competent peer review (working to minimize the law enforcement monopoly on forensic science personnel and resources, working to develop education and training programs, working to develop certification programs). Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Mon Nov 6 23:02:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28635 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r15.mail.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28630 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:02:25 -0500 (EST) From: Alikatt@aol.com Received: from Alikatt@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.b5.2d29342 (4159) for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:01:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:01:27 EST Subject: Job Opening - ID Specialist To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b5.2d29342.2738d897_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_b5.2d29342.2738d897_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please pass this on to other lists if applicable. Identification Specialist III $43,423-$60,789 City of Chandler, AZ Police Dept. Incumbents to this position will perform and oversees detailed technical evidence collection and crime scene documentation work. This is a skilled, journey-level identification laboratory position that performs technical evidence work with demonstrated expertise in at least two forensic disciplines from one of the following areas: evidence collection, chemical processing, photography, or latent print processing. Some examples of duties are to serves as supervisor of the lab in the absence of the Identification Supervisor; process and investigate major crime scenes to record, document, and collect physical evidence, including fingerprint evidence, using cameras, measurement techniques, and special physical evidence collection and packaging procedures and to recover and search for latent fingerprint evidence in order to identify persons leaving prints. The position will also produce print/impression evidence by casting and/or photographing to scale impressions in order to use potential physical evidence as investigative aids and identify victims or suspects through fingerprint comparisons using fingerprint databases. Four years general, identification experience with a law enforcement agency or , at least the last two years experience as an Identification Specialist II with the City of Chandler. Experience must include the ability to conduct field work. High school graduation (GED) supplemented by college level coursework in photographic sciences and fingerprint classification. AFIS latent print operator certification. AFIS 10-print certification. http://www.chandleraz.org/html/home.html --part1_b5.2d29342.2738d897_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please pass this on to other lists if applicable.  

Identification Specialist III
$43,423-$60,789
City of Chandler, AZ  Police Dept.

Incumbents to this position will perform and oversees detailed technical
evidence collection and crime scene documentation work. This is a skilled,
journey-level identification laboratory position that performs technical
evidence work with demonstrated expertise in at least two forensic
disciplines from one of the following areas: evidence collection, chemical
processing, photography, or latent print processing.
Some examples of duties are to serves as supervisor of the lab in the absence
of the Identification Supervisor; process and investigate major crime scenes
to record, document, and collect physical evidence, including fingerprint
evidence, using cameras, measurement techniques, and special physical
evidence collection and packaging procedures and to recover and search for
latent fingerprint evidence in order to identify persons leaving prints. The
position will also produce print/impression evidence by casting and/or
photographing to scale impressions in order to use potential physical
evidence as investigative aids and identify victims or suspects through
fingerprint comparisons using fingerprint databases.


Four years general, identification experience with a law enforcement agency or
, at least the last two years experience as an Identification Specialist II
with the City of Chandler. Experience must include the ability to conduct
field work.
High school graduation (GED) supplemented by college level coursework in
photographic sciences and fingerprint classification.

AFIS latent print operator certification.
AFIS 10-print certification.


http://www.chandleraz.org/html/home.html


--part1_b5.2d29342.2738d897_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Nov 7 14:46:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09964 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from doaisd01001.state.mt.us (doaisd01001.state.mt.us [161.7.1.78]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09959 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by doaisd01001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:45:48 -0700 Message-ID: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7E43B76@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Tape Lifts Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:45:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear list, I am looking for a source of tape that is: *Pre-cut (~2" x 6") with tabs for writing on. *Not extremely tacky like some fingerprint tapes. *On a fairly rigid transparent backing. *Self-explanatory and easy to use. *Free of printing on the transparent portion of tape/backing These tapes will be used in conjunction with rape kits to collect trace materials from the head hair, pubic region, etc. of rape victims. I've looked at tapes from Lightning Powder Company, Inc., but they are either too tacky or on too flimsy of a backing. Thanks in advance for your help. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division (406/329-1154) From forens-owner Tue Nov 7 14:52:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10187 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10182 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:52:27 -0500 (EST) From: NenarJynx@aol.com Received: from NenarJynx@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.1e.cd69302 (4533) for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:51:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1e.cd69302.2739b758@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:51:52 EST Subject: Ohio U To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hey, just wondering, anybody from Ohio University that went through their forensic program? If so, any comments? Is their program a good one, etc. Thanks Jack From forens-owner Tue Nov 7 15:18:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10547 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from pbsomail.pbso.org (mail.pbso.org [209.149.216.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10542 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by PBSOMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:18:08 -0500 Message-ID: <41891DCE5F2ED411B076009027987550919C77@PBSOMAIL> From: "Barbara K. Caraballo" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: FW: Ohio U Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:17:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Jack, I graduated from Ohio University with a BS in Forensic Chemistry in 1981. The program is well rounded and based in the Chemistry section of the Arts and Sciences Department. The heavy emphasis on chemistry and science has been very beneficial in my career (though I couldn't have imagined it at the time, P-Chem was very difficult) which includes 8 years in Serology/Trace Evidence/Marijuana Analysis then 7 years Serology/DNA. I am now tasked with Quality Assurance/LIMS/Safety. Ohio U now has several Professors in the program (my advisor was Jimmy Yingpeh Tong who started the program) with current backgrounds in forensic research and education. The coursework also included Law Enforcement (6 practical classes), Photography, Biochemistry Anatomy/Histology (taught by the late, great Bernadine Allen), now they have a DNA track available too. Additionally, Ohio U is set in a beautiful area of southeastern Ohio. Lots of privacy and rolling hills and trees (not too much snow, but the cross-country skiing is great) and just 1 1/2 hrs from Columbus (Ohio State University), 3 1/2 hrs from Cleveland (Browns, Indians). Hope this helps, good luck. Barbara Caraballo PBSO Crime Lab West Palm Beach, FL caraballob@pbso.org > Hey, just wondering, anybody from Ohio University that went through their > forensic program? If so, any comments? Is their program a good one, etc. > Thanks > > > > > Jack > > From forens-owner Tue Nov 7 16:31:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11650 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11645 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:31:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from thuis (uu212-190-3-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.45]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA06299; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:31:47 +0100 (CET) From: "Gerrit Volckeryck" To: "- On-Line Forensic Discussion Group' 'ForensL" Cc: "Heikki" Subject: books by englert : thanks Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:32:14 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On behalf of Heikki Majamaa I want to say thanks to all those who helped him find the Rod Englert book that doesn't exist. He promised to offer you a glass of moosemilk whenever you'd visit Finland. All the best, Gerrit Volckeryck laboratoriumcommissaris Gerechtelijke Politie Laboratorium voor Technische en Wetenschappelijke Politie WTC III Simon Bolivarlaan 30 1000 Brussel - België tel. +32 2 208 48 31 mobile : +32 486 68 32 42 fax. +32 2 208 48 50 gerrit.volckeryck@village.uunet.be http://gallery.uunet.be/gerrit.volckeryck/index.htm From forens-owner Tue Nov 7 19:49:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13534 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:49:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13529 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:49:48 -0500 (EST) From: CamNDavis@aol.com Received: from CamNDavis@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.54.b8ae245 (6932) for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:49:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54.b8ae245.2739fd09@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:49:13 EST Subject: Forensic Program Questions To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am seeking comments on three M.S. forensic science programs. I have general information (applications/website info) but I am interested in hearing from recent grads or current students on the coursework, faculty members, research opportunities, etc. Overall, is/was it a positive experience? The programs are Virginia Commonwealth University, George Washington University, and the University of Maryland (Forensic Toxicology). Thanks in advance for any assistance. Camille From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 11:07:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21124 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from bilbo.marshall.edu (SYSTEM@bilbo.MARSHALL.EDU [206.212.27.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21119 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:07:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from 0 (webmail.MARSHALL.EDU [206.212.27.46]) by marshall.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #43800) with ESMTP id <01JWAN3ND1VQ9EDGAM@marshall.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:07:00 EST Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:04:33 -0500 From: Shane Greene Subject: Re: Forensic Program Questions In-reply-to: <54.b8ae245.2739fd09@aol.com> To: CamNDavis@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <01JWAN3NI6H49EDGAM@marshall.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMHO/0.98 (Webmail for Roxen) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I've been watching these posts lately about Forensic Programs and I haven't seen Marshall University mentioned so even though you didn't ask about Marshall I'm going to tell everyone anyway. Marshall University offers a Master's degree in Forensic Science. There is a thesis track as well as a non thesis option. We take a variety of classes covering things such as Arson investigation, crime scence and death investigation, toxicology, firearms, microscopy, trace evidence, fingerprints, DNA, etc. We have a unique opportunity for experience in DNA because Marshall University runs the West Virginia CODIS database. The program is well rounded and is completing its 5th year of existance with graduates all over the US as well as abroad. If you're interested in the program or just want to read a little more about it check out our web page at: http://meb.marshall.edu/forensic/ or contact me directly at greene@marshall.edu (I'm president of our Graduate student organization so I can get you any information you need.) Shane Greene ------------------- > I am seeking comments on three M.S. forensic science programs. I have > general information (applications/website info) but I am interested in > hearing from recent grads or current students on the coursework, faculty > members, research opportunities, etc. Overall, is/was it a positive > experience? The programs are Virginia Commonwealth University, George > Washington University, and the University of Maryland (Forensic Toxicology). > Thanks in advance for any assistance. > > Camille > > > > > From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 11:28:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21462 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:28:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from co.sanmateo.ca.us (mail.co.sanmateo.ca.us [204.114.51.20]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA21457 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from CSM-Message_Server by co.sanmateo.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:26:45 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:26:12 -0800 From: "Linda French" To: Subject: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass Spectrometry Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline X-Guinevere: 1.0.13 ; County of San Mateo Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id LAA21458 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Please send your favorite introductory-level texts for Mass Spectrometry. Several titles are available at amazon.com, but I can't afford to buy all of them. Thanks From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 11:34:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21669 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21664 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:34:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [131.94.46.102] by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.02.00.07 201-232-116-107 license aefe03f970491859ae13d618536ca7ad) with ESMTP id <20001108162710.DGFY15386.spn25c0@[131.94.46.102]>; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:27:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:45:22 -0500 To: "Linda French" From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass Spectrometry Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Linda, Could you please be more specific about what you want your book for? What kind of analysis are you going to do? I assume forensic, but explosives, fire debris, drugs, etc..??? To which separation method, if any, are you going to couple the MS? Are you looking for a book more on the interpretation of the spectrum or on the operation of an MS? Eric >Please send your favorite introductory-level texts for Mass >Spectrometry. Several titles are available at amazon.com, but I >can't afford to buy all of them. > >Thanks -- "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them." Sir Robert Peel, 1829 ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry Florida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA ----------------------------------------------------------- From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 12:58:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA22721 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22713 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 17:58:33 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:58:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass Spectrometry Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:58:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C049AD.73CF28E0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AD.73CF28E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Not an "introductory text", but rather the "Bible" of MS: Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 3rd Edition, by McLafferty. University Science Books, 1980. ISBN 0-935702-04-0 A good instructional text: Mass Spectrometry (Analytical Chemistry by Open Learning Series), by Davis and Frearson. John Wiley & Sons, 1987. ISBN 0 471 91389 8 Both of these texts probably have newer editions than the ones cited. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Linda French [mailto:LJFrench@co.sanmateo.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:26 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass Spectrometry Please send your favorite introductory-level texts for Mass Spectrometry. Several titles are available at amazon.com, but I can't afford to buy all of them. Thanks ------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AD.73CF28E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass = Spectrometry

Not an "introductory text", but rather the = "Bible" of MS:

Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 3rd Edition, by = McLafferty.  University Science Books, 1980.  ISBN = 0-935702-04-0

A good instructional text:

Mass Spectrometry (Analytical Chemistry by Open = Learning Series), by Davis and Frearson.  John Wiley & Sons, = 1987.  ISBN 0 471 91389 8

Both of these texts probably have newer editions than = the ones cited.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Linda French [mailto:LJFrench@co.sanmateo.c= a.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 11:26 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass = Spectrometry


Please send your favorite introductory-level texts = for Mass Spectrometry.  Several titles are available at = amazon.com, but I can't afford to buy all of them.

Thanks

------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AD.73CF28E0-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 13:04:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22889 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:04:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.18]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA22884 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:04:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16017; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:04:34 GMT Received: from Brutonpc (bruton-day-pc.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.40]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA01049; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:04:34 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001108180446.007896d4@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:04:46 +0000 To: "Linda French" , From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Re: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass Spectrometry In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi Linda, One of the best texts I used as an undergraduate - and still continue to use as a postgraduate - is: >>>> Introduction to Spectroscopy : A Guide for Students of Organic Chemistry by Donald L. Pavia, Gary M. Lampman, George S. Kriz Amazon.com show it retailing at $49.50 Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Paperback 2nd edition (November 1997) Saunders College Publishing; ISBN: 0030584272 ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.90 x 9.97 x 7.97 Amazon.com Sales Rank: 192,602 Avg. Customer Rating: 4/5 >>>> Although not specifically just for mass-spec' interpretation, nor is it applied in a forensic context, I find the book extremely useful. As perhaps is to be expected from the title, it also covers several of the main analytical (chemistry) techniques. The book introduces the chemistry, principles and components of the given technique, and then guides the student thru' the spectrum - what to look for, etc., with useful tables and so on. I would highly recommend this book for anyone working in analytical chemistry - whatever their field - at least as a starting-off point. For the more experienced mass spectroscopist there is a wealth of other useful - and not so useful - texts, as I am sure you have already discovered. I won't go deeper into this issue though, as you specifically requested introductory-level texts. I'm sure that other people on this list will be able to provide other good texts :) Hope this helps! Best of luck and warm regards to all. -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 13:07:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22999 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA22994 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:07:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 18:07:50 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:07:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:07:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C049AE.C1D3FBAA" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AE.C1D3FBAA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Bravo, Pete, well said! But the legal profession shares equal responsibility and needs to do their own homework on experts as well. We can help them by doing the peer review of the other expert's work, but it's the attorney's job to investigate his background and see if it's all that his vitae claims it is. Then they can bring us their findings and get our opinion on them. Peer review fails to solve the problem completely because in a battle between disagreeing experts, many jurors simply ignore both (thereby ignoring all the forensic evidence) and decide the issue on other less reliable grounds. We need a way to help keep the bogus or unethical experts off the stand in the first place, BEFORE they have a chance to confuse the jury and cloud the issues. Tougher legal standards for qualifying as an expert (e.g., to include certification and accreditation) would help in that regard. The best results would be achieved by combining all of these approaches, all the ones promoted by you, Jeff, Greg, myself, and others. No single tact will solve the problem; in fact, even ALL the approaches together won't totally eliminate the problem, but they could reduce it considerably, and far more than any one tact would. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 8:11 PM To: 'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group' Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" At 03:52 PM 11/6/00 -0800, Thompson, Jeff wrote: >You are absolutely right. I do think it needs more than certification, >though. Certification is good, accreditation has its place, but the primary quality check is peer review. This is the way it is done in the rest of the science enterprise. And by peer review I don't mean where someone sits down with a check list and a pile of paper and makes sure all of the boxes on the check list can be checked off. I mean peer review where someone takes the problem and tries to solve it and see if the same answer is obtained the second time. To accommodate the necessary peer review in a forensic context requires some steps that are not necessary in most science peer review due to such things as limitations of sample, unknowable starting conditions, often changing variables as new information becomes available, and last, but certainly not least, limitations in the necessary financial and professional resources. Until the profession figures out a way to address these issues (some are easy, some may be impossible to address), you can be sure there will be those who will take advantage of the system. It is apparent that the legal system pretty much likes the situation the way it is or else greater efforts would have been made to change it. If ethical and knowledgeable forensic scientists acknowledge that the system has its flaws, the only people who are going to change it are those forensic scientists. Those changes can be made in two ways: First by improvements in professional practice to accommodate peer review (sample preservation, evidence documentation, and thorough report writing are three areas which could stand improvement, generally); and, second, by becoming involved in activities designed to enhance the availability of competent peer review (working to minimize the law enforcement monopoly on forensic science personnel and resources, working to develop education and training programs, working to develop certification programs). Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AE.C1D3FBAA Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Roving Burn "Expert"

Bravo, Pete, well said!  But the legal = profession shares equal responsibility and needs to do their own = homework on experts as well.  We can help them by doing the peer = review of the other expert's work, but it's the attorney's job to = investigate his background and see if it's all that his vitae claims it = is.  Then they can bring us their findings and get our opinion on = them.  Peer review fails to solve the problem completely because = in a battle between disagreeing experts, many jurors simply ignore both = (thereby ignoring all the forensic evidence) and decide the issue on = other less reliable grounds.  We need a way to help keep the bogus = or unethical experts off the stand in the first place, BEFORE they have = a chance to confuse the jury and cloud the issues.  Tougher legal = standards for qualifying as an expert (e.g., to include certification = and accreditation) would help in that regard.

The best results would be achieved by combining all = of these approaches, all the ones promoted by you, Jeff, Greg, myself, = and others.  No single tact will solve the problem; in fact, even = ALL the approaches together won't totally eliminate the problem, but = they could reduce it considerably, and far more than any one tact = would.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 8:11 PM
To: 'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion = Group'
Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert"


At 03:52 PM 11/6/00 -0800, Thompson, Jeff = wrote:
>You are absolutely right.  I do think it = needs more than certification,
>though.

Certification is good, accreditation has its place, = but the primary quality
check is peer review.  This is the way it is = done in the rest of the
science enterprise.  And by peer review I don't = mean where someone sits
down with a check list and a pile of paper and makes = sure all of the boxes
on the check list can be checked off.  I mean = peer review where someone
takes the problem and tries to solve it and see if = the same answer is
obtained the second time.  To accommodate the = necessary peer review in a
forensic context requires some steps that are not = necessary in most science
peer review due to such things as limitations of = sample,  unknowable
starting conditions, often changing variables as new = information becomes
available, and last, but certainly not least, = limitations in the necessary
financial and professional resources.  Until = the profession figures out a
way to address these issues (some are easy, some may = be impossible to
address), you can be sure there will be those who = will take advantage of
the system.

It is apparent that the legal system pretty much = likes the situation the
way it is or else greater efforts would have been = made to change it.  If
ethical and knowledgeable forensic scientists = acknowledge that the system
has its flaws, the only people who are going to = change it are those
forensic scientists.  Those changes can be made = in two ways: First by
improvements in professional practice to accommodate = peer review (sample
preservation, evidence documentation, and thorough = report writing are three
areas which could stand improvement, generally); = and, second, by becoming
involved in activities designed to enhance the = availability of competent
peer review (working to minimize the law enforcement = monopoly on forensic
science personnel and resources, working to develop = education and training
programs, working to develop certification = programs).

Pete Barnett


Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 = pbarnett@FSALab.com

http://www.fsalab.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AE.C1D3FBAA-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 13:09:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23109 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA23104 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 8 Nov 2000 18:09:40 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:09:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:09:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C049AF.0370926C" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AF.0370926C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I agree with all you said, Jeff. Certification and accreditation help eliminate the incompetent, but not the competent yet self-deluded or intentionally dishonest. However, most of the charlatans and "expert witness prostitutes" I have encountered are not members of any legitimate professional forensic society, so there is no one to report them to, no one who can take professional action against them for ethical violations. Illegitimate "professional" organizations like the ABFE/ACFE, whose "certification" programs are themselves a sham, aren't likely to take any action against their dues-paying members (since collecting that money from members is why those organizations exist to begin with), and organizations who DO have real professional standards and ethical codes, like ABC, AAFS, and the various regional forensic associations, are powerless to take any action because the offenders are not members (and in many cases couldn't qualify as members) of those organizations. So it all comes back to the need for attorneys to thoroughly investigate a proffered expert's professional background. A legal requirement (statutorily or judicially imposed) for individual certification and laboratory accreditation would at least lighten that burden considerably. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:52 PM To: 'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group' Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" You are absolutely right. I do think it needs more than certification, though. The most competent person in the world, who might be a little too eager to please, or has allowed his/her ego to get a little too inflated, can do a great deal of harm in individual cases by deluding himself into believing he can see something that no one else can (that bullet came from that gun, there are other shoeprints there, etc.) in order to get more "positive strokes". In these instances, it is incumbent upon individual practicioners to report these people to the professional societies of which they are members, & those societies must take action. This would then give prosecutors and defense attorneys the ammo to feed to judges & shoot down people who go beyond the bounds of good science (even though the person does not have any nefarious intentions). Just my two cents. Jeff Thompson, F-ABC Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:35 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Have my own examples? Don't get me started, the whole list would regret it! ;) I've talked of several in past discussions or debates, but I could easily go on for hours. I see them on a regular basis. They're like a Medusa - expose one who then is discredited and slinks off to more fertile fields elsewhere, and two others rise in his place! But Shawn, defense experts aren't the only "prostituted witnesses" out there, sad to say. The "Fred Zains" of the profession are certainly far fewer in number than their counterparts working for the defense, but as expert witnesses testifying for the prosecution they have the potential to do far greater harm. Any such miscreants smear the reputations of the majority of honest, competent, impartial forensic experts, in both the public and private sectors. They also harm a lot of innocent people (defendants and victims) and undermine public confidence in both the judicial system and in scientists. Until judges start to demand proof of credentials/expertise before allowing "experts" to testify, and prosecutors start routinely prosecuting for perjury those who misrepresent themselves, this sort of thing will continue unabated. Our growing accreditation and certification programs help a lot (and would help much more if judges made them prerequisites for expert testimony), but then you must still deal with the bogus certification programs and diploma mills. Attorneys, prosecution and defense alike, have got to start doing a better job of investigating "expert" credentials, both those of their own witnesses and those of their opponent's witnesses. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: SHAUN WHEELER [ mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com ] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:48 PM To: Sidg@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" Barbara and List: The point you raise is a good one. I have found a so-called expert who has variously testified about the reliability of serological testing, despite any expertise in the underlying science, and an utter lack of certification in that are. That same expert testified only last year, about the likelyhood that his client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers wife near Fort Riley, Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a dearth of any cognizable training in such areas. The same expert questioned the findings of a board certified medical examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode of death, despite any qualifications to do so. Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this expert continues to find the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus testimony. To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of expertise is. I do know that he has made false statements under oath concerning his training, yet judges seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the case at hand and let the jury decide weight and credibility. Don't happen to have any of your own examples of prostituted defense witnesses, do you? Shaun >From: Sidg@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, thequill@tampabay.rr.com >Subject: Roving Burn "Expert" >Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST > >I dug this article up out of today's Washington Post. I think I remember >you >all talking about being able to buy the types of "credentials" this guy was >using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught him before he did any more >damage. > >Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness > >By Josh White >Washington Post Staff Writer >Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06 > >When he tried to testify in the case of a scalded child in Manassas in >February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an experienced burn investigator >who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana college. >Five months later, officials said, he took the stand in Ohio and told the >court he was an expert in the epidemiology of burns with a bachelor's >degree >and a master's degree from a university in London. >From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials and opinions in courtrooms >in >Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, testifying as the executive director >of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has worked to gain convictions >in snip.... >But Gary >Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said yesterday that Stocco had >instead >patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved in any criminal >investigations or surgeries. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com . Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com . ------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AF.0370926C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Roving Burn "Expert"

I agree with all you said, Jeff.  Certification = and accreditation help eliminate the incompetent, but not the competent = yet self-deluded or  intentionally dishonest.  However, most = of the charlatans and "expert witness prostitutes" I have = encountered are not members of any legitimate professional forensic = society, so there is no one to report them to, no one who can take = professional action against them for ethical violations.  = Illegitimate "professional" organizations like the ABFE/ACFE, = whose "certification" programs are themselves a sham, aren't = likely to take any action against their dues-paying members (since = collecting that money from members is why those organizations exist to = begin with), and organizations who DO have real professional standards = and ethical codes, like ABC, AAFS, and the various regional forensic = associations, are powerless to take any action because the offenders = are not members (and in many cases couldn't qualify as members) of = those organizations.  So it all comes back to the need for = attorneys to thoroughly investigate a proffered expert's professional = background.  A legal requirement (statutorily or judicially = imposed) for individual certification and laboratory accreditation = would at least lighten that burden considerably.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:52 PM
To: 'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion = Group'
Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert"


You are absolutely right.  I do think it needs = more than certification,
though.  The most competent person in the = world, who might be a little too
eager to please, or has allowed his/her ego to get a = little too inflated,
can do a great deal of harm in individual cases by = deluding himself into
believing he can see something that no one else can = (that bullet came from
that gun, there are other shoeprints there, etc.) in = order to get more
"positive strokes".  In these = instances, it is incumbent upon individual
practicioners to report these people to the = professional societies of which
they are members, & those societies must take = action.  This would then give
prosecutors and defense attorneys the ammo to feed = to judges & shoot down
people who go beyond the bounds of good science = (even though the person does
not have any nefarious intentions).
Just my two cents.

Jeff Thompson, F-ABC
Supervising Criminalist
Scientific Investigation Unit
Huntington Beach Police Dept.
Huntington Beach, CA (USA)

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us= ]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 2:35 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu <mailto:forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert"



Have my own examples?  Don't get me started, the = whole list would regret it!
;)

I've talked of several in past discussions or = debates, but I could easily go
on for hours.  I see them on a regular = basis.  They're like a Medusa -
expose one who then is discredited and slinks off to = more fertile fields
elsewhere, and two others rise in his place!

But Shawn, defense experts aren't the only = "prostituted witnesses" out
there, sad to say.  The "Fred Zains" = of the profession are certainly far
fewer in number than their counterparts working for = the defense, but as
expert witnesses testifying for the prosecution they = have the potential to
do far greater harm.  Any such miscreants smear = the reputations of the
majority of honest, competent, impartial forensic = experts, in both the
public and private sectors.  They also harm a = lot of innocent people
(defendants and victims) and undermine public = confidence in both the
judicial system and in scientists.

Until judges start to demand proof of = credentials/expertise before allowing
"experts" to testify, and prosecutors = start routinely prosecuting for
perjury those who misrepresent themselves, this sort = of thing will continue
unabated.  Our growing accreditation and = certification programs help a lot
(and would help much more if judges made them = prerequisites for expert
testimony), but then you must still deal with the = bogus certification
programs and diploma mills.  Attorneys, = prosecution and defense alike, have
got to start doing a better job of investigating = "expert" credentials, both
those of their own witnesses and those of their = opponent's witnesses.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: SHAUN WHEELER [ mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.c= om
<mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.c= om> ]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:48 PM
To: Sidg@aol.com
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert"


Barbara and List:

The point you raise is a good one.

I have found a so-called expert who has variously = testified about the
reliability of serological testing, despite any = expertise in the underlying
science, and an utter lack of certification in that = are.

That same expert testified only last year, about the = likelyhood that his
client, who raped and murdered an enlisted soldiers = wife near Fort Riley,
Kansas, had actually falsely confessed, despite a = dearth of any cognizable
training in such areas.

The same expert questioned the findings of a board = certified medical
examiner working in a NAME certified lab as to mode = of death, despite any
qualifications to do so.

Yet, because of incredible judicial largesse, this = expert continues to find
the occassional jurist willing to admit his bogus = testimony.

To be frank, I'm not sure WHAT his real area of = expertise is. I do know that

he has made false statements under oath concerning = his training, yet judges
seem to take the larger view and focus on trying the = case at hand and let
the jury decide weight and credibility.

Don't happen to have any of your own examples of = prostituted defense
witnesses, do you?

Shaun



>From: Sidg@aol.com
>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net, = thequill@tampabay.rr.com
>Subject: Roving Burn "Expert"
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:06:27 EST
>
>I dug this article up out of today's Washington = Post. I think I remember
>you
>all talking about being able to buy the types of = "credentials" this guy was

>using. This is quite scary. I'm glad they caught = him before he did any more

>damage.
>
>Roving Burn 'Expert' Was False Witness
>
>By Josh White
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Friday, November 3, 2000; Page A06
>
>When he tried to testify in the case of a = scalded child in Manassas in
>February 1999, Gary S. Stocco said he was an = experienced burn investigator
>who was working on two degrees from a Louisiana = college.
>Five months later, officials said, he took the = stand in Ohio and told the
>court he was an expert in the epidemiology of = burns with a bachelor's
>degree
>and a master's degree from a university in = London.
>From there, Stocco went on to tout credentials = and opinions in courtrooms
>in
>Massachusetts, New Jersey and Indiana, = testifying as the executive director

>of the National Burn Victim Foundation. He has = worked to gain convictions
>in

snip....

>But Gary
>Gardiner, a Prince William detective, said = yesterday that Stocco had
>instead
>patrolled parking lots and hadn't been involved = in any criminal
>investigations or surgeries.
_______________________________________________________________= __________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
<http://www.hotmail.com> .

Share information about yourself, create your own = public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com <http://profiles.msn.com> .

------_=_NextPart_001_01C049AF.0370926C-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 20:57:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05140 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05135 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:57:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mh (iii-pm3-1-44.inland.net [209.85.112.59]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA15722 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:58:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006101c049f0$ecafd960$3b7055d1@mh> From: "M. Horton" To: Subject: applications Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:01:05 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing, interviewing, and background investigation for a lab in Southern California (written test, oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, background interview, questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately, I didn't get the position. My questions are: Would it be professional to call and ask why I didn't receive the position? and How is this going to effect my application to other labs? I know that several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have you ever applied and been turned down for a position at another lab?" If I answer "Yes" to that question it seems as though it would look bad for me. Thanks in advance, Mike Horton Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair Perris High School Perris, CA From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 22:32:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06576 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:32:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA06571 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:32:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22919 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2000 03:32:35 -0000 Received: from access-5-39.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.157) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 03:32:35 -0000 Message-ID: <025901c049fd$99a2a2e0$540d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <006101c049f0$ecafd960$3b7055d1@mh> Subject: Re: applications Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 21:31:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO What do you have to lose by asking why you weren't selected? Maybe you were number 5 of a group of 20 and they could only select from the top three. OTOH, maybe they found out what you and your cousin did when you were in third grade, that time both your parents thought you were playing in the sand box in FRONT of the playhouse. Could the turn-down look bad in other applications? Unless you find out the reason, you can't tell. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "M. Horton" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 8:01 PM Subject: applications I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing, interviewing, and background investigation for a lab in Southern California (written test, oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, background interview, questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately, I didn't get the position. My questions are: Would it be professional to call and ask why I didn't receive the position? and How is this going to effect my application to other labs? I know that several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have you ever applied and been turned down for a position at another lab?" If I answer "Yes" to that question it seems as though it would look bad for me. Thanks in advance, Mike Horton Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair Perris High School Perris, CA From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 22:34:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06705 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06700 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:34:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from bouldernews.infi.net (A020-0051.DNVR.splitrock.net [63.253.54.51]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA01628; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:34:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A0A2991.EF7A3FD4@bouldernews.infi.net> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:35:30 -0800 From: edc Reply-To: carter1@bouldernews.infi.net Organization: InfiNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forensiclist , scitch@inland.net Subject: application Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi M.H. I just went through job-hunting. In 'Knock 'm Dead' by Martin Yate, see page 172.After thank you letters to interveiwers, Which also ask ''what do I need to further do to get the job" and finally getting the big 'No Thanks' He suggests asking "To help my future job search, why wasn't I chosen for the position?'...Lots of good tips through out this book by trhe way. I read a 1991 copy,pretty useful for some one who hasn't had to hunt in a while. Published by Bob Adams, Inc 260 Center Street Holbrook, Massachusetts 02343 No phone # given. Good Luck, Ed From forens-owner Wed Nov 8 23:00:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07159 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:00:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from web2905.mail.yahoo.com (web2905.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.68.48]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA07154 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:00:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4033 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Nov 2000 04:00:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20001109040042.4032.qmail@web2905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.57.229.172] by web2905.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:00:42 PST Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:00:42 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Abercrombie Subject: Re: applications To: "M. Horton" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Mike, Absolutely! Call the lab and/or members of the panel to assist you in understanding why you were not hired. This is particularly true in light of the background investigation and/or poly. I've been involved in interviewing many prospective candidates for both my agency as well as others, and if you were not hired because the panel/lab found other candidate(s) more technically qualified, then you need to see where you were "lacking". If, on the other hand, the background investigation was the problem, then you need to find out the veracity of the problematic areas in that process. As for the poly - -unfortunately, there are still a number of public crime labs that utilize a polygraph exam in some context regarding prospective employee qualification. If it was the poly, then you should be informed of the specifics regarding the areas in which you "failed" so that you can respond (if necessary). By the way, what labs have asked you whether you have "applied and been turned down at another facility"? I personally feel that question should never be asked nor should it be a factor of consideration by any reputable lab. In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion that the question could be construed as "illegal". Tom Abercrombie Asst Lab Director State of Calif Bureau of Forensic Services Berkeley DNA Laboratory --- "M. Horton" wrote: > I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing, > interviewing, and > background investigation for a lab in Southern > California (written test, > oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, > background interview, > questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately, > I didn't get the > position. > My questions are: Would it be professional to call > and ask why I didn't > receive the position? and > How is this going to effect my application to other > labs? I know that > several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have > you ever applied and > been turned down for a position at another lab?" If > I answer "Yes" to that > question it seems as though it would look bad for > me. > Thanks in advance, > Mike Horton > Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair > Perris High School > Perris, CA > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 13:24:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA16543 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:24:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16538 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:24:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.48.238]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001109182414.PDZA7142.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:24:14 +0000 Message-ID: <3A0AEB72.3C0482C3@worldnet.att.net> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 10:22:42 -0800 From: John Bowden Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda French CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Requesting Book Recommendations for Mass Spectrometry References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Linda, I have couple of comments regarding introductory books on Mass Spectrometry. The McLafferty text is indeed the 'bible" of MS, just as Dr. McL is sometimes regarded as the god, at least in this country. Many of the prominent spectrometrists once studied under him. The book, "Interpretation of Mass Spectra," is now in its 4th edition, co-authored by Frantisek Turecek. This is the text I used for the MS Interpretation Course I taught at the California Criminalistics Institute. It is very rigorous and very much a text. That is, it really requires a structured course with an instructor. On the plus side, it has a great many problems, all with solutions. Also the price is very reasonable for a hard bound book. This is due to Dr. McLafferty's insistence. My students were generally of the opinion that the text was too "tough." After much consideration, I tended to agree. I was actively searching for a replacement text before I retired. First, depending on the depth of information you seek, you might consider more general references which deal with Mass Spectrometry as well as other spectrometric methods. Besides the book by Pavia, Lampman & Kriz, two other considerations are "Organic Structural Spectroscopy" by Lambert, Shurvell, Lightner, & Cooks and "Spectrometric Identification of Organic Compounds." The 6th edition is authored by Robert Silverstein and Francis Webster, but is traditionally known as "Silverstein and Bassler" from the original authors. Several other books dealing solely with mass spectrometry include: "A Beginner's Guide to Mass Spectral Interpretation," by Terrence Lee; "Introduction to Mass Spectrometry," by J. Throck Watson: "Mass Spectrometry (Wiley's Analytical Chemistry by Open Learning Series), 2nd Edition by James Barker; and "Understanding Mass Spectra: A Basic Approach," by R. Martin Smith. Dr. Smith is a forensic scientist. He also teaches short courses in Mass Spectrometry. Some of these books are available on line. You may find a better selection at your local University bookstore. I hope this information is useful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to e-mail me. John John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dun Spiro Spero" Linda French wrote: > Please send your favorite introductory-level texts for Mass Spectrometry. Several titles are available at amazon.com, but I can't afford to buy all of them. > > Thanks From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 16:41:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01424 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:41:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r07.mail.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01419 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:41:31 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.8e.cbe7fc4 (4002) for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:40:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8e.cbe7fc4.273c73e1@aol.com> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:40:49 EST Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 87 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/8/00 10:11:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > So it all comes back to the > need for attorneys to thoroughly investigate a proffered expert's > professional background. Just a little note here. An attorney who relies on his own investigation is cheating his client. Attorneys provide legal representation. Detectives investigate. Not only is it more cost and time effective to pay an investigator but attorneys make lousy detectives no matter whet you see on TV. Attorneys don't generally have the contacts, resources, network, and skill to properly conduct the footwork and research required for a competent investigation. A legal requirement (statutorily or judicially > imposed) for individual certification and laboratory accreditation would at > least lighten that burden considerably. As for credentialing organizations, it is a wonder that there has not been some attempt by a judicial board to compel professional certification. I suppose it could be difficult to set standards for every different type of expert involved in forensic science but why not for the major areas. In laboratory animal science the government requires laboratories receiving federal grants, to be either accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) of inspection by the FDA. I know of no lab that opts for the FDA inspection since the FDA records are subject to FOIA. Accreditation by AAALAC includes that technicians and technologists working in the lab be certified by the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). The motivation here is primarily financial since accreditation and certification are necessary for grants and employment. But most private labs have applied for and after thorough inspection have obtained accreditation. The motivation for private labs is the political and public attention on the use animals in research. Seems to me that if a judicial board required accreditation and certification that would be a significant financial motivation. If one can't ply ones trade without certification one either gets certified or finds other work. From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 17:09:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01724 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from swvx12.swmed.edu (swvx12.swmed.edu [199.165.152.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01719 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from pathology.swmed.edu ([129.112.20.7]) by SWVX12.SWMED.EDU (PMDF V6.0-24 #46721) with ESMTP id <01JWCBWNOHEG9EORA5@SWVX12.SWMED.EDU> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 16:08:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from pathology.swmed.edu (206.50.80.21) by pathology.swmed.edu with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Thu, 09 Nov 2000 16:16:28 -0600 Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 16:12:20 -0600 From: "sliter.tim" Subject: Mutation frequency of STR loci To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3A0B2144.B5543F83@pathology.swmed.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <8e.cbe7fc4.273c73e1@aol.com> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a question for DNA statistics folks. I'm looking for data on the frequency of germline mutations for the 13 core CODIS STR loci. What resources are people doing paternity analysis using to deal with the rare occurance of mutations? Brinkman et al's 1998 Am J Hum Genet paper provides some information on a few loci, but its just a few loci and the sample size is not large enough to give anything more than a ball-park estimate of frequency. Thanks for any information. Tim Sliter Institute of Forensic Sciences University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas USA From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 17:38:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01984 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:38:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01979 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 22:38:53 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:38:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'LEGALEYE1@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Roving Burn "Expert" Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:38:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9D.C7C2C448" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9D.C7C2C448 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Good points Bill. So long as the attorney makes some attempt to find out if, in fact, his own experts and those of his opponent are actually qualified to testify about what they intend to testify about, it doesn't matter who does the leg work. The problem is that most judges and attorneys simply accept the claimed credentials of the local public crime lab employee or private consultant, or accept the recommendations of attorney friends, or rely on the expert's own advertisement or vitae, and never check to see if the expert actually IS qualified, or if his/her vitae's details are factual. As for legally required standards for forensic work, the only national standard required right now is for DNA work, and it only applies to labs receiving federal grants for implementing DNA analysis. If you don't want the money, you don't have to comply. There are a few local jurisdictions (e.g., NY State) which require crime labs to be accredited, and a few crime lab agencies (e.g., Alabama's state crime lab system) which require some analysts to be certified (Alabama makes certification a prerequisite for promotion, some others require certification for all new hires - but I don't know of any that require ALL employees to be certified), but in each of these instances only public sector labs are involved. There are a number of crime labs, public and private, that list certification as "desirable." At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the issues of lab accreditation and personal certification remain entirely voluntary in nature for the lion's share of the profession. Slowly, more and more judges are now becoming aware of the national accreditation and certification programs and hopefully are taking it into consideration when asked to recognize expert witnesses. Problems: spreading the word among the legal profession farther and faster; educating them about the difference between legitimate, demanding programs and bogus "recognition for sale" programs; the fact that in many jurisdictions judges no longer are required to accept or recognize an "expert" witness AS an expert before the witness is allowed to testify (in those jurisdictions, virtually anyone can testify as an expert who claims to be an expert - the jury's only "protection" against forensic frauds is a lame instruction that "an expert is only an expert to the extent that YOU, the jury, believe him to be" or some such nonsense, as if they had any reliable basis upon which to make that determination). Regrettably, it's easier to be accepted as an expert (and harder to be excluded from testifying as an expert) in criminal court than it is in civil court - the standard seems to be higher in civil court and judges seem to have more authority to exclude testimony there. This seems stupidly backwards to me, but in civil court big bucks are at stake, whereas in criminal court it's "only" people's lives on the line. What we need is for a US Supreme Court decision, or at least a federal appellate court decision setting precedent that others would hopefully follow, requiring that experts to demonstrate their status AS experts through external review processes which establish their credentials (accreditation, certification) before they are allowed to testify. Daubert and Kumho can be used in this regard if a judge is so inclined, but I'm not aware of any judge establishing such an "acid test" for experts to date - we need a more explicit mandate than existing precedent provides. Even if we had one, I'm not sure how such a decision could be imposed on the states - some states even now ignore those decisions and continue to rely on Frye instead. The sovereignty of the states to decide their own internal laws and legal processes would make it very difficult to impose a national standard. It would instead have to be a "grass roots" or "domino" kind of movement - one state adopts the standards, then a few others, then more and more start to follow the leaders. That will take a very long time. The only way to make it happen quickly would be if the feds had some kind of arm-twisting tactic they could use, similar to Congress' tactic of forcing states to adopt seat belt and 21-years drinking age laws (and soon, a 0.08% DUI limit) by making such laws a prerequisite for receiving federal highway funds (i.e., no state law compliance, no money). I just don't see that happening any time soon. So we're stuck with the incremental evolution approach, I'm afraid. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [mailto:LEGALEYE1@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:41 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert" In a message dated 11/8/00 10:11:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > So it all comes back to the > need for attorneys to thoroughly investigate a proffered expert's > professional background. Just a little note here. An attorney who relies on his own investigation is cheating his client. Attorneys provide legal representation. Detectives investigate. Not only is it more cost and time effective to pay an investigator but attorneys make lousy detectives no matter whet you see on TV. Attorneys don't generally have the contacts, resources, network, and skill to properly conduct the footwork and research required for a competent investigation. A legal requirement (statutorily or judicially > imposed) for individual certification and laboratory accreditation would at > least lighten that burden considerably. As for credentialing organizations, it is a wonder that there has not been some attempt by a judicial board to compel professional certification. I suppose it could be difficult to set standards for every different type of expert involved in forensic science but why not for the major areas. In laboratory animal science the government requires laboratories receiving federal grants, to be either accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) of inspection by the FDA. I know of no lab that opts for the FDA inspection since the FDA records are subject to FOIA. Accreditation by AAALAC includes that technicians and technologists working in the lab be certified by the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). The motivation here is primarily financial since accreditation and certification are necessary for grants and employment. But most private labs have applied for and after thorough inspection have obtained accreditation. The motivation for private labs is the political and public attention on the use animals in research. Seems to me that if a judicial board required accreditation and certification that would be a significant financial motivation. If one can't ply ones trade without certification one either gets certified or finds other work. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9D.C7C2C448 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Roving Burn "Expert"

Good points Bill.  So long as the attorney makes = some attempt to find out if, in fact, his own experts and those of his = opponent are actually qualified to testify about what they intend to = testify about, it doesn't matter who does the leg work.  The = problem is that most judges and attorneys simply accept the claimed = credentials of the local public crime lab employee or private = consultant, or accept the recommendations of attorney friends, or rely = on the expert's own advertisement or vitae, and never check to see if = the expert actually IS qualified, or if his/her vitae's details are = factual.

As for legally required standards for forensic work, = the only national standard required right now is for DNA work, and it = only applies to labs receiving federal grants for implementing DNA = analysis.  If you don't want the money, you don't have to = comply.  There are a few local jurisdictions (e.g., NY State) = which require crime labs to be accredited, and a few crime lab agencies = (e.g., Alabama's state crime lab system) which require some analysts to = be certified (Alabama makes certification a prerequisite for promotion, = some others require certification for all new hires - but I don't know = of any that require ALL employees to be certified), but in each of = these instances only public sector labs are involved.  There are a = number of crime labs, public and private, that list certification as = "desirable."

At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the = issues of lab accreditation and personal certification remain entirely = voluntary in nature for the lion's share of the profession.  = Slowly, more and more judges are now becoming aware of the national = accreditation and certification programs and hopefully are taking it = into consideration when asked to recognize expert = witnesses.   Problems: spreading the word among the legal = profession farther and faster;  educating them about the = difference between legitimate, demanding programs and bogus = "recognition for sale" programs; the fact that in many = jurisdictions judges no longer are required to accept or recognize an = "expert" witness AS an expert before the witness is allowed = to testify (in those jurisdictions, virtually anyone can testify as an = expert who claims to be an expert - the jury's only = "protection" against forensic frauds is a lame instruction = that "an expert is only an expert to the extent that YOU, the = jury, believe him to be" or some such nonsense, as if they had any = reliable basis upon which to make that determination).  = Regrettably, it's easier to be accepted as an expert (and harder to be = excluded from testifying as an expert) in criminal court than it is in = civil court - the standard seems to be higher in civil court and judges = seem to have more authority to exclude testimony there.  This = seems stupidly backwards to me, but in civil court big bucks are at = stake, whereas in criminal court it's "only" people's lives = on the line.

What we need is for a US Supreme Court decision, or = at least a federal appellate court decision setting precedent that = others would hopefully follow, requiring that experts to demonstrate = their status AS experts through external review processes which = establish their credentials (accreditation, certification) before they = are allowed to testify.  Daubert and Kumho can be used in this = regard if a judge is so inclined, but I'm not aware of any judge = establishing such an "acid test" for experts to date - we = need a more explicit mandate than existing precedent provides.  = Even if we had one, I'm not sure how such a decision could be imposed = on the states - some states even now ignore those decisions and = continue to rely on Frye instead.  The sovereignty of the states = to decide their own internal laws and legal processes would make it = very difficult to impose a national standard.  It would instead = have to be a "grass roots" or "domino" kind of = movement - one state adopts the standards, then a few others, then more = and more start to follow the leaders.  That will take a very long = time.  The only way to make it happen quickly would be if the feds = had some kind of arm-twisting tactic they could use, similar to = Congress' tactic of forcing states to adopt seat belt and 21-years = drinking age laws (and soon, a 0.08% DUI limit) by making such laws a = prerequisite for receiving federal highway funds (i.e., no state law = compliance, no money).

I just don't see that happening any time soon.  = So we're stuck with the incremental evolution approach, I'm = afraid.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [mailto:LEGALEYE1@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:41 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Roving Burn "Expert"


In a message dated 11/8/00 10:11:29 AM Pacific = Standard Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:

> So it all comes back to the
>  need for attorneys to thoroughly = investigate a proffered expert's
>  professional background.

Just a little note here.  An attorney who relies = on his own investigation is
cheating his client.  Attorneys provide legal = representation.  Detectives
investigate.  Not only is it more cost and time = effective to pay an
investigator but attorneys make lousy detectives no = matter whet you see on
TV.  Attorneys don't generally have the = contacts, resources, network, and
skill to properly conduct the footwork and research = required for a competent
investigation.

  A legal requirement (statutorily or = judicially
>  imposed) for individual certification and = laboratory accreditation would at
>  least lighten that burden = considerably.

As for credentialing organizations, it is a wonder = that there has not been
some attempt by a judicial board to compel = professional certification.  I
suppose it could be difficult to set standards for = every different type of
expert involved in forensic science but why not for = the major areas.  In
laboratory animal science the government requires = laboratories receiving
federal grants, to be either accredited by the = American Association for the
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) of = inspection by the FDA.  I
know of no lab that opts for the FDA inspection = since the FDA records are
subject to FOIA.  Accreditation by AAALAC = includes that technicians and
technologists working in the lab be certified by the = American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS).  The = motivation here is primarily
financial since accreditation and certification are = necessary for grants and
employment.  But most private labs have applied = for and after thorough
inspection have obtained accreditation.  The = motivation for private labs is
the political and public attention on the use = animals in research.  Seems to
me that if a judicial board required accreditation = and certification that
would be a significant financial motivation.  = If one can't ply ones trade
without certification one either gets certified or = finds other work.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9D.C7C2C448-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 17:51:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02207 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02202 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:51:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 9 Nov 2000 22:51:03 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:50:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: applications Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:50:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9F.7B014E34" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9F.7B014E34 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" >By the way, what labs have asked you whether you have >"applied and been turned down at another facility"? I >personally feel that question should never be asked >nor should it be a factor of consideration by any >reputable lab. In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion >that the question could be construed as "illegal". Some labs ask that question because if the answer is "yes" they want to contact that other lab to find out why, just in case the other lab found out something negative about the applicant that the present lab isn't aware of. If they find it was just a matter of competition, that's not a problem; but if it was a matter of a criminal conviction, failed drug screen, adverse background investigation results, or the like, that would be a problem and they have a legitimate public interest in finding out about it. So long as it is asked of all applicants, I don't see how it could be considered illegal. There is no basis for illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., which of course are improper. The question of being turned down for positions previously sought is predicated on reviewing relevant personal and professional history, not matters of personal choice or accident of birth. It is analogous to the standard question in security clearance investigations "Have you ever applied for but been denied a security clearance in the past, and if so, where/when/why?" Clearly, there is a legitimate interest for the employer in knowing the answer to that kind of question. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL --- "M. Horton" wrote: > I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing, > interviewing, and > background investigation for a lab in Southern > California (written test, > oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, > background interview, > questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately, > I didn't get the > position. > My questions are: Would it be professional to call > and ask why I didn't > receive the position? and > How is this going to effect my application to other > labs? I know that > several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have > you ever applied and > been turned down for a position at another lab?" If > I answer "Yes" to that > question it seems as though it would look bad for > me. > Thanks in advance, > Mike Horton > Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair > Perris High School > Perris, CA > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9F.7B014E34 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: applications

>By the way, what labs have asked you whether you = have
>"applied and been turned down at another = facility"?  I
>personally feel that question should never be = asked
>nor should it be a factor of consideration by = any
>reputable lab.  In fact, I'm strongly of = the opinion
>that the question could be construed as = "illegal".

Some labs ask that question because if the answer is = "yes" they want to contact that other lab to find out why, = just in case the other lab found out something negative about the = applicant that the present lab isn't aware of.  If they find it = was just a matter of competition, that's not a problem; but if it was a = matter of a criminal conviction, failed drug screen, adverse background = investigation results, or the like, that would be a problem and they = have a legitimate public interest in finding out about it.  So = long as it is asked of all applicants, I don't see how it could be = considered illegal.  There is no basis for illegal discrimination = in the question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, = ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., = which of course are improper.  The question of being turned down = for positions previously sought is predicated on reviewing relevant = personal and professional history, not matters of personal choice or = accident of birth.  It is analogous to the standard question in = security clearance investigations "Have you ever applied for but = been denied a security clearance in the past, and if so, = where/when/why?"  Clearly, there is a legitimate interest for = the employer in knowing the answer to that kind of question.


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

--- "M. Horton" <scitch@inland.net> = wrote:
> I just went through an exhaustive 6-month = testing,
> interviewing, and
> background investigation for a lab in = Southern
> California (written test,
> oral test, physical, lie detector, long = application,
> background interview,
> questionnaires, transcripts, etc.).  = Unfortunately,
> I didn't get the
> position.
> My questions are: Would it be professional to = call
> and ask why I didn't
> receive the position?  and
> How is this going to effect my application to = other
> labs?  I know that
> several labs to which I've applied have asked = "Have
> you ever applied and
> been turned down for a position at another = lab?"  If
> I answer "Yes" to that
> question it seems as though it would look bad = for
> me.
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike Horton
> Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair
> Perris High School
> Perris, CA
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of = Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04A9F.7B014E34-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 20:06:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03172 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:06:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r12.mail.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03167 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:06:03 -0500 (EST) From: Flannery64@aol.com Received: from Flannery64@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.d3.c4538b1 (4595) for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:05:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:05:27 EST Subject: test To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d3.c4538b1.273ca3d7_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_d3.c4538b1.273ca3d7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit test --part1_d3.c4538b1.273ca3d7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit test --part1_d3.c4538b1.273ca3d7_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 09:24:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07448 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:24:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07443 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:24:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:24:53 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Charles H. Brenner" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:10:27 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Charles H. Brenner" ] >From forens-owner Thu Nov 9 23:10:26 2000 Received: from dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net [129.250.36.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA03862 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [129.250.38.62] (helo=dfw-mmp2.email.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout1.email.verio.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #7) id 13u5WC-0005MX-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:10:24 +0000 Received: from [168.191.203.139] (helo=roo.dna-view.com) by dfw-mmp2.email.verio.net with esmtp id 13u5WB-0006FZ-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 04:10:23 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001109201018.00c26420@pop.ncal.verio.com> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:11:06 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: Mutation frequency of STR loci In-Reply-To: <3A0B2144.B5543F83@pathology.swmed.edu> References: <8e.cbe7fc4.273c73e1@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_7983568==_.ALT" --=====================_7983568==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I hope to submit a collaborative paper with some data next year. So far we have 74 paternal CODIS mutations, for an average rate of 0.23%. Individual loci can be much lower -- e.g. TH01 practically stable, as Brinkmann reported -- or 2-3 times higher (FGA). You may obtain a few more details if you wish to download http://www.dna-view.com/downloads/immigration.ppt. I also recommend my web page http://dna-view.com/mudisc.htm . Charles Brenner forensic mathematics to the gentry At 04:12 PM 11/9/00 -0600, you wrote: >This is a question for DNA statistics folks. I'm looking for data on the >frequency of germline mutations for the 13 core CODIS STR loci. What >resources >are people doing paternity analysis using to deal with the rare occurance of >mutations? Brinkman et al's 1998 Am J Hum Genet paper provides some >information >on a few loci, but its just a few loci and the sample size is not large >enough to >give anything more than a ball-park estimate of frequency. > >Thanks for any information. > >Tim Sliter > >Institute of Forensic Sciences >University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center >Dallas, Texas USA --=====================_7983568==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" I hope to submit a collaborative paper with some data next year. So far we have 74 paternal CODIS mutations, for an average rate of 0.23%. Individual loci can be much lower -- e.g. TH01 practically stable, as Brinkmann reported -- or 2-3 times higher (FGA). You may obtain a few more details if you wish to download http://www.dna-view.com/downloads/immigration.ppt. I also recommend my web page http://dna-view.com/mudisc.htm .

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics to the gentry


At 04:12 PM 11/9/00 -0600, you wrote:
This is a question for DNA statistics folks.  I'm looking for data on the
frequency of germline mutations for the 13 core CODIS STR loci.  What resources
are people doing paternity analysis using to deal with the rare occurance of
mutations?  Brinkman et al's 1998 Am J Hum Genet paper provides some information
on a few loci, but its just a few loci and the sample size is not large enough to
give anything more than a ball-park estimate of frequency.

Thanks for any information.

Tim Sliter

Institute of Forensic Sciences
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Dallas, Texas USA
--=====================_7983568==_.ALT-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 10:47:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08466 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:47:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f26.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.26]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08461 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:47:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:47:10 -0800 Received: from 24.4.254.161 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:47:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.4.254.161] From: "John Lyons" To: scitch@inland.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: applications Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:47:10 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2000 15:47:10.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C9365A0:01C04B2D] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Mike, I have conducted background investigations and participated on oral review boards. Deception or lying is grounds for IMMEDIATE rejection of your application and/or failure of the oral board. Honesty is still the best policy in my opinion. John B. Lyons Criminal Investigator County Attorney's Office Johnson County, TX johnblyons@hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 10:58:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08591 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from web5104.mail.yahoo.com (web5104.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.106.74]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA08586 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:58:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20001110155820.28736.qmail@web5104.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [204.65.242.84] by web5104.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:58:20 PST Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:58:20 -0800 (PST) From: craig barnthson Subject: forensic science programs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-771151432-973871900=:25538" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --0-771151432-973871900=:25538 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Does anyone have an opinion on the quality of the forensic science master's program at the University of New Haven, or know anyone who has gone through it? --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All with one Wallet. --0-771151432-973871900=:25538 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Does anyone have an opinion on the quality of the forensic science master's program at the University of New Haven, or know anyone who has gone through it?


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All with one Wallet. --0-771151432-973871900=:25538-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 11:41:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09013 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09008 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:41:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id LAA09009 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:14:54 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 >From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 10:14:53 2000 Received: from hotmail.com (f246.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.246]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07992 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:14:22 -0800 Received: from 24.4.254.161 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:14:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.4.254.161] From: "John Lyons" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: "Tainting Evidence" Book Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:14:22 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2000 15:14:22.0826 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7EDA4A0:01C04B28] The following is a post from another list that I subscribe to seeking information concerning this book. John B. Lyons Criminal Investigator County Attorney's Office Johnson County, TX johnblyons@hotmail.com ***************************************** Has anyone read it yet? (Not that I'm endorsing it, but knowledge is power!) Does anyone have any author's insight? Is anyone aware of any defense attorney using this yet? And last but not least, to all of the lab personnel in this List, How can we prepare for it while on the stand? ><< Look what reviewers are saying about TAINTING EVIDENCE > > Washington Post/David Burnham > > Because most of the critics have aimed their fire at the processing of >individual cases brought in geographically dispersed jurisdictions over the >last decade or so, however, the collective weight of these negative >judgements has not been obvious. Tainting Evidence, a powerful new book by >John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, has now provided this disturbing >perspective. The documented failures of the lab, they argue, are not >isolated >events. Rather, they are strong evidence of systematic rot. > > ….. > > Through extensive interviews, detailed analyses of the FBI’s forensic >work >in selected cases, and the intense mining of government documents obtained >under the Freedom of Information Act, Kelly and Wearne persuasively argue >that the lab has frequently failed to meet the scientific and ethical >standards required of such an important institution. They further contend >that when these problems have been disclosed, the agency’s typical >response >has been denial and coverup rather than meaningful corrective action. They >finally assert that the recent remedial steps ordered by FBI Director Louis >Freeh, largely as the result of Whitehurst’s very public disclosures, are >not >adequate. > ….. > > Examing how well or poorly a powerful and secretive agency like the FBI >performs its work is one of the most difficult and important tasks that any >reporter can take on. Kelly and Wearne have met this difficult challenge, >successfully documenting a shocking condition that should outrage every >American concerned with justice. > > > Publishers Weekly > > The media has familiarized the public with the vocabulary of forensic >science: DNA identification, fingerprinting, bomb signatures, etc. However, >as journalists Kelly and Wearne make clear in this expose of the F.B.I. >crime >lab, some of these practices are dubious at best, and any of them is only >as >effective as the scientist behind it. Their book is painstakingly >researched >and detailed … some of it shocking … this volume belongs on the >reading >list of any criminal defense attorney as a road map to the successful >cross-examination of forensic experts. > > > Library Journal > > The reputation of the F.B.I. has suffered in recent years, and this book >will do nothing to rehabilitate it…. it is a scathing criticism, alleging >sloppy, inaccurate forensics, pro-prosecution bias, and false testimony…. >While portraying an agency more concerned with image and power than with >accurate forensic science. As a result, they suggest that thousands of old >verdicts should be revisited. Admirers of the F.B.I. crime lab, such as >David >Fisher in Hard Evidence, may disagree with the conclusions here, but it is >compelling reading for anyone interested in criminal justice or forensics. > > > > > > The Champion/Journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense >Attorneys > > Mr. Hoover’s laboratory has operated with impunity and without proper >oversight for decades. Tainting Evidence allows a peek into the problems >that >came about because of these practice. > > … > > The book employs case studies to illustrate how evidence is tainted… >Major >problems are revealed which primarily relate to contamination and lack of >standards and controls… These charges were confirmed by the IG >investigations. > > … > > Efforts by the FBI laboratory to hide proficiency testing results, to >write >purposefully vague and thus misleading reports is shown time and time >again. >Lack of proper documentation of testing results, and of controls and >standards, is the theme of the case studies. > > … > > Anyone who is involved with scientific laboratory evidence should read >this >book. While it is about the FBI, similar problems exist in most if not all >"crime" labs. Other labs have similar problems, because the influence of >the >FBI has been enormous. Many state and local labs are run in the same >fashion. >This is particularly true when it comes to report writing. Reports >typically >fail to mention any technical underlying data. Also, the same corrupting >forces work upon the forensic scientists in all labs. The prosecutor is >intent upon winning; the more and more convincing evidence from the >forensic >scientist the better. > > Being armed with an understanding of the issues presented by Tainting >Evidence, will allow the defense attorney to demand good and proper >forensic >science. > > > Journal of Forensic Science/American Academy of Forensic Sciences > Ronald K. Wright, MD, JD/Director, Division of Forensic Pathology, >University of Miami Medical School > > Forensic science is a shotgun marriage of science and law. This unhappy >marriage is exposed, at some of its worst, in Tainting Evidence. The >authors >demonstrate that the FBI laboratory, which through years of carefully honed >public relations, dating back to J. Edgar Hoover, has created an image of >infallibility. Analytical science is never infallible; the probabilities of >error can be reduced, but never eliminated. As the FBI laboratory is >believed >by many in and out of the FBI to be infallible, and as it is not, there is >the added tension of infidelity in this shotgun marriage. > > … > > The book concentrates on the "bombers," the folks who do the analytical >chemistry defining the chemical composition of detonated explosives, and >who >also create and test bombs. Often without decontaminating after doing the >latter and handling the former. The exploits and errors of this group in >handling the Unabomber, VANPAC, World Trade, and Oklahoma City case are >examined in detail with good documentation. In addition, the problems with >coverup and just plain poor crime-scene search are documented in the Ruby >Ridge case. Problems in the DNA unit are explored, using the O.J. Simpson >case, as the vehicle. Finally, the hair and fiber unit, and some extremely >bad practices by an examiner from that unit are revealed in a series of >cases >including the Jeffrey MacDonald prosecution. > > The book reads well. The facts that I know first hand are accurate, such >as >the MacDonald case, and what I have observed of FBI laboratory personnel, >generally working with them as prosecution witnesses. > > … > > I recommend this book to anyone who works in or with forensic science >laboratories. The book teaches that the approach to problems should be to >effect change, not attempt to cover them up. Further, the book shows that >it >is important to continually strive to improve our science. > > > TAINTING EVIDENCE: INSIDE THE SCANDALS AT THE FBI CRIME LAB was nominated >for a Pulitzer Prize. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 12:38:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09353 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r19.mail.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09343; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:38:13 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.24.ced0626 (4313); Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:37:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <24.ced0626.273d8c5f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:37:35 EST Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 (fwd) To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO My Book Report... Tainting Evidence is an excellent book. It's written well enough so that even we "lay-persons" can understand it. I think it should be recommended reading for anyone concerned with today's justice system. I think that at times the authors may have been reading a little too much into some of the scenarios but for the most part it's clear, timely information. I see no reason why a defense attorney wouldn't be able to glean some sort of information from it. Unless I'm wrong (yes, this has happened) I think most of the information in the book is available to the general public under the Freedom of Information Act. (I'm sure that there are at least 25 people on the ForensL with opinions about T.E. too -- good and bad.) :) In a message dated 11/10/00 11:42:56 AM, cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu writes: << The following is a post from another list that I subscribe to seeking information concerning this book. John B. Lyons Criminal Investigator County Attorney's Office Johnson County, TX johnblyons@hotmail.com ***************************************** Has anyone read it yet? (Not that I'm endorsing it, but knowledge is power!) Does anyone have any author's insight? Is anyone aware of any defense attorney using this yet? And last but not least, to all of the lab personnel in this List, How can we prepare for it while on the stand? >> Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 12:49:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09478 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:49:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from doaisd01001.state.mt.us (doaisd01001.state.mt.us [161.7.1.78]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09473 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by doaisd01001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:48:35 -0700 Message-ID: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7E43B84@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: air dryers Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:48:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am tailoring California's Sexual Assault Medical Exam protocol documents for Montana. I've come across a discrepancy between California's protocol versus protocol outlined in the video "Sexual Assault, the Health Care Response." (The video was produced in 1998 by Dr. Manfred Hochmeister of the University of Bern, Switzerland, the International Association of Forensic Nurses, and Jamie Ferrell, director of the Texas SANE program.) The California's forms say that California Penal Code... mandates drying swabs/slides (in the hospital) under a stream of cool air for 60 minutes. The video says air dryers are a potential source of contamination and sample mix-up and should not be used. It advocates using a swab box in which swabs are suspended for drying. Is there a consensus as to how swabs should be dried? Is there a documented problem with air dryers? Thanks for your help. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 14:58:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10583 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:58:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA10578 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:58:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mh (iii-pm3-2-38.inland.net [209.85.112.101]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA27891; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:59:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001901c04b51$26f812c0$657055d1@mh> From: "M. Horton" To: "Tom Abercrombie" , Subject: Re: applications Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:02:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I was told that I had an "emotional response" to the narcotics question on the poly even though I have never bought, sold, used, seen, touched, been in the same room as, sniffed, injected, or had any other experience with them. I thought that we had come to the conclusion that the reaction was because my brother had been arrested shortly before the test and had tested positive for narcotics in his blood. Guess that's why they're not admissible as evidence in court, isn't it? I would have gladly submitted to a drug test, but surprisingly, that wasn't a part of the physical examination. They did test my eyes, though :) Thanks, Mike Horton -----Original Message----- From: Tom Abercrombie To: M. Horton ; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 8:01 PM Subject: Re: applications >Mike, > >Absolutely! Call the lab and/or members of the panel >to assist you in understanding why you were not hired. > This is particularly true in light of the background >investigation and/or poly. > >I've been involved in interviewing many prospective >candidates for both my agency as well as others, and >if you were not hired because the panel/lab found >other candidate(s) more technically qualified, then >you need to see where you were "lacking". If, on the >other hand, the background investigation was the >problem, then you need to find out the veracity of the >problematic areas in that process. As for the poly - >-unfortunately, there are still a number of public >crime labs that utilize a polygraph exam in some >context regarding prospective employee qualification. >If it was the poly, then you should be informed of the >specifics regarding the areas in which you "failed" so >that you can respond (if necessary). > > >By the way, what labs have asked you whether you have >"applied and been turned down at another facility"? I >personally feel that question should never be asked >nor should it be a factor of consideration by any >reputable lab. In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion >that the question could be construed as "illegal". > > >Tom Abercrombie >Asst Lab Director >State of Calif >Bureau of Forensic Services >Berkeley DNA Laboratory > > >--- "M. Horton" wrote: >> I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing, >> interviewing, and >> background investigation for a lab in Southern >> California (written test, >> oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, >> background interview, >> questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately, >> I didn't get the >> position. >> My questions are: Would it be professional to call >> and ask why I didn't >> receive the position? and >> How is this going to effect my application to other >> labs? I know that >> several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have >> you ever applied and >> been turned down for a position at another lab?" If >> I answer "Yes" to that >> question it seems as though it would look bad for >> me. >> Thanks in advance, >> Mike Horton >> Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair >> Perris High School >> Perris, CA >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. >http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 15:29:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11107 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:29:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.inland.net (root@ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11102 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mh (iii-pm3-2-38.inland.net [209.85.112.101]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA00172; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:30:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <013301c04b55$75da0660$657055d1@mh> From: "M. Horton" To: "Robert Parsons" , Subject: Re: applications Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:33:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0130_01C04B12.6623F160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0130_01C04B12.6623F160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob Parsons wrote "There is no basis for illegal discrimination in the = question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, ethnicity, = marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., " Hmm. . . that's strange. On the background investigation, they asked if = I've ever had sex with an animal. Maybe that's not what was meant by = "sexual preference":) Of course, my first thought was "Humans belong to = the kingdom Animalia, so yes, I have.", but I didn't want to push = anyone's buttons. The overwhelming response to my question has been, yes I should try to = find out the details of why I wasn't hired. The letter that I received = simply read "We have evaluated your application and qualifications for = the position of Forensic Scientist and you were not selected for this = position. We appreciate your interest in this position and thank you = for your participation." Thanks, Mike Horton -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:54 PM Subject: RE: applications =20 =20 >By the way, what labs have asked you whether you have=20 >"applied and been turned down at another facility"? I=20 >personally feel that question should never be asked=20 >nor should it be a factor of consideration by any=20 >reputable lab. In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion=20 >that the question could be construed as "illegal".=20 Some labs ask that question because if the answer is "yes" they want = to contact that other lab to find out why, just in case the other lab = found out something negative about the applicant that the present lab = isn't aware of. If they find it was just a matter of competition, = that's not a problem; but if it was a matter of a criminal conviction, = failed drug screen, adverse background investigation results, or the = like, that would be a problem and they have a legitimate public interest = in finding out about it. So long as it is asked of all applicants, I = don't see how it could be considered illegal. There is no basis for = illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to = age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual = preferences, etc., which of course are improper. The question of being = turned down for positions previously sought is predicated on reviewing = relevant personal and professional history, not matters of personal = choice or accident of birth. It is analogous to the standard question = in security clearance investigations "Have you ever applied for but been = denied a security clearance in the past, and if so, where/when/why?" = Clearly, there is a legitimate interest for the employer in knowing the = answer to that kind of question. =20 =20 Bob Parsons, F-ABC=20 Forensic Chemist=20 Regional Crime Laboratory=20 at Indian River Community College=20 Ft. Pierce, FL=20 --- "M. Horton" wrote:=20 > I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing,=20 > interviewing, and=20 > background investigation for a lab in Southern=20 > California (written test,=20 > oral test, physical, lie detector, long application,=20 > background interview,=20 > questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately,=20 > I didn't get the=20 > position.=20 > My questions are: Would it be professional to call=20 > and ask why I didn't=20 > receive the position? and=20 > How is this going to effect my application to other=20 > labs? I know that=20 > several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have=20 > you ever applied and=20 > been turned down for a position at another lab?" If=20 > I answer "Yes" to that=20 > question it seems as though it would look bad for=20 > me.=20 > Thanks in advance,=20 > Mike Horton=20 > Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair=20 > Perris High School=20 > Perris, CA=20 >=20 =20 =20 __________________________________________________=20 Do You Yahoo!?=20 Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.=20 http://shopping.yahoo.com/=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0130_01C04B12.6623F160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: applications
Bob Parsons wrote "There is no = basis for=20 illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to = age,=20 gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual = preferences,=20 etc., "
Hmm. . . = that's=20 strange.  On the background investigation, they asked if I've ever = had sex=20 with an animal.  Maybe that's not what was meant by "sexual=20 preference":)  Of course, my first thought was "Humans = belong to=20 the kingdom Animalia, so yes, I have.", but I didn't want to push = anyone's=20 buttons.
The overwhelming response to my question has been, = yes I=20 should try to find out the details of why I wasn't hired.  The = letter that=20 I received simply read "We have evaluated your application and=20 qualifications for the position of Forensic Scientist and you were not = selected=20 for this position.  We appreciate your interest in this position = and thank=20 you for your participation."
Thanks,
Mike Horton
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
= To:=20 forens@statgen.ncsu.edu=20 <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>Date:=20 Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:54 PM
Subject: RE:=20 applications

>By the way, what labs have asked you whether = you=20 have
>"applied and been turned = down at=20 another facility"?  I
>personally feel=20 that question should never be asked
>nor should=20 it be a factor of consideration by any
>reputable=20 lab.  In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion
>that the question could be construed as=20 "illegal".

Some labs ask that question because if the answer = is=20 "yes" they want to contact that other lab to find out why, = just in=20 case the other lab found out something negative about the applicant = that the=20 present lab isn't aware of.  If they find it was just a matter = of=20 competition, that's not a problem; but if it was a matter of a = criminal=20 conviction, failed drug screen, adverse background investigation = results, or=20 the like, that would be a problem and they have a legitimate public = interest=20 in finding out about it.  So long as it is asked of all = applicants, I=20 don't see how it could be considered illegal.  There is no = basis for=20 illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to = age,=20 gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual=20 preferences, etc., which of course are improper.  The question = of being=20 turned down for positions previously sought is predicated on = reviewing=20 relevant personal and professional history, not matters of personal = choice=20 or accident of birth.  It is analogous to the standard question = in=20 security clearance investigations "Have you ever applied for = but been=20 denied a security clearance in the past, and if so,=20 where/when/why?"  Clearly, there is a legitimate interest = for the=20 employer in knowing the answer to that kind of = question.


Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic=20 Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory =
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce,=20 FL

--- "M. Horton" = <scitch@inland.net>=20 wrote:
> I just went through an = exhaustive=20 6-month testing,
> interviewing, = and=20
> background investigation for a lab in = Southern=20
> California (written test,
>=20 oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, =
> background interview,
>=20 questionnaires, transcripts, etc.).  Unfortunately, =
> I didn't get the
> = position.=20
> My questions are: Would it be professional = to=20 call
> and ask why I didn't =
> receive the position?  and
> How=20 is this going to effect my application to other
>=20 labs?  I know that
> several labs = to which=20 I've applied have asked "Have
> = you ever=20 applied and
> been turned down for a = position at=20 another lab?"  If
> I answer=20 "Yes" to that
> question it = seems as=20 though it would look bad for
> = me.=20
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike=20 Horton
> Chemistry/Physics Teacher, = Dept.=20 Chair
> Perris High School =
> Perris, CA
> =


__________________________________________________=20
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of=20 Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place. =
http://shopping.yahoo.com/=20

------=_NextPart_000_0130_01C04B12.6623F160-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 15:55:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11586 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:55:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r06.mail.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11581 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:55:49 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.96.c049426 (4315) for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:55:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <96.c049426.273dbaa6@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:55:02 EST Subject: Sodium Brevital To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Greetings Everyone, I have a friend that asked for information regarding Sodium Brevital. What do you all know about this stuff? She's looked and looked but hasn't found a lot of information. Once again, we're turning to you! Thanks! (Please include poll2@prodigy.net in your replies.) Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 19:09:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13020 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp03.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA13015 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6532 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2000 22:26:45 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.33 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 10 Nov 2000 22:26:45 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 10 Nov 2000 22:22:28 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Nov 10 14:26:11 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:25:27 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:24:52 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Sidg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Sodium Brevital Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Sodium Brevital is also known as Methohexitone (Methohexital) or a-(+)-5-Allyl-methyl-5-(1-methyl-pent-2-ynyl) barbituric acid. It is a barbiturate and is described by E.G.C. Clarke as being short acting. It is commonly used as an anasthetic. Hope this gives you the information you needed. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> 11/10 12:55 PM >>> Greetings Everyone, I have a friend that asked for information regarding Sodium Brevital. What do you all know about this stuff? She's looked and looked but hasn't found a lot of information. Once again, we're turning to you! Thanks! (Please include poll2@prodigy.net in your replies.) Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Fri Nov 10 23:15:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13985 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA13980 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2627 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2000 04:15:20 -0000 Received: from access-5-3.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.121) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2000 04:15:20 -0000 Message-ID: <02a101c04b95$e3cc4800$617237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7E43B84@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> Subject: Re: air dryers Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:14:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I don't have an opinion about drying swabs, but if slides are to examined by Papanicolou stain, they needed to be immediately fixed with alcohol or one of the spray cytology fixatives, just like for any other GYN exam. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ammen, Alice" To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 11:48 AM Subject: air dryers I am tailoring California's Sexual Assault Medical Exam protocol documents for Montana. I've come across a discrepancy between California's protocol versus protocol outlined in the video "Sexual Assault, the Health Care Response." (The video was produced in 1998 by Dr. Manfred Hochmeister of the University of Bern, Switzerland, the International Association of Forensic Nurses, and Jamie Ferrell, director of the Texas SANE program.) The California's forms say that California Penal Code... mandates drying swabs/slides (in the hospital) under a stream of cool air for 60 minutes. The video says air dryers are a potential source of contamination and sample mix-up and should not be used. It advocates using a swab box in which swabs are suspended for drying. Is there a consensus as to how swabs should be dried? Is there a documented problem with air dryers? Thanks for your help. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division From forens-owner Sun Nov 12 18:21:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25772 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25767 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:21:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011122321.SAA25767@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id VS3VZGLP; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:28:14 +1300 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:26:00 +1200 From: "Ashton, Jason" Subject: Query: Fast Black K To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Our lab is in the process of looking for alternatives to Fast Blue B (which is carcinogenic) for use with seminal fluids. Fast Black K has been identified as a possibility. Is there anyone on the list currently using Fast Black K who would be willing to share insights, methods, peculiarities... of this chemical? Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason M Ashton Information and Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd Private Bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand From forens-owner Sun Nov 12 18:32:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA25904 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:32:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (root@yowie.cc.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25898 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from cadaver22.anatomy.uq.edu.au ([130.102.138.29]) by yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA09141 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:32:01 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001113093237.00f065ac@student.uq.edu.au> X-Sender: s330991@student.uq.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:32:37 +1100 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Dayman Steptoe Subject: Bone DNA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Has anyone on the list been extracting mtDNA/gDNA from salt/fresh waterlogged bones? Dayman Steptoe _______________________________________________________ Dayman Steptoe JP(Qual). Forensic Osteology & DNA Analysis (PhD studies) Department of Anatomical Sciences & INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCE incorporating The Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology The Centre for Drug Design and Development ARC Special Research Centre for Functional and Applied Genomics The University of Queensland St. Lucia QLD 4072, AUSTRALIA From forens-owner Sun Nov 12 20:05:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA26346 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA26341 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:05:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.1.28]) by mail.i2020.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:04:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0F3B5A.8F3CD6FA@i2020.net> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:52:42 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forensics list Subject: [Fwd: Get your Diploma here!!] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Something for everyone on your holiday gift list ... Sheila Berry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Get your Diploma here!! Date: 12 Nov 00 7:51:10 PM From: keeper195@aichi.com Reply-To: Sally@aol.com To: Nancy@hotmail.com UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS Obtain a prosperous future, money earning power, and the admiration of all. Diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities based on your present knowledge and life experience. No required tests, classes, books, or interviews. Bachelors, masters, MBA, and doctorate (PhD) diplomas available in the field of your choice. No one is turned down. Confidentiality assured. CALL NOW to receive your diploma within days!!! 1-602-230-4252 Call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including Sundays and holidays. From forens-owner Mon Nov 13 08:33:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29783 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:33:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r04.mail.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29778 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:33:13 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.4b.361a352 (4319); Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:32:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4b.361a352.27414778@aol.com> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:32:40 EST Subject: Sodium Brevital 1976-Present To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, poll2@prodigy.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Another couple of questions about Sodium Brevital. How was sodium brevital used in 1976 verses 2000. And, have other drugs taken its place as far as it being used as a "truth serum"? Thanks! Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm (campaign index - William Thomas Zeigler, Jr.) www.justicedenied.org From forens-owner Mon Nov 13 10:40:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01376 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01371 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:40:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:40:28 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:45:42 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] >From forens-owner Mon Nov 13 01:45:42 2000 Received: from amsnt1.amslab.ch ([164.128.70.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA28179 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from amslab.ch ([192.168.3.182] (may be forged)) by amsnt1.amslab.ch (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with ESMTP id HAA00052 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:49:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3A0F8E0A.D76F6FED@amslab.ch> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:45:31 +0100 From: Raphael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: QA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear colleagues, In Switzerland, guidelines for the accreditation of forensic DNA laboratories have been prepared under the authority of the Swiss accreditation service, based on ILAC, ENFSI DNA WG, DAB documents. But these guidelines contain a requirement to do each analysis independantly twice !! This seems to be an astounding requirement with important consequences on the routine practice and the costs. Thus I would be glad to know: - if your accreditation guidelines contain similar requirements - if there are similar requirements in fields comparable to forensic DNA analysis. Thank you in advance. -- Raphael Coquoz Institut de Police Scientifique et de Criminologie UNIL-BCH, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 41 21 692 46 00, Fax 41 21 692 46 05, raphael.coquoz@ipsc.unil.ch Laboratoire AMS, pl. de la Navigation 10, 1006 Lausanne, Switzerland 41 21 613 70 40, Fax 41 21 613 70 49, raphael.coquoz@amslab.ch From forens-owner Mon Nov 13 10:43:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01852 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01847 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:43:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1153 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2000 15:40:05 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.31 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Nov 2000 15:40:05 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 13 Nov 2000 15:35:34 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Nov 13 07:39:28 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:38:44 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:38:11 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: JAshton@esr.cri.nz, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Query: Fast Black K Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am surprised that you are not using thymolphthalein as your screeening reagent for seminal fluid. I believe it is more specific for human acid phosphatase than fast blue B or para nitrophenol. It yields a blue color when .5 N NaOH is added. I suggest you give it a try. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Ashton, Jason" 11/12 4:26 PM >>> Our lab is in the process of looking for alternatives to Fast Blue B (which is carcinogenic) for use with seminal fluids. Fast Black K has been identified as a possibility. Is there anyone on the list currently using Fast Black K who would be willing to share insights, methods, peculiarities... of this chemical? Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason M Ashton Information and Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd Private Bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 09:29:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08923 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:29:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ascl-image.ascl.state.ar.us (ascl.state.ar.us [170.94.222.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08917 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:29:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by ASCL-IMAGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:40:12 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Taylor, Jeff" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: ASCLAD SOP help Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:40:08 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04DB1.EB8AA5FA" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04DB1.EB8AA5FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" My trace evidence section at the Arkansas St. Crime Lab is trying to write S.O.P.s for ASCLAD accreditation. I would like to get examples of these written procedures from labs that have gone through this before. I am especially having trouble with writing the SOPs for the miscellaneous tests that we do such as motor oil, poison, and unknown identification analyses. Any input or examples would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04DB1.EB8AA5FA Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ASCLAD SOP help

My trace evidence section at the Arkansas St. Crime = Lab is trying to write S.O.P.s for ASCLAD accreditation.

I would like to get examples of these written = procedures from labs that have gone through this before.  I am = especially having trouble with writing the SOPs for the miscellaneous = tests that we do such as motor oil, poison, and unknown identification = analyses.

Any input or examples would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04DB1.EB8AA5FA-- From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 09:56:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA09464 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:56:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ircc.net (root@mail.ircc.net [209.149.16.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA09458 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:56:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by mail.ircc.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA25670 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for mail.ircc.net [209.149.16.226]) with SMTP; 13 Nov 2000 22:35:16 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:33:54 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: applications Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:33:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04DC1.CDF74E5C" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04DC1.CDF74E5C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Mike, I find that question on the application to be a very amusing anachronism. I suppose it's based on the fact that in many states, sex with an animal is still technically a crime (I don't understand why it should be, but I understand even less why anyone would commit such an act in the first place - yuk!). Most states have stopped trying to legislate sexual morality, and even those with some such laws still on the books tend to either not enforce them or enforce them only when an "added charge" is desired peripheral to another offense. Actually, while most states have removed sex laws involving consenting adults (except for prostitution) from the criminal statutes, homosexual relations is still technically illegal in a few states, so I guess I should not have included "sexual preferences" in the list of questions that are illegal to ask about (I still think it's an improper question, though, with no bearing on a person's ability to do their job). I know it's illegal to ask in some places at least, including the military. The letter you received is typical of form rejection letters, i.e., not very useful. By all means, call and inquire. You'll probably get a reasonably helpful response if you talk to the right person (lab director or personnel manager). Good luck! Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: M. Horton [mailto:scitch@inland.net] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:33 PM To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: applications Bob Parsons wrote "There is no basis for illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., " Hmm. . . that's strange. On the background investigation, they asked if I've ever had sex with an animal. Maybe that's not what was meant by "sexual preference":) Of course, my first thought was "Humans belong to the kingdom Animalia, so yes, I have.", but I didn't want to push anyone's buttons. The overwhelming response to my question has been, yes I should try to find out the details of why I wasn't hired. The letter that I received simply read "We have evaluated your application and qualifications for the position of Forensic Scientist and you were not selected for this position. We appreciate your interest in this position and thank you for your participation." Thanks, Mike Horton -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons < rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu < forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:54 PM Subject: RE: applications >By the way, what labs have asked you whether you have >"applied and been turned down at another facility"? I >personally feel that question should never be asked >nor should it be a factor of consideration by any >reputable lab. In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion >that the question could be construed as "illegal". Some labs ask that question because if the answer is "yes" they want to contact that other lab to find out why, just in case the other lab found out something negative about the applicant that the present lab isn't aware of. If they find it was just a matter of competition, that's not a problem; but if it was a matter of a criminal conviction, failed drug screen, adverse background investigation results, or the like, that would be a problem and they have a legitimate public interest in finding out about it. So long as it is asked of all applicants, I don't see how it could be considered illegal. There is no basis for illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., which of course are improper. The question of being turned down for positions previously sought is predicated on reviewing relevant personal and professional history, not matters of personal choice or accident of birth. It is analogous to the standard question in security clearance investigations "Have you ever applied for but been denied a security clearance in the past, and if so, where/when/why?" Clearly, there is a legitimate interest for the employer in knowing the answer to that kind of question. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL --- "M. Horton" wrote: > I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing, > interviewing, and > background investigation for a lab in Southern > California (written test, > oral test, physical, lie detector, long application, > background interview, > questionnaires, transcripts, etc.). Unfortunately, > I didn't get the > position. > My questions are: Would it be professional to call > and ask why I didn't > receive the position? and > How is this going to effect my application to other > labs? I know that > several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have > you ever applied and > been turned down for a position at another lab?" If > I answer "Yes" to that > question it seems as though it would look bad for > me. > Thanks in advance, > Mike Horton > Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair > Perris High School > Perris, CA > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04DC1.CDF74E5C Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" RE: applications
Mike,
 
I find that question on the application to be a very amusing anachronism.  I suppose it's based on the fact that in many states, sex with an animal is still technically a crime  (I don't understand why it should be, but I understand even less why anyone would commit such an act in the first place - yuk!).  Most states have stopped trying to legislate sexual morality, and even those with some such laws still on the books tend to either not enforce them or enforce them only when an "added charge" is desired peripheral to another offense.  Actually,  while most states have removed sex laws involving consenting adults (except for prostitution) from the criminal statutes, homosexual relations is still technically illegal in a few states, so I guess I should not have included "sexual preferences" in the list of questions that are illegal to ask about (I still think it's an improper question, though, with no bearing on a person's ability to do their job).  I know it's illegal to ask in some places at least, including the military.
 
The letter you received is typical of form rejection letters, i.e., not very useful.  By all means, call and inquire.  You'll probably get a reasonably helpful response if you talk to the right person (lab director or personnel manager).  Good luck!
 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: M. Horton [mailto:scitch@inland.net]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:33 PM
To: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: applications

Bob Parsons wrote "There is no basis for illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., "
Hmm. . . that's strange.  On the background investigation, they asked if I've ever had sex with an animal.  Maybe that's not what was meant by "sexual preference":)  Of course, my first thought was "Humans belong to the kingdom Animalia, so yes, I have.", but I didn't want to push anyone's buttons.
The overwhelming response to my question has been, yes I should try to find out the details of why I wasn't hired.  The letter that I received simply read "We have evaluated your application and qualifications for the position of Forensic Scientist and you were not selected for this position.  We appreciate your interest in this position and thank you for your participation."
Thanks,
Mike Horton
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Parsons <rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: applications

>By the way, what labs have asked you whether you have
>"applied and been turned down at another facility"?  I
>personally feel that question should never be asked
>nor should it be a factor of consideration by any
>reputable lab.  In fact, I'm strongly of the opinion
>that the question could be construed as "illegal".

Some labs ask that question because if the answer is "yes" they want to contact that other lab to find out why, just in case the other lab found out something negative about the applicant that the present lab isn't aware of.  If they find it was just a matter of competition, that's not a problem; but if it was a matter of a criminal conviction, failed drug screen, adverse background investigation results, or the like, that would be a problem and they have a legitimate public interest in finding out about it.  So long as it is asked of all applicants, I don't see how it could be considered illegal.  There is no basis for illegal discrimination in the question, unlike questions relating to age, gender, race, ethnicity, marital status, parental status, sexual preferences, etc., which of course are improper.  The question of being turned down for positions previously sought is predicated on reviewing relevant personal and professional history, not matters of personal choice or accident of birth.  It is analogous to the standard question in security clearance investigations "Have you ever applied for but been denied a security clearance in the past, and if so, where/when/why?"  Clearly, there is a legitimate interest for the employer in knowing the answer to that kind of question.


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

--- "M. Horton" <scitch@inland.net> wrote:
> I just went through an exhaustive 6-month testing,
> interviewing, and
> background investigation for a lab in Southern
> California (written test,
> oral test, physical, lie detector, long application,
> background interview,
> questionnaires, transcripts, etc.).  Unfortunately,
> I didn't get the
> position.
> My questions are: Would it be professional to call
> and ask why I didn't
> receive the position?  and
> How is this going to effect my application to other
> labs?  I know that
> several labs to which I've applied have asked "Have
> you ever applied and
> been turned down for a position at another lab?"  If
> I answer "Yes" to that
> question it seems as though it would look bad for
> me.
> Thanks in advance,
> Mike Horton
> Chemistry/Physics Teacher, Dept. Chair
> Perris High School
> Perris, CA
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04DC1.CDF74E5C-- From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 10:13:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10216 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:13:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from agency6.state.ky.us (agency6.state.ky.us [162.114.120.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10211 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:13:32 -0500 (EST) From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Received: by agency6.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:08:35 -0500 Message-ID: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: lithium metal analysis Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:09:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Has anyone ever been asked to examine Lithium metal? If so what safety precautions did you take and how did you go about testing the metal? Did you react the metal with anyting to make a salt? I haven't agreed to accept this evidence yet and I need some input. Tracy From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 10:16:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10369 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:16:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10364 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:16:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2000 15:15:58 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:24:43 -0800 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE047F140@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'Ammen, Alice'" Cc: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: air dryers Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 13:24:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I know the swab drying boxes (and the Title 22 California Protocol) originated in the pre-DNA days. The drying box was invented to greatly increase the typability of enzymes on vaginal swabs (PGM and PEP A -- for you youngsters, that's short for phophoglucomutase & peptidase A). Obviously, since we were not amplifying the enzymes, contamination was not an issue (but as we saw in OJ, incomplete drying sure can be). I have not heard any specific info on problems with swab drying boxes. Where did you order the video? I'd like to have a look at exactly what they mean by a "swab box". Thanks. Jeff Thompson, F-ABC Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Ammen, Alice [mailto:aammen@state.mt.us] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:49 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: air dryers I am tailoring California's Sexual Assault Medical Exam protocol documents for Montana. I've come across a discrepancy between California's protocol versus protocol outlined in the video "Sexual Assault, the Health Care Response." (The video was produced in 1998 by Dr. Manfred Hochmeister of the University of Bern, Switzerland, the International Association of Forensic Nurses, and Jamie Ferrell, director of the Texas SANE program.) The California's forms say that California Penal Code... mandates drying swabs/slides (in the hospital) under a stream of cool air for 60 minutes. The video says air dryers are a potential source of contamination and sample mix-up and should not be used. It advocates using a swab box in which swabs are suspended for drying. Is there a consensus as to how swabs should be dried? Is there a documented problem with air dryers? Thanks for your help. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 10:45:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11140 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11135 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:45:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17871 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2000 15:44:52 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.31 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Nov 2000 15:44:52 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2000 15:40:16 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Tue Nov 14 07:44:13 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 07:43:30 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 07:42:28 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: lithium metal analysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Tracey, By lithium metal, I am assuming you are meaning pure elemental lithium. I have seen this in the form of a wire stored under kerosene. It is very light, so you can establish density. It reacts violently in water producing hydrogen gas and lithium hydroxide which is basic. If you have instrumentation such as SEM/EDX or ICP/MS you could identify it. Feigl and Anger's Spot Tests in Inorganic Analysis describe several microchemical tests including reacting a neutral or alkaline solution with iron III periodate and saturated NaCl. Etching a microscope slide by fusing the solution to the glass or mixing a suspension with magnesium carbonate in water followed by 20% KOH in acetone to which is added a 0.2% solution of the azo dye thoron. A yellow chelate is formed. Of course you will need to run blanks or standards and get a special indulgence from ASCLD/LAB. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> 11/14 7:09 AM >>> Has anyone ever been asked to examine Lithium metal? If so what safety precautions did you take and how did you go about testing the metal? Did you react the metal with anyting to make a salt? I haven't agreed to accept this evidence yet and I need some input. Tracy From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 11:13:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12002 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11996 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:13:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop ([63.203.75.226]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0G4000KS16MQN6@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:11:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:58:01 -0800 From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Query: Fast Black K In-reply-to: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0G4000KS36MQN6@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 07:38 AM 11/13/2000 -0800, Greg Laskowski wrote: >I am surprised that you are not using thymolphthalein as your screeening >reagent for seminal fluid. I believe it is more specific for human acid >phosphatase than fast blue B or para nitrophenol. It yields a blue color >when .5 N NaOH is added. How can thymolphthalein be more specific for human acid phosphatase? Doesn't the acid phosphatase act on a phosphate substrate? Could you explain? or supply a reference? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 11:13:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12016 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12001 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:13:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop ([63.203.75.226]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0G4000KS16MQN6@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:11:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:02:28 -0800 From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] (fwd) In-reply-to: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0G4000KS76MQN6@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 10:40 AM 11/13/2000 -0500, Raphael Coquoz wrote: >In Switzerland, guidelines for the accreditation of forensic DNA >laboratories have been prepared under the authority of the Swiss >accreditation service, based on ILAC, ENFSI DNA WG, DAB documents. But >these guidelines contain a requirement to do each analysis independantly > >twice !! > >This seems to be an astounding requirement with important consequences >on the routine practice and the costs. What part of the analysis is to be done twice. Since forensic sampels are unique, and even a single stain cannot be assumed to be homogeneous, how can you ever really be sure you are do the same analysis twice. But that issue aside, at what point along the path from the original evidence to sub samples, to extractions to PCR products, etc., is the second analysis supposed to start. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 11:24:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12511 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp06.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA12506 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:24:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29105 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2000 16:23:21 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.36 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 14 Nov 2000 16:23:21 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2000 16:18:45 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Tue Nov 14 08:22:42 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:21:58 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:21:15 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: pbarnett@FSALab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Query: Fast Black K Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Pete, You must have missed my second post where I corrected myself. It is more specific for the enzyme acid phosphatase as opposed to human semen. Less false positives as compared to the other more well known reagents. I believe the cite is in an old 1980s FBI proceedings on sexual assault evidence. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "Peter D. Barnett" 11/13 10:58 PM >>> At 07:38 AM 11/13/2000 -0800, Greg Laskowski wrote: >I am surprised that you are not using thymolphthalein as your screeening >reagent for seminal fluid. I believe it is more specific for human acid >phosphatase than fast blue B or para nitrophenol. It yields a blue color >when .5 N NaOH is added. How can thymolphthalein be more specific for human acid phosphatase? Doesn't the acid phosphatase act on a phosphate substrate? Could you explain? or supply a reference? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 11:51:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13369 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13364 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:51:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-111.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.111]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id eAEGpOL21127 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:51:24 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001114083451.00aa9d70@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:46:36 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Query: Fast Black K In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 08:21 AM 11/14/00 -0800, Greg Laskowski wrote >You must have missed my second post where I corrected myself. It is more >specific for the enzyme acid phosphatase as opposed to human semen. Less >false positives as compared to the other more well known reagents. I >believe the cite is in an old 1980s FBI proceedings on sexual assault >evidence. The publication from the 1983 FBI Sexual Assault Symposium contains an abstract by Seiden and Duncan which says that use of sodium thymolphthalein was shown to give results which "correlated exactly" with tests using o-dianisidine. In both tests alpha naphthyl phosphate was used as the enzyme substrate. In that same publication a paper by Sensabaugh shows that the enzymatic activity of seminal and vaginal acid phosphatase is the same for several different substrates. So, while the use of the thymolphthalein as the dye in the presumptive tests for acid phosphatase may have some advantages (namely, avoidance of a carcinogenic product which was the point of the Seiden and Duncan article), increased specificity for human acid phosphatase is not one of them. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 12:00:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13711 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13675 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from iceberg (1Cust213.tnt1.coos-bay.or.da.uu.net [63.27.176.213]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA26344; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:59:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000101c04e5c$67743280$d5b01b3f@iceberg.com> Reply-To: "Poosakey" From: "Poosakey" To: "Forens-L" , "Richard Mato" , "Joe Vocht" , "John Kelly" , "Frederic Whitehurst" , "Charlotte Wheeler" , "Bobbi Stewart" Subject: 11-14-00 = WP, Peter Slevin; for DNA detectives, the workload is exploding Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:38:21 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C04E16.3EC32F80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C04E16.3EC32F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For DNA Detectives, the Workload Is Exploding=20 By Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday , November 14, 2000 ; Page A03=20 NEW YORK -- Seven teenage girls suffered and three died, strangled in = East Harlem by a rapist plying his vile craft. Despite significant = similarities, police failed to link the crimes for eight years. Then = science revealed something that shoe leather missed. DNA tests conducted on male body fluids retrieved from two girls pointed = to the same man. Further tests showed connections among three, then = four, then five assaults. Soon, lab technicians skimmed a genetic = profile from saliva on a drinking cup and prosecutors indicted a = pleasant-looking man from the neighborhood in four rapes and three = murders. Arohn Kee is now on trial in New York Superior Court, contesting a case = that illustrates law enforcement's growing reliance on DNA evidence and = the substantial new investment in the technology and training to make it = work. Flocks of attackers remain at large, as anonymous as Kee once was, = statistics on unsolved crimes reveal. Authorities are convinced many can = be captured if the proper collection of DNA evidence becomes routine and = the national databanks of genetic profiles grow large. Yet so strong is the DNA push, and so numerous are the prospective = pieces of evidence, that forensic laboratories across the country cannot = keep up. Hundreds of thousands of untested samples are stacked up in evidence = rooms--180,000 sets of rape evidence alone. Cold cases are being = reviewed and old cases are being reopened. Another torrent of samples is = coming from felons required by law to give DNA samples upon conviction. Politicians are searching their budgets to meet the demand. New York = state alone will spend $13.2 million this year on DNA work and training, = compared with $750,000 in 1995 and nothing in 1990. Last month, New York = City allocated $12 million to test more than 12,000 rape kits piled for = years in a Queens warehouse. Virginia is spending $9.6 million to clear = its own backlog of more than 100,000 offender profiles. "The number of samples we receive on violent crime has increased by 10 = times in the last five years. Such things as hair, blood spatter, any = type of biological tissue. Coffee cups, soda cans, toothbrushes, bubble = gum," said New York State Police forensic scientist Mark Dale. Every day, felons leave bits of themselves at crime scenes. It happens = when they commit a sexual assault. Or when they sneeze or cut = themselves, or hot-wire a car or drink a beer from the refrigerator. As = few as 50 human cells can provide a genetic fingerprint with the power = to damn or absolve. "It becomes the equivalent," said Jonathan L. Arden, the District's = chief medical examiner, "of walking down the street and being = simultaneously struck by lightning and bitten by an alligator." The importance of DNA is pushing police officers, prosecutors and = defense lawyers to do their jobs differently. "Very few people either take advantage of it or know about it. We're so = swamped with crime, assistant DAs come through and they don't have DNA = training," said Dale Reeves, senior trial attorney in the Brooklyn = district attorney's office. As laboratories hurry to increase capacity, law enforcement personnel = have developed strategies to push the most significant cases to the head = of the line, where they will get faster attention. They say the backlog = does not interfere with high-profile investigations, nor with gun = crimes, which rarely involve DNA. To give scientists enough material to work with, defense attorney Peter = Neufeld favors more rigorous training, particularly among police = personnel. He believes greater investigative precision--and larger = databases--will increase the chance that the right suspect will be found = and innocent clients will remain free. Sometimes DNA evidence goes unnoticed or is improperly stored, = permitting contamination. In 1.5 million pamphlets distributed recently = by the Justice Department, officers are told to dry evidence properly = and to store it in paper, not plastic bags. And not to sneeze or cough, = which could spread the officer's own DNA. "You need good detectives and good people upstream, or the stuff that = ends up downstream in the labs is going to be junk," said Neufeld, = co-founder of the Innocence Project, which has helped clear more than 30 = wrongly convicted suspects. "Or it could be worse. It could exclude = somebody." Growing numbers of convicted offenders are required to give DNA samples. = Virginia, the first state to require all felons to surrender DNA, has = identified suspects in 140 crimes this year through its own database, = more than in the previous nine years combined. In New York, where most = felons must give samples, Gov. George E. Pataki (R) favors extending the = statute of limitations to prosecute new suspects in old cases. That expanded database soon solved a nearly forgotten murder case. Diane Gregory, 22, was stabbed to death in Mount Vernon, N.Y., but the = crime remained unsolved for 20 years. Her sister saw a news report on = DNA and asked whether the technique could solve the crime. DNA from a = bed sheet matched that of Walter Gill, a convicted felon at Sing Sing = prison who had been required to give a DNA sample. FBI computers now hold more than 500,000 DNA profiles. As more cases are = solved, investigators are learning that databases are particularly = useful in crimes committed in multiple jurisdictions. As Col. Michael = Robinson of the Michigan State Police said, "Criminals are more mobile = than we thought before." Two 1995 rapes in Georgia and one in Wisconsin were linked to the same = person through the national DNA databank. In 1998, the same unidentified = suspect was connected through DNA to a new rape. When the man was = arrested for an unrelated theft, fingerprints tied him to one case and = gave authorities probable cause to take blood for a DNA sample. The DNA = connected him to all four sex crimes. Hoping to enlarge the two-year-old national database, governments are = spending more money and requiring more subsets of offenders to = contribute DNA. The Justice Department distributed $14.4 million to 21 = states this year to help clear backlogs. A bill passed last month by the = House would budget $170 million more and mandate DNA testing in the = District. In some cases in which no attacker has been named, Milwaukee prosecutors = have indicted 12 rape suspects identified only by their DNA marker. By = charging the John Doe dozen before the statute of limitations ran out, = prosecutors hoped to keep the cases alive until a suspect is identified. One in four DNA analyses conducted by the FBI exonerates the suspect. = More than 60 convicted felons across the country have been cleared by = DNA tests, often years after the crime. In the Kee case in East Harlem, = two accused men were freed when their DNA did not match the alleged = attacker's. Genetic profiling is becoming a factor not only in the way police think = but also in the way suspects prepare. Rapists, often aware of the power = of DNA, more frequently wear condoms. Burglars more often wear gloves. = Assailants of various types more often try to clean up after themselves. Jeanine Pirro, Westchester County district attorney, said young = offenders once tended to wash their clothes after a fight, stabbing or = shooting. Now, she reported, many have heard that biological evidence = can survive detergent, so they destroy their clothes. Not that the strategems always work. "Fortunately for us, the bad guys frequently remain stupid," said Linda = Fairstein, head of the Manhattan district attorney's sex crimes unit. = "Many of them know about DNA now, so they will do things like bring = condoms to a sexual assault. They fortunately remain dumb enough that = they will leave the condom in a wastebasket, giving us the DNA." Law officers and evidence collectors are being taught to look in unusual = places where DNA might be found. Saliva on the mouth hole in a ski mask. = Sweat on a baseball cap or tennis shoes or the nose piece of sunglasses. = A toothpick, a cigarette butt, a bite mark, a bullet that entered and = exited a body. In Austin, an attacker wore gloves and a condom when he raped a woman. = Investigators found a telephone cord the assailant had used in the = attack and learned that he held one end in his mouth while he restrained = the woman. The cord revealed DNA, and there was more on the woman's neck = where he kissed her. In Brooklyn, where the defendant's DNA did not match the semen found at = a rape-murder scene, a prostitute testified that the defendant had = bought 10 or 15 used condoms from her. Prosecutors argued that he likely = left one such condom at the scene, but the jury acquitted the man on the = basis of reasonable doubt. In Milwaukee, Anthony Turner was in jail, charged with rape, when he = tried to discredit the supposed certainty of genetic profiles. While he = was behind bars, a distraught woman dialed 911 to report a rape that = resembled Turner's style. More remarkably, DNA from the scene matched = Turner's. Skeptical investigators, however, learned that Turner had sent a plastic = container of his body fluids to his family, who paid $50 to the woman to = stage the rape. He is serving a 120-year prison term. Suspects increasingly aware tend to be increasingly suspicious, knowing = that police cannot draw blood or command a mouth swab at will. If = officers cannot establish probable cause sufficient to convince a judge = to order a sample, they must resort to alternatives and hope for a lucky = break. A suspected serial killer in Brooklyn refused to give a sample, so = detectives scooped up phlegm he had coughed up in the parking lot. The = resulting genetic profile tied him to four killings, said prosecutor = Dale Reeves. In the Kee case, police felt sure from other evidence that he was their = man, but they lacked probable cause. They followed him, hoping he would = spit or discard a soda cup. When he was arrested for an unrelated = computer equipment theft, a detective wore a white lab coat and = pretended to be a doctor conducting a tuberculosis survey. Kee, 29, known in the neighborhood as "Ace," became suspicious when = asked to sign a release permitting a swab to be tested for DNA. He = refused to go through with it, but when he left the interview room, = prosecutors said, he left behind a cardboard coffee container. There was = enough saliva on the lip to provide a DNA sample that connected Kee to = the killings and rapes. A judge ruled the evidence admissible. Once law enforcement had Kee's DNA, prosecutor John Irwin told the = 12-member jury, "it was over for him." Not only was Kee allegedly connected to the crimes by DNA, but two men = identified as attackers by two young victims and arrested were freed by = the same genetic tests. One suspect indicted in the case had been = recently paroled on a sex crime and was seen nearby by neighbors before = and after the rape. He had even changed clothes. "There's no question that any one of our experienced sex crimes = prosecutors could have convicted this man," prosecutor Fairstein said. = "That's very frightening." =A9 2000 The Washington Post=20 Poo-sa'-key 960 Division Street Bandon, OR 97411 541.347.9848 poosakey@earthlink.net ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C04E16.3EC32F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For DNA Detectives, the Workload Is = Exploding=20

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff = Writer
Tuesday ,=20 November 14, 2000 ; Page A03

NEW YORK –– Seven teenage girls suffered and three died, = strangled in East=20 Harlem by a rapist plying his vile craft. Despite significant = similarities,=20 police failed to link the crimes for eight years. Then science revealed=20 something that shoe leather missed.

DNA tests conducted on male body fluids retrieved from two girls = pointed to=20 the same man. Further tests showed connections among three, then four, = then five=20 assaults. Soon, lab technicians skimmed a genetic profile from saliva on = a=20 drinking cup and prosecutors indicted a pleasant-looking man from the=20 neighborhood in four rapes and three murders.

Arohn Kee is now on trial in New York Superior Court, contesting a = case that=20 illustrates law enforcement's growing reliance on DNA evidence and the=20 substantial new investment in the technology and training to make it = work.

Flocks of attackers remain at large, as anonymous as Kee once was, = statistics=20 on unsolved crimes reveal. Authorities are convinced many can be = captured if the=20 proper collection of DNA evidence becomes routine and the national = databanks of=20 genetic profiles grow large.

Yet so strong is the DNA push, and so numerous are the prospective = pieces of=20 evidence, that forensic laboratories across the country cannot keep = up.

Hundreds of thousands of untested samples are stacked up in evidence=20 rooms--180,000 sets of rape evidence alone. Cold cases are being = reviewed and=20 old cases are being reopened. Another torrent of samples is coming from = felons=20 required by law to give DNA samples upon conviction.

Politicians are searching their budgets to meet the demand. New York = state=20 alone will spend $13.2 million this year on DNA work and training, = compared with=20 $750,000 in 1995 and nothing in 1990. Last month, New York City = allocated $12=20 million to test more than 12,000 rape kits piled for years in a Queens=20 warehouse. Virginia is spending $9.6 million to clear its own backlog of = more=20 than 100,000 offender profiles.

"The number of samples we receive on violent crime has increased by = 10 times=20 in the last five years. Such things as hair, blood spatter, any type of=20 biological tissue. Coffee cups, soda cans, toothbrushes, bubble gum," = said New=20 York State Police forensic scientist Mark Dale.

Every day, felons leave bits of themselves at crime scenes. It = happens when=20 they commit a sexual assault. Or when they sneeze or cut themselves, or = hot-wire=20 a car or drink a beer from the refrigerator. As few as 50 human cells = can=20 provide a genetic fingerprint with the power to damn or absolve.

"It becomes the equivalent," said Jonathan L. Arden, the District's = chief=20 medical examiner, "of walking down the street and being simultaneously = struck by=20 lightning and bitten by an alligator."

The importance of DNA is pushing police officers, prosecutors and = defense=20 lawyers to do their jobs differently.

"Very few people either take advantage of it or know about it. We're = so=20 swamped with crime, assistant DAs come through and they don't have DNA=20 training," said Dale Reeves, senior trial attorney in the Brooklyn = district=20 attorney's office.

As laboratories hurry to increase capacity, law enforcement personnel = have=20 developed strategies to push the most significant cases to the head of = the line,=20 where they will get faster attention. They say the backlog does not = interfere=20 with high-profile investigations, nor with gun crimes, which rarely = involve=20 DNA.

To give scientists enough material to work with, defense attorney = Peter=20 Neufeld favors more rigorous training, particularly among police = personnel. He=20 believes greater investigative precision--and larger databases--will = increase=20 the chance that the right suspect will be found and innocent clients = will remain=20 free.

Sometimes DNA evidence goes unnoticed or is improperly stored, = permitting=20 contamination. In 1.5 million pamphlets distributed recently by the = Justice=20 Department, officers are told to dry evidence properly and to store it = in paper,=20 not plastic bags. And not to sneeze or cough, which could spread the = officer's=20 own DNA.

"You need good detectives and good people upstream, or the stuff that = ends up=20 downstream in the labs is going to be junk," said Neufeld, co-founder of = the=20 Innocence Project, which has helped clear more than 30 wrongly convicted = suspects. "Or it could be worse. It could exclude somebody."

Growing numbers of convicted offenders are required to give DNA = samples.=20 Virginia, the first state to require all felons to surrender DNA, has = identified=20 suspects in 140 crimes this year through its own database, more than in = the=20 previous nine years combined. In New York, where most felons must give = samples,=20 Gov. George E. Pataki (R) favors extending the statute of limitations to = prosecute new suspects in old cases.

That expanded database soon solved a nearly forgotten murder = case.

Diane Gregory, 22, was stabbed to death in Mount Vernon, N.Y., but = the crime=20 remained unsolved for 20 years. Her sister saw a news report on DNA and = asked=20 whether the technique could solve the crime. DNA from a bed sheet = matched that=20 of Walter Gill, a convicted felon at Sing Sing prison who had been = required to=20 give a DNA sample.

FBI computers now hold more than 500,000 DNA profiles. As more cases = are=20 solved, investigators are learning that databases are particularly = useful in=20 crimes committed in multiple jurisdictions. As Col. Michael Robinson of = the=20 Michigan State Police said, "Criminals are more mobile than we thought=20 before."

Two 1995 rapes in Georgia and one in Wisconsin were linked to the = same person=20 through the national DNA databank. In 1998, the same unidentified = suspect was=20 connected through DNA to a new rape. When the man was arrested for an = unrelated=20 theft, fingerprints tied him to one case and gave authorities probable = cause to=20 take blood for a DNA sample. The DNA connected him to all four sex = crimes.

Hoping to enlarge the two-year-old national database, governments are = spending more money and requiring more subsets of offenders to = contribute DNA.=20 The Justice Department distributed $14.4 million to 21 states this year = to help=20 clear backlogs. A bill passed last month by the House would budget $170 = million=20 more and mandate DNA testing in the District.

In some cases in which no attacker has been named, Milwaukee = prosecutors have=20 indicted 12 rape suspects identified only by their DNA marker. By = charging the=20 John Doe dozen before the statute of limitations ran out, prosecutors = hoped to=20 keep the cases alive until a suspect is identified.

One in four DNA analyses conducted by the FBI exonerates the suspect. = More=20 than 60 convicted felons across the country have been cleared by DNA = tests,=20 often years after the crime. In the Kee case in East Harlem, two accused = men=20 were freed when their DNA did not match the alleged attacker's.

Genetic profiling is becoming a factor not only in the way police = think but=20 also in the way suspects prepare. Rapists, often aware of the power of = DNA, more=20 frequently wear condoms. Burglars more often wear gloves. Assailants of = various=20 types more often try to clean up after themselves.

Jeanine Pirro, Westchester County district attorney, said young = offenders=20 once tended to wash their clothes after a fight, stabbing or shooting. = Now, she=20 reported, many have heard that biological evidence can survive = detergent, so=20 they destroy their clothes.

Not that the strategems always work.

"Fortunately for us, the bad guys frequently remain stupid," said = Linda=20 Fairstein, head of the Manhattan district attorney's sex crimes unit. = "Many of=20 them know about DNA now, so they will do things like bring condoms to a = sexual=20 assault. They fortunately remain dumb enough that they will leave the = condom in=20 a wastebasket, giving us the DNA."

Law officers and evidence collectors are being taught to look in = unusual=20 places where DNA might be found. Saliva on the mouth hole in a ski mask. = Sweat=20 on a baseball cap or tennis shoes or the nose piece of sunglasses. A = toothpick,=20 a cigarette butt, a bite mark, a bullet that entered and exited a = body.

In Austin, an attacker wore gloves and a condom when he raped a = woman.=20 Investigators found a telephone cord the assailant had used in the = attack and=20 learned that he held one end in his mouth while he restrained the woman. = The=20 cord revealed DNA, and there was more on the woman's neck where he = kissed=20 her.

In Brooklyn, where the defendant's DNA did not match the semen found = at a=20 rape-murder scene, a prostitute testified that the defendant had bought = 10 or 15=20 used condoms from her. Prosecutors argued that he likely left one such = condom at=20 the scene, but the jury acquitted the man on the basis of reasonable = doubt.

In Milwaukee, Anthony Turner was in jail, charged with rape, when he = tried to=20 discredit the supposed certainty of genetic profiles. While he was = behind bars,=20 a distraught woman dialed 911 to report a rape that resembled Turner's = style.=20 More remarkably, DNA from the scene matched Turner's.

Skeptical investigators, however, learned that Turner had sent a = plastic=20 container of his body fluids to his family, who paid $50 to the woman to = stage=20 the rape. He is serving a 120-year prison term.

Suspects increasingly aware tend to be increasingly suspicious, = knowing that=20 police cannot draw blood or command a mouth swab at will. If officers = cannot=20 establish probable cause sufficient to convince a judge to order a = sample, they=20 must resort to alternatives and hope for a lucky break.

A suspected serial killer in Brooklyn refused to give a sample, so = detectives=20 scooped up phlegm he had coughed up in the parking lot. The resulting = genetic=20 profile tied him to four killings, said prosecutor Dale Reeves.

In the Kee case, police felt sure from other evidence that he was = their man,=20 but they lacked probable cause. They followed him, hoping he would spit = or=20 discard a soda cup. When he was arrested for an unrelated computer = equipment=20 theft, a detective wore a white lab coat and pretended to be a doctor = conducting=20 a tuberculosis survey.

Kee, 29, known in the neighborhood as "Ace," became suspicious when = asked to=20 sign a release permitting a swab to be tested for DNA. He refused to go = through=20 with it, but when he left the interview room, prosecutors said, he left = behind a=20 cardboard coffee container. There was enough saliva on the lip to = provide a DNA=20 sample that connected Kee to the killings and rapes. A judge ruled the = evidence=20 admissible.

Once law enforcement had Kee's DNA, prosecutor John Irwin told the = 12-member=20 jury, "it was over for him."

Not only was Kee allegedly connected to the crimes by DNA, but two = men=20 identified as attackers by two young victims and arrested were freed by = the same=20 genetic tests. One suspect indicted in the case had been recently = paroled on a=20 sex crime and was seen nearby by neighbors before and after the rape. He = had=20 even changed clothes.

"There's no question that any one of our experienced sex crimes = prosecutors=20 could have convicted this man," prosecutor Fairstein said. "That's very=20 frightening."

=A9 2000 The Washington Post
Poo-sa'-key
960 Division Street
Bandon, = OR =20 97411
541.347.9848
poosakey@earthlink.net<= /DIV> ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C04E16.3EC32F80-- From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 12:51:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14888 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:51:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from doaisd01001.state.mt.us (doaisd01001.state.mt.us [161.7.1.78]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14883 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by doaisd01001 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:00:35 -0700 Message-ID: <12E1430F942ED411BBB000508BADC8B7E43B87@doaisd03001.state.mt.us> From: "Ammen, Alice" To: "'Thompson, Jeff'" , "Ammen, Alice" Cc: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: RE: air dryers Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:00:34 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Jeff, Thanks for the background information on the use of air dryers in California law. The video "Sexual Assault - the Health Care Response" is available exclusively through: Institute of Legal Medicine (IRM) University of Bern Switzerland Buehlstrasse 20, CH-3012 Tel orders +41 31 631 8412 fax orders +41 31 631 3833 Medical version: #ISBN 3-9521547-0-9 Non-medical version: #ISBN 3-9521547-1-7 They also advertise a 30 minute video entitled, "DNA EVIDENCE - Guidelines for Collection, Packaging and Preservation" by Manfred Hochmeister, M.D., Henry C. Lee, Ph.D., and Bruce Budowle, Ph.D. I don't have an ISBN#. Tel order: (0041) 31 631 84 12. Fax orders: (0041)31 631 84 15. Dr. Hochmeister's e-mail is: . The swab (storage) box (shown on the former video) is cardboard with slots labeled #1 and #2 for two swabs. Swabs are suspended in the box so that the swab end does not contact anything. The video states that according to research, swabs should be taken one at a time, thus, the designation for two swabs in the box. Also, the video recommends storing the rape kit at room temperature for 12 hours prior to refrigeration to enable drying of the swabs in their boxes. Blood and urine specimens are packaged separately from the rape kit and refrigerated immediately. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Jeff [mailto:thompsoj@HBPD.org] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:25 PM To: 'Ammen, Alice' Cc: 'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group' Subject: RE: air dryers I know the swab drying boxes (and the Title 22 California Protocol) originated in the pre-DNA days. The drying box was invented to greatly increase the typability of enzymes on vaginal swabs (PGM and PEP A -- for you youngsters, that's short for phophoglucomutase & peptidase A). Obviously, since we were not amplifying the enzymes, contamination was not an issue (but as we saw in OJ, incomplete drying sure can be). I have not heard any specific info on problems with swab drying boxes. Where did you order the video? I'd like to have a look at exactly what they mean by a "swab box". Thanks. Jeff Thompson, F-ABC Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) -----Original Message----- From: Ammen, Alice [mailto:aammen@state.mt.us] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:49 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: air dryers I am tailoring California's Sexual Assault Medical Exam protocol documents for Montana. I've come across a discrepancy between California's protocol versus protocol outlined in the video "Sexual Assault, the Health Care Response." (The video was produced in 1998 by Dr. Manfred Hochmeister of the University of Bern, Switzerland, the International Association of Forensic Nurses, and Jamie Ferrell, director of the Texas SANE program.) The California's forms say that California Penal Code... mandates drying swabs/slides (in the hospital) under a stream of cool air for 60 minutes. The video says air dryers are a potential source of contamination and sample mix-up and should not be used. It advocates using a swab box in which swabs are suspended for drying. Is there a consensus as to how swabs should be dried? Is there a documented problem with air dryers? Thanks for your help. Alice Ammen Montana Forensic Science Division From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 14:18:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA16603 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16598 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:18:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:18:19 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 3 (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:06:34 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 3 >From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 10:06:34 2000 Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09991 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:56:32 -0600 Message-ID: <4E0277823564D411905E00A0C9EA331845C687@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'Taylor, Jeff'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: ASCLAD SOP help Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:04:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I suggest subscribing to the list MEDLAB-L, (To subscribe to MEDLAB-L send this command to LISTSERV@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu: subscribe MEDLAB-L Your Name) then post your SOP requests (although there probably won't be many who do anything with motor oil.) There is also an SOP Exchange site, http://www.mts.net/~mgarbutt/sopex/topleft.html, that could be browsed for potentially relevant ideas. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Taylor@ascl.state.ar.us] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:40 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: ASCLAD SOP help My trace evidence section at the Arkansas St. Crime Lab is trying to write S.O.P.s for ASCLAD accreditation. I would like to get examples of these written procedures from labs that have gone through this before. I am especially having trouble with writing the SOPs for the miscellaneous tests that we do such as motor oil, poison, and unknown identification analyses. Any input or examples would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 17:34:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20433 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA20428 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2000 22:34:53 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:34:13 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\b subscribe\b/i at line 1 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 3 (fwd) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:34:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04E8B.03147C4E" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04E8B.03147C4E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" An SOP exchange - what a great idea! Too bad there's not a single SOP posted there. The pages for different areas are all set up, but no actual SOPs are listed yet. I guess it must be a brand new site. I hope it succeeds, it could help a lot a folks avoid "reinventing the wheel" and allow us to learn from each other's SOPs. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- I suggest subscribing to the list MEDLAB-L, (To subscribe to MEDLAB-L send this command to LISTSERV@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu: subscribe MEDLAB-L Your Name) then post your SOP requests (although there probably won't be many who do anything with motor oil.) There is also an SOP Exchange site, http://www.mts.net/~mgarbutt/sopex/topleft.html, that could be browsed for potentially relevant ideas. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Taylor@ascl.state.ar.us] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:40 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: ASCLAD SOP help My trace evidence section at the Arkansas St. Crime Lab is trying to write S.O.P.s for ASCLAD accreditation. I would like to get examples of these written procedures from labs that have gone through this before. I am especially having trouble with writing the SOPs for the miscellaneous tests that we do such as motor oil, poison, and unknown identification analyses. Any input or examples would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04E8B.03147C4E Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type = /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at = line 3 (fwd)

An SOP exchange - what a great idea!  Too bad = there's not a single SOP posted there.  The pages for different = areas are all set up, but no actual SOPs are listed yet.  I guess = it must be a brand new site.  I hope it succeeds, it could help a = lot a folks avoid "reinventing the wheel" and allow us to = learn from each other's SOPs.

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


-----Original Message-----

I suggest subscribing to the list MEDLAB-L, (To = subscribe to MEDLAB-L send
this command to
LISTSERV@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu:  subscribe = MEDLAB-L Your Name)
then post your SOP requests (although there probably = won't be many who do
anything with motor oil.)  There is also an SOP = Exchange site,
http://www.mts.net/~mgarbutt/sopex/topleft.html, = that could be browsed for
potentially relevant ideas.
Dave Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Taylor@ascl.sta= te.ar.us]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:40 PM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: ASCLAD SOP help


My trace evidence section at the Arkansas St. Crime = Lab is trying to write
S.O.P.s for ASCLAD accreditation.
I would like to get examples of these written = procedures from labs that have
gone through this before.  I am especially = having trouble with writing the
SOPs for the miscellaneous tests that we do such as = motor oil, poison, and
unknown identification analyses.
Any input or examples would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04E8B.03147C4E-- From forens-owner Tue Nov 14 21:06:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22907 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA22902 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28646 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2000 02:06:05 -0000 Received: from access-8-40.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.90) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 2000 02:06:05 -0000 Message-ID: <079801c04ea8$28d9ab80$617237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: "Robert Parsons" , References: Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 3 (fwd) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:02:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO No, actually the site is about a year old, but I didn't check whether any of the subsidiary pages had data. I'm still trying to pry consolidate format SOPs out of my staff, as I promised to contribute Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Parsons" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 4:34 PM Subject: RE: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 1 Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 3 (fwd) An SOP exchange - what a great idea! Too bad there's not a single SOP posted there. The pages for different areas are all set up, but no actual SOPs are listed yet. I guess it must be a brand new site. I hope it succeeds, it could help a lot a folks avoid "reinventing the wheel" and allow us to learn from each other's SOPs. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- I suggest subscribing to the list MEDLAB-L, (To subscribe to MEDLAB-L send this command to LISTSERV@listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu: subscribe MEDLAB-L Your Name) then post your SOP requests (although there probably won't be many who do anything with motor oil.) There is also an SOP Exchange site, http://www.mts.net/~mgarbutt/sopex/topleft.html, that could be browsed for potentially relevant ideas. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Taylor, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Taylor@ascl.state.ar.us] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:40 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: ASCLAD SOP help My trace evidence section at the Arkansas St. Crime Lab is trying to write S.O.P.s for ASCLAD accreditation. I would like to get examples of these written procedures from labs that have gone through this before. I am especially having trouble with writing the SOPs for the miscellaneous tests that we do such as motor oil, poison, and unknown identification analyses. Any input or examples would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 01:20:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA25114 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:20:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA25109 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:20:05 -0500 (EST) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.62.9089eaa (3996) for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:19:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <62.9089eaa.274384ec@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:19:24 EST Subject: Skeleton in the closet To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO OK, I need some help. Get this... Earlier this month, a family is getting ready to move. In boxing everything up, someone finds that the closet has a hidden panel. Behind the panel is a small suitcase, what some might have called a "tourister". It seems quite old, with wooden sides and plastic laminate. Investigation revealed that this particular model, the Lady Baltimore, was made by Samsonite between 1960 and 1962. Inside, there's a tattered cloth with lace edges, having the distinct "feel" of an heirloom. Wrapped within it are the mummified remains of a baby, estimated to be newborn. Inside the suitcase, there are some bobby pins with black rubber tips. Not such a big thing now, but according to some coworkers, they didn't always come that way. Apparently, some distinctly remember when this feature came about because the old ones, with metal tips, hurt. This was sometime around the late 1950's. Also insde the suitcase is a bow, the kind you put on a present. It's blue and made of a synthetic material. What's interesting here is that it's all held together by a plastic button, kind of like a tack, as opposed to the modern staple-and-an-adhesive-back. It seems this particular method of manufacture ended around the 1960's. The panel that hid the luggage was painted, in a different paint than that of the rest of the closet. I'm sure that, with microscopic analysis, we can pinpoint a year of manufacture, as it will probably contain lead, be non-latex, etc. The debris in the suitcase contains some fly pupae, several assorted beetles, and, what was once believed to be dirt, is now suspected of being insect droppings. There's about half a coffee cup's worth. And there's no apparent rodent activity. Here's the meat of the problem: the house was bought by its current owners in 1966. With mitochondrial DNA analysis (so far, STR analysis has failed), we can pinpoint a family, no problem. We just don't know if there is a crime. Was the baby born alive? Was the baby sealed away alive? What did the baby die of? To make matters worse, the guilty parties may already be deceased... Any thoughts? Arthur W. Young Acadiana Crime Lab New Iberia, LA From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 06:42:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA27969 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA27964 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:42:37 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.e4.d132484 (4459) for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:42:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:42:03 EST Subject: Re: Skeleton in the closet To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 87 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/14/00 10:25:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, ArtWYoung@aol.com writes: > To make matters worse, the guilty parties may already > be deceased... I am probably either missing the issue totally or over stating the obvious, but if the responsible party(ies) are deceased isn't it academic whether a crime was committed? I am assuming of course that the interest in this case involves a criminal investigation as opposed to professional curiosity or literary intent. It seems to me that it would save time and expense to first determine whether any potential responsible parties are still living and prosecutable, should the investigation determined a crime has been committed. Of course it is desirable to identify the family name of the deceased child. It just seems right to me that the child be properly buried under it's family name. But I don't see the point in expending the resources to find out if a crime was involved if there is no one to hold accountable under the law. If the child did die wrongly and the responsible party is deceased, then they have already been tried and a verdict and sentence handed down in a court that never commits a miscarriage of justice. It is interesting that there would be that much insect droppings and even fly pupae and beetles present, but the child's body would be mummified. I would think that the body would have been at least partly consumed before it mummified. It would be interesting to hear the explanation for this. (I didn't say that curiosity would not be compelling reason to seek answers to this mystery. Only that it might not be the best expenditure of tax dollars to investigate a crime that cannot be prosecuted.) From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 07:44:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28700 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (root@yowie.cc.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28695 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:44:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from bud (s330991.student.uq.edu.au [172.20.14.48]) by yowie.cc.uq.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA20472 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:44:07 +1000 (GMT+1000) Message-ID: <001401c04efc$9442ba20$300e14ac@bud> Reply-To: "Dayman Steptoe" From: "Dayman Steptoe" To: References: <62.9089eaa.274384ec@aol.com> Subject: Re: Skeleton in the closet Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:06:57 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C04F58.C1835560" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C04F58.C1835560 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Assuming that this case is still of a relevant criminal nature (if the = guilty parties are deceased???)... Have you looked at osteological techniques? If not, you should be able = to determine the precise biological age of the child by use of x-rays or = dissection (observation of specific ossification centres). Estimation of = peritnatal age is probably more accurate than any other technique for = age estimation from the skeleton. If you can demonstrate the baby was x = weeks postnatal, then clearly it was not still-born. It's a starting = point. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: ArtWYoung@aol.com=20 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:19 PM Subject: Skeleton in the closet OK, I need some help. Get this... Earlier this month, a family is getting ready to move. In boxing = everything up, someone finds that the closet has a hidden panel. = Behind the=20 panel is a small suitcase, what some might have called a "tourister". = It=20 seems quite old, with wooden sides and plastic laminate. = Investigation=20 revealed that this particular model, the Lady Baltimore, was made by=20 Samsonite between 1960 and 1962. Inside, there's a tattered cloth with lace edges, having the = distinct=20 "feel" of an heirloom. Wrapped within it are the mummified remains of = a=20 baby, estimated to be newborn. Inside the suitcase, there are some bobby pins with black rubber = tips. =20 Not such a big thing now, but according to some coworkers, they didn't = always=20 come that way. Apparently, some distinctly remember when this feature = came=20 about because the old ones, with metal tips, hurt. This was sometime = around=20 the late 1950's. Also insde the suitcase is a bow, the kind you put on a present. = It's=20 blue and made of a synthetic material. What's interesting here is = that it's=20 all held together by a plastic button, kind of like a tack, as opposed = to the=20 modern staple-and-an-adhesive-back. It seems this particular method = of=20 manufacture ended around the 1960's. The panel that hid the luggage was painted, in a different paint = than=20 that of the rest of the closet. I'm sure that, with microscopic = analysis, we=20 can pinpoint a year of manufacture, as it will probably contain lead, = be=20 non-latex, etc. The debris in the suitcase contains some fly pupae, several = assorted=20 beetles, and, what was once believed to be dirt, is now suspected of = being=20 insect droppings. There's about half a coffee cup's worth. And = there's no=20 apparent rodent activity. Here's the meat of the problem: the house was bought by its = current=20 owners in 1966. With mitochondrial DNA analysis (so far, STR analysis = has=20 failed), we can pinpoint a family, no problem. We just don't know if = there=20 is a crime. Was the baby born alive? Was the baby sealed away alive? = What=20 did the baby die of? To make matters worse, the guilty parties may = already=20 be deceased... Any thoughts? Arthur W. Young Acadiana Crime Lab New Iberia, LA ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C04F58.C1835560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Assuming that this case is still of a = relevant criminal=20 nature (if the guilty parties are deceased???)...
 
Have you looked at osteological techniques? = If not, you=20 should be able to determine the precise biological age of the=20 child by use of x-rays or dissection (observation of specific=20 ossification centres). Estimation of peritnatal age is probably more = accurate=20 than any other technique for age estimation from the skeleton. If you = can=20 demonstrate the baby was x weeks postnatal, then clearly it was not = still-born. It's a starting point.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 ArtWYoung@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, = 2000 5:19=20 PM
Subject: Skeleton in the = closet

OK, I need some = help.  Get=20 this...
     Earlier this month, a family is = getting=20 ready to move.  In boxing
everything up, someone finds that = the=20 closet has a hidden panel.  Behind the
panel is a small = suitcase,=20 what some might have called a "tourister".  It
seems quite = old, with=20 wooden sides and plastic laminate.  Investigation
revealed = that this=20 particular model, the Lady Baltimore, was made by
Samsonite = between 1960=20 and 1962.
     Inside, there's a tattered cloth = with=20 lace edges, having the distinct
"feel" of an heirloom.  = Wrapped=20 within it are the mummified remains of a
baby, estimated to be=20 newborn.
     Inside the suitcase, there are = some bobby=20 pins with black rubber tips. 
Not such a big thing now, but = according=20 to some coworkers, they didn't always
come that way.  = Apparently,=20 some distinctly remember when this feature came
about because the = old=20 ones, with metal tips, hurt.  This was sometime around
the = late=20 1950's.
     Also insde the suitcase is a bow, = the kind=20 you put on a present.  It's
blue and made of a synthetic=20 material.  What's interesting here is that it's
all held = together by=20 a plastic button, kind of like a tack, as opposed to the
modern=20 staple-and-an-adhesive-back.  It seems this particular method of=20
manufacture ended around the 1960's.
     = The panel=20 that hid the luggage was painted, in a different paint than
that = of the=20 rest of the closet.  I'm sure that, with microscopic analysis, we =
can=20 pinpoint a year of manufacture, as it will probably contain lead, be=20
non-latex, etc.
     The debris in the = suitcase=20 contains some fly pupae, several assorted
beetles, and, what was = once=20 believed to be dirt, is now suspected of being
insect = droppings. =20 There's about half a coffee cup's worth.  And there's no =
apparent=20 rodent activity.
     Here's the meat of the=20 problem:  the house was bought by its current
owners in = 1966. =20 With mitochondrial DNA analysis (so far, STR analysis has
failed), = we can=20 pinpoint a family, no problem.  We just don't know if there =
is a=20 crime.  Was the baby born alive?  Was the baby sealed away=20 alive?  What
did the baby die of?  To make matters = worse, the=20 guilty parties may already
be deceased...

Any = thoughts?
Arthur=20 W. Young
Acadiana Crime Lab
New Iberia, = LA
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C04F58.C1835560-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 07:51:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28844 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28839 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:32 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id y.f8.49aaf09 (4459) for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:50:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:50:57 EST Subject: Re: applications To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: c sub 87 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/14/00 7:01:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > > I find that question on the application to be a very amusing anachronism. I > suppose it's based on the fact that in many states, sex with an animal is > still technically a crime (I don't understand why it should be, but I > understand even less why anyone would commit such an act in the first place > - yuk!). The sex with an animal statutes are not solely moral laws. Even in jurisdictions where the general prohibition against sex with animals has been repealed it may still be a prosecutable offense under animal cruelty laws. > Most states have stopped trying to legislate sexual morality, and > even those with some such laws still on the books tend to either not enforce > them or enforce them only when an "added charge" is desired peripheral to > another offense. Now why would it be desirable to prosecute a sexual morality violation just when it is peripheral to another offense. Would it be when the prosecutor wants to have greater leverage in a plea bargain? Or when the defendants decide to defend themselves in a trial and the prosecutor doesn't want to expend the time and effort? Perhaps when the prosecutor wishes to influence how a jury views a defendant? I just can't think of an ethical reason why it would be desirable to prosecute morality laws only when peripheral to another offense. From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 09:02:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29953 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:02:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29948 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:02:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:02:53 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id JAA29949 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:12:35 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] >From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 02:12:34 2000 Received: from amsnt1.amslab.ch ([164.128.70.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25748 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:12:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from amslab.ch ([192.168.3.182] (may be forged)) by amsnt1.amslab.ch (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with ESMTP id IAA00219 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:16:32 +0100 Message-ID: <3A123743.2956A8B8@amslab.ch> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:12:04 +0100 From: Raphael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] (fwd) References: <0G4000KS76MQN6@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The whole analysis is supposed to be done twice (DNA extraction, PCR, electrophoresis, analysis of the genotypes). I should mention that the guidelines add "when feasible". -- Raphael Coquoz Laboratoire AMS, pl. de la Navigation 10, 1006 Lausanne, Switzerland 41 21 613 70 40, Fax 41 21 613 70 49, raphael.coquoz@amslab.ch "Peter D. Barnett" a écrit : > At 10:40 AM 11/13/2000 -0500, Raphael Coquoz wrote: > > >In Switzerland, guidelines for the accreditation of forensic DNA > >laboratories have been prepared under the authority of the Swiss > >accreditation service, based on ILAC, ENFSI DNA WG, DAB documents. But > >these guidelines contain a requirement to do each analysis independantly > > > >twice !! > > > >This seems to be an astounding requirement with important consequences > >on the routine practice and the costs. > > What part of the analysis is to be done twice. Since forensic sampels are > unique, and even a single stain cannot be assumed to be homogeneous, how > can you ever really be sure you are do the same analysis twice. But that > issue aside, at what point along the path from the original evidence to sub > samples, to extractions to PCR products, etc., is the second analysis > supposed to start. > > Pete Barnett > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > > http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 09:54:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00878 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00873 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from jnh3.ix.netcom.com (user-2inittd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.119.173]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA21858 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:54:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20001115065424.009c1530@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:54:54 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: Skeleton in the closet In-Reply-To: <62.9089eaa.274384ec@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Quick! Get the movie rights to this one! ;-) John Houde At 01:19 AM 11/15/00 -0500, ArtWYoung@aol.com wrote: >OK, I need some help. Get this... ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 10:14:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01438 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:14:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01420 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:14:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:04:21 -0600 Message-ID: <4E0277823564D411905E00A0C9EA331845C691@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'ArtWYoung@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Skeleton in the closet Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:12:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO It's hard enough to make the born alive/stillborn distinction with a fresh body. I suspect the best answer with a mummified body would be 'it's impossible to tell.' Whether it was sealed away alive is the next step beyond in difficulty and cause of death is probably going to be limited to presence or absence of lethal skeletal trauma. Which doesn't mean, of course, that it would be impossible to find someone to dogmatically testify in either direction. Is there a provable crime? Probably not beyond 'concealing a death' or 'failure to report a birth' if Louisiana has such statutes. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: ArtWYoung@aol.com [mailto:ArtWYoung@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 12:19 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Skeleton in the closet OK, I need some help. Get this... Earlier this month, a family is getting ready to move. In boxing everything up, someone finds that the closet has a hidden panel. Behind the panel is a small suitcase, what some might have called a "tourister". It seems quite old, with wooden sides and plastic laminate. Investigation revealed that this particular model, the Lady Baltimore, was made by Samsonite between 1960 and 1962. Inside, there's a tattered cloth with lace edges, having the distinct "feel" of an heirloom. Wrapped within it are the mummified remains of a baby, estimated to be newborn. Inside the suitcase, there are some bobby pins with black rubber tips. Not such a big thing now, but according to some coworkers, they didn't always come that way. Apparently, some distinctly remember when this feature came about because the old ones, with metal tips, hurt. This was sometime around the late 1950's. Also insde the suitcase is a bow, the kind you put on a present. It's blue and made of a synthetic material. What's interesting here is that it's all held together by a plastic button, kind of like a tack, as opposed to the modern staple-and-an-adhesive-back. It seems this particular method of manufacture ended around the 1960's. The panel that hid the luggage was painted, in a different paint than that of the rest of the closet. I'm sure that, with microscopic analysis, we can pinpoint a year of manufacture, as it will probably contain lead, be non-latex, etc. The debris in the suitcase contains some fly pupae, several assorted beetles, and, what was once believed to be dirt, is now suspected of being insect droppings. There's about half a coffee cup's worth. And there's no apparent rodent activity. Here's the meat of the problem: the house was bought by its current owners in 1966. With mitochondrial DNA analysis (so far, STR analysis has failed), we can pinpoint a family, no problem. We just don't know if there is a crime. Was the baby born alive? Was the baby sealed away alive? What did the baby die of? To make matters worse, the guilty parties may already be deceased... Any thoughts? Arthur W. Young Acadiana Crime Lab New Iberia, LA From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 10:38:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA01850 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01834 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:38:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.197]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001115153749.IMBC14078.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:37:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3A12ADE3.B49287CC@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:38:21 -0500 From: "E. J. Wagner" Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Houde CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Skeleton in the closet References: <4.1.20001115065424.009c1530@popd.calicopress.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO John Houde wrote: > > Quick! Get the movie rights to this one! > ;-) > John Houde > > At 01:19 AM 11/15/00 -0500, ArtWYoung@aol.com wrote: > >OK, I need some help. Get this... > By coincidence,this coming Sunday I am presenting "A Skeleton in the Closet;Confessions of a Crime Historian" at an art gallery in Port Jefferson Long Island. Movie rights are not for sale. Historically,finding such remains in the walls of very old houses is not too unusual.These cases sometimes go unreported, particularly when the resident family has owned the property for many generations. EJ From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 14:31:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06858 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06853 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.48.138]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001115193051.CAAX3303.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:30:51 +0000 Message-ID: <3A12E3FF.C96AD935@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:29:03 -0800 From: John Bowden Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Laskowski CC: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: lithium metal analysis References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Greg, Just a quick note, for all it is worth. As I recall, most EDX instruments, whether SEM or not, have a detector based on Silicon, often with a Beryllium window. As Lithium is lower in atomic number than either of these two elements, its x-ray radiation would be too low in energy to be detected. Likewise, the mass/charge of 7 characteristic of Lithium ion may be below the range of the ICP/MS. More likely instrument identification could be accomplished using an emission spectrometer, such as ICP/Emission. Also, a wavelength dispersive x-ray should be able to examine the characteristic emissions of Lithium or an easily formed salt such as Lithium carbonate. I will not comment on your reference to ASCLD/Lab. I do find it very interesting that methods of chemical analysis perfected long before certain regulatory organizations were conceived, are still subject to their control. I recently read in C&EN that the American Chemical Society (the oldest and largest professional organization in this country) and the Royal Society of Chemistry jointly designated Joseph's Priestly's discovery of Oxygen as an International Historic Chemical Landmark I wonder if his methods would withstand the current scrutiny. My opinions of course are totally my own as I am retired and no longer have to disclaim any employer. John John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant "Dum Spiro Spero" Greg Laskowski wrote: > Tracey, > > By lithium metal, I am assuming you are meaning pure elemental lithium. I > have seen this in the form of a wire stored under kerosene. It is very > light, so you can establish density. It reacts violently in water producing > hydrogen gas and lithium hydroxide which is basic. If you have > instrumentation such as SEM/EDX or ICP/MS you could identify it. > > Feigl and Anger's Spot Tests in Inorganic Analysis describe several > microchemical tests including reacting a neutral or alkaline solution with > iron III periodate and saturated NaCl. Etching a microscope slide by fusing > the solution to the glass or mixing a suspension with magnesium carbonate in > water followed by 20% KOH in acetone to which is added a 0.2% solution of > the azo dye thoron. A yellow chelate is formed. > > Of course you will need to run blanks or standards and get a special > indulgence from ASCLD/LAB. > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > >>> 11/14 7:09 AM >>> > Has anyone ever been asked to examine Lithium metal? If so what safety > precautions did you take and how did you go about testing the metal? Did > you react the metal with anyting to make a salt? I haven't agreed to > accept > this evidence yet and I need some input. > > Tracy From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 15:03:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07346 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:03:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07341 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-100.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.100]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id eAFK2xc29014 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:02:59 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001115120018.00aa9100@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:02:05 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: lithium metal analysis In-Reply-To: <3A12E3FF.C96AD935@worldnet.att.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO >Greg Laskowski wrote: > > > Of course you will need to run blanks or standards and get a special > > indulgence from ASCLD/LAB. Can ASCLD/LAB indulgences be purchased in bulk? Historically, that has been the practice with indulgences. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 15:07:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07506 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07501 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:07:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from chmjra ([131.94.48.45]) by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.02.00.07 201-232-116-107 license aefe03f970491859ae13d618536ca7ad) with SMTP id <20001115195922.QBNZ15386.spn25c0@chmjra>; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:59:22 -0500 Message-ID: <014001c04f3f$90380be0$2d305e83@fiu.edu> From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dr._Jos=E9_R._Almirall?=" To: , "Greg Laskowski" Cc: , References: <3A12E3FF.C96AD935@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: lithium metal analysis Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:06:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi John, ICP/MS can detect Li 7. Li is one of the tuning isotopes widely used (we use a 10ppb solution to tune the MS). Regards, Jose _________________ José R. Almirall, Ph.D. Director, Forensic Science Graduate Program Associate Director, International Forensic Research Institute Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Florida International University, U.P. Miami, FL, 33199 305.348.3917 (Office) 305.348.3772 (Fax) almirall@fiu.edu http://www.fiu.edu/~almirall/ http://www.fiu.edu/~ifri/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Bowden" To: "Greg Laskowski" Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:29 PM Subject: Re: lithium metal analysis > Greg, > > Just a quick note, for all it is worth. > > As I recall, most EDX instruments, whether SEM or not, have a detector based on > Silicon, often with a Beryllium window. As Lithium is lower in atomic number > than either of these two elements, its x-ray radiation would be too low in > energy to be detected. Likewise, the mass/charge of 7 characteristic of Lithium > ion may be below the range of the ICP/MS. > > More likely instrument identification could be accomplished using an emission > spectrometer, such as ICP/Emission. Also, a wavelength dispersive x-ray should > be able to examine the characteristic emissions of Lithium or an easily formed > salt such as Lithium carbonate. > > I will not comment on your reference to ASCLD/Lab. I do find it very > interesting that methods of chemical analysis perfected long before certain > regulatory organizations were conceived, are still subject to their control. I > recently read in C&EN that the American Chemical Society (the oldest and largest > professional organization in this country) and the Royal Society of Chemistry > jointly designated Joseph's Priestly's discovery of Oxygen as an International > Historic Chemical Landmark I wonder if his methods would withstand the current > scrutiny. > > My opinions of course are totally my own as I am retired and no longer have to > disclaim any employer. > > John > > John P. Bowden > Forensic Consultant > "Dum Spiro Spero" > > > Greg Laskowski wrote: > > > Tracey, > > > > By lithium metal, I am assuming you are meaning pure elemental lithium. I > > have seen this in the form of a wire stored under kerosene. It is very > > light, so you can establish density. It reacts violently in water producing > > hydrogen gas and lithium hydroxide which is basic. If you have > > instrumentation such as SEM/EDX or ICP/MS you could identify it. > > > > Feigl and Anger's Spot Tests in Inorganic Analysis describe several > > microchemical tests including reacting a neutral or alkaline solution with > > iron III periodate and saturated NaCl. Etching a microscope slide by fusing > > the solution to the glass or mixing a suspension with magnesium carbonate in > > water followed by 20% KOH in acetone to which is added a 0.2% solution of > > the azo dye thoron. A yellow chelate is formed. > > > > Of course you will need to run blanks or standards and get a special > > indulgence from ASCLD/LAB. > > > > Gregory E. Laskowski > > Supervising Criminalist > > Kern County District Attorney > > Forensic Science Division > > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > > office phone: (661) 868-5659 > > > > >>> 11/14 7:09 AM >>> > > Has anyone ever been asked to examine Lithium metal? If so what safety > > precautions did you take and how did you go about testing the metal? Did > > you react the metal with anyting to make a salt? I haven't agreed to > > accept > > this evidence yet and I need some input. > > > > Tracy > From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 15:12:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07668 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.48]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07663 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:12:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.197]) by mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001115201216.MMDQ14078.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:12:16 +0000 Message-ID: <3A12EE36.E02393B3@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:13:16 -0500 From: "E. J. Wagner" Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Forens Subject: air-bag case Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On July 20 of this year, the NYTimes reported that Ford Motor co was being sued by Dr.Eric Thomas,whose wife was killed in an auto accident. The claim was death caused by air bag inflating at 200 mph when the wife hit a utility pole at 15 miles per hour.Her husband and child were in the car at the time. Ford defended by claiming that the woman died not by accident, as determined by the county prosecutor, but by "compression of the neck by the hands of another",a written opinion given by Dr. Michael M. Baden. Anyone on the list have any further information on this case and its disposal? EJ From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 16:00:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA08547 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08542 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:00:22 -0500 (EST) From: PPDLabManager@aol.com Received: from PPDLabManager@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id x.73.870c05a (4254); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:59:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <73.870c05a.2744533b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:59:39 EST Subject: Re: lithium metal analysis To: pbarnett@fsalab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 124 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/15/2000 3:06:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, pbarnett@FSALab.com writes: << Can ASCLD/LAB indulgences be purchased in bulk? Historically, that has been the practice with indulgences. Pete Barnett >> Pete: It's refreshing to see someone who is able to keep things in perspective with humor. We certainly need it in this field;-) Catherine McBride Forensic Laboratory Manager Philadelphia Police Forensic Science Laboratory From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 16:24:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09129 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09124 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200011152124.QAA09124@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:27:10 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Occurrence Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:22:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 17:34:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10288 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA10283 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:34:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 15 Nov 2000 22:34:22 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:33:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: applications Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:33:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04F54.19C22558" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04F54.19C22558 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Bill "Legaleye" wrote: >The sex with an animal statutes are not solely moral laws. Even in >jurisdictions where the general prohibition against sex with animals has >been >repealed it may still be a prosecutable offense under animal cruelty laws. I guess that depends on how the animal feels about its suitor. ;) Seriously, that's a good point, and I've thought of another one - public health concerns. There are a number of pathogens that can be transmitted from animal to human, and so could potentially cause a human epidemic. Maybe those laws are a good thing after all. >Now why would it be desirable to prosecute a sexual morality violation just >when it is peripheral to another offense. Would it be when the prosecutor >wants to have greater leverage in a plea bargain? Or when the defendants >decide to defend themselves in a trial and the prosecutor doesn't want to >expend the time and effort? Perhaps when the prosecutor wishes to >influence how a jury views a defendant? I just can't think of an ethical >reason why it would be desirable to prosecute morality laws only when >peripheral to another offense. "Ethical" is a matter of debate I suppose, but at least some of the reasons you give I'm certain are exactly why. "Add-on" charges are commonly used as leverage in plea bargaining, and I see nothing wrong with that (other than my aversion to the concept of plea bargaining in general - I see it as a necessary evil at best). Most major crimes can incorporate a host of lesser included offenses, and there's nothing unethical with charging an offender with every crime delineated by law that the offender committed in association with a certain incident - if the law says it's a crime, it's perfectly proper to charge that crime and every other associated one that was also violated. If the lesser charges are then bargained away to obtain a plea to one of the more serious charges, well, I find that distasteful, but recognize the expediency realities faced by an overburdened justice system. The second possibility you mention is also quite common - offering a plea to a lesser included offense when the more serious offense is too difficult to effectively pursue. Also distasteful to me, but I don't see an ethical violation there, either. I don't like plea bargains in general, but I don't see a practical alternative to them. I can't see any ethical dilemma involved in picking and choosing which among multiple charges to pursue in any given case, though, with or without a plea bargain involved. Influencing a jury's view of the defendant is more of a gray area. On the one hand, that's exactly what both attorneys are paid to do, and exactly what the adversarial process is designed to do - to influence (convince) the jury to convict or acquit. The gray area lies in the fact that in most cases, the defendant's prior record is not supposed to be considered in trial (although some would argue it should be - past behavior is certainly indicative of inclination to future behavior, but of course does not guarantee or prove it). On the other hand, if the additional charge is a lesser included offense arising from the same incident, then it is germane to the current case against the accused, has nothing to do with prior record, and is properly something for the jury to consider. The only moral/ethical or legal objection I can see to any of these practices would be based on unequal treatment under the law - but while a prosecutor has the legal and ethical right to charge every defendant with every lesser included offense in every crime, there's no legal obligation on the part of a prosecutor to do so. They have the legal discretion to choose which charges to pursue and which not to in each case, and I fail to see what is unethical about using that discretion. Can you expound on your view in that regard? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04F54.19C22558 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: applications

Bill "Legaleye" wrote:

>The sex with an animal statutes are not solely = moral laws.  Even in
>jurisdictions where the general prohibition = against sex with animals has
>been
>repealed it may still be a prosecutable offense = under animal cruelty laws.

I guess that depends on how the animal feels about = its suitor. ;)
Seriously, that's a good point, and I've thought of = another one - public health concerns.  There are a number of = pathogens that can be transmitted from animal to human, and so could = potentially cause a human epidemic.  Maybe those laws are a good = thing after all.

>Now why would it be desirable to prosecute a = sexual morality violation just
>when it is peripheral to another offense.  = Would it be when the prosecutor
>wants to have greater leverage in a plea = bargain?  Or when the defendants
>decide to defend themselves in a trial and the = prosecutor doesn't want to
>expend the time and effort?  Perhaps when = the prosecutor wishes to
>influence how a jury views a defendant?  I = just can't think of an ethical
>reason why it would be desirable to prosecute = morality laws only when
>peripheral to another offense.

"Ethical" is a matter of debate I suppose, = but at least some of the reasons you give I'm certain are exactly = why.  "Add-on" charges are commonly used as leverage in = plea bargaining, and I see nothing wrong with that (other than my = aversion to the concept of plea bargaining in general - I see it as a = necessary evil at best).  Most major crimes can incorporate a host = of lesser included offenses, and there's nothing unethical with = charging an offender with every crime delineated by law that the = offender committed in association with a certain incident - if the law = says it's a crime, it's perfectly proper to charge that crime and every = other associated one that was also violated.  If the lesser = charges are then bargained away to obtain a plea to one of the more = serious charges, well, I find that distasteful, but recognize the = expediency realities faced by an overburdened justice system. The = second possibility you mention is also quite common - offering a plea = to a lesser included offense when the more serious offense is too = difficult to effectively pursue.  Also distasteful to me, but I = don't see an ethical violation there, either. I don't like plea = bargains in general, but I don't see a practical alternative to = them.  I can't see any ethical dilemma involved in picking and = choosing which among multiple charges to pursue in any given case, = though, with or without a plea bargain involved. 

Influencing a jury's view of the defendant is more of = a gray area.  On the one hand, that's exactly what both attorneys = are paid to do, and exactly what the adversarial process is designed to = do - to influence (convince) the jury to convict or acquit.  The = gray area lies in the fact that in most cases, the defendant's prior = record is not supposed to be considered in trial (although some would = argue it should be - past behavior is certainly indicative of = inclination to future behavior, but of course does not guarantee or = prove it).  On the other hand, if the additional charge is a = lesser included offense arising from the same incident, then it is = germane to the current case against the accused, has nothing to do with = prior record, and is properly something for the jury to = consider.

The only moral/ethical or legal objection I can see = to any of these practices would be based on unequal treatment under the = law - but while a prosecutor has the legal and ethical right to charge = every defendant with every lesser included offense in every crime, = there's no legal obligation on the part of a prosecutor to do so.  = They have the legal discretion to choose which charges to pursue and = which not to in each case, and I fail to see what is unethical about = using that discretion.  Can you expound on your view in that = regard?

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04F54.19C22558-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 17:45:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10489 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from sierra.onr.com (sierra.onr.com [199.1.90.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10484 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu (austin1-51.onr.com [64.28.100.51]) by sierra.onr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 87E94F17FD for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:44:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Glass Occurrence Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:43:53 -0600 Message-ID: <005001c04f55$87cac040$3346a218@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO A slightly different project would be to collect a large number of randomly-chosen glass samples and measure several pieces of each sample to determine the range of refractive indices for a given sample. You could then create a table giving the identification of each sample and the corresponding index range. The results of this set of experiments could be useful in helping determine the significance of apparent "matches" in real cases. It really doesn't matter whether similar projects have been done before. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Occurrence I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. Helen Griffin Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 21:12:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA12861 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:12:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12856 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:12:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011160212.VAA12856@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id W684Y4ZQ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:19:04 +1300 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:17:00 +1200 From: "Ashton, Jason" Subject: Query: Panacryl and DNA To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Panacryl (or as one variation of it is called 'Basic Yellow 40') is used as a fluorescing fingerprint agent. We are trying to find out if it has a detrimental effect on the DNA. Is there anyone on the list with knowledge on panacryl and its effect on DNA? Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason M Ashton Information and Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd Private Bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 21:24:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13046 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13041 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from chmjra ([131.94.2.163]) by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.02.00.07 201-232-116-107 license aefe03f970491859ae13d618536ca7ad) with SMTP id <20001116021642.QTVZ15386.spn25c0@chmjra>; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:16:42 -0500 Message-ID: <002c01c04f74$46111860$a3025e83@fiu.edu> From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dr._Jos=E9_R._Almirall?=" To: , References: <200011152124.QAA09124@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: Re: Glass Occurrence Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:23:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi Helen, Great idea. Let me suggest that you pose the question: How often are you likely to encounter two glasses with "matching" refractive index from a given set of different selected glass knowns. Select a variety of sources of glass and then a number of glass samples from each source(the greater, the better, ie. 20 from each of house windows, containers, vehicle side windows, vehicle windshields, headlamps) Measure the RI with the best precision you have available (for each glass, take measurements from a minimum of 5 different fragments (10 fragments, is better still) to represent the variation in RI for that object of glass). Calculate the mean and standard deviation. Use a pairwise comparison to determine how many, from the possible pairs, end up "matching" by your criterion. (This means that you have to decide on a criterion, probably the one you use in casework, if you are to make this exercise useful to you). There are n(n-1)/2 ways to compare n sample means with each other while excluding the comparison of the sample mean with itself. For example, if there are 3 glass samples, the total number of possible comparisons is 3. If there are 100 glass samples, the total number of possible comparisons is 4950. You will be able to compare glass sample #1 with #2, #1 with #3, #1 with #4.#1 with #100, #2 with #3, ...#2 with #100, #3 with #4, etc, etc You will end up with a number of indistinguishable pairs to divide by the possible pairs for "matching" glass that you know did not originate from the same source. You should get about 9%-15% of the pairs not distinguished, depending on how you select the glass, even though they came from different sources. (If you did this with a collection of just headlamp borosilicate glasses, the number of indistinguishable pairs is closer to 35%-50%, depending on what criteria you use). There is commercial statistical software (SPSS or SYSTAT) that can make this operation relatively painless, once you've gathered the data. Good luck, Jose P.S. Wouldn't it be interesting to then take your indistinguishable pairs and see how many can be distinguished with a very sensitive elemental analysis (such as ICP/MS)? _________________ José R. Almirall, Ph.D. Director, Forensic Science Graduate Program Associate Director, International Forensic Research Institute Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Florida International University, U.P. Miami, FL, 33199 305.348.3917 (Office) 305.348.3772 (Fax) almirall@fiu.edu http://www.fiu.edu/~almirall/ http://www.fiu.edu/~ifri/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:22 PM Subject: Glass Occurrence > I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I > am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with > a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index > from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from > the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive > refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how > many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I > recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated > numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our > lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't > be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. > Helen Griffin From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 06:14:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18307 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 06:14:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host000012.arnet.net.ar [200.45.0.12] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA18302 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 06:13:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3257 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2000 11:12:18 -0000 Received: ThePolice Version 0.02 by GCM Received: AntiBombing Version 0.08 by GCM Received: from host000004.arnet.net.ar (HELO mail1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.4) by host000012.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 16 Nov 2000 11:12:18 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:11:37 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:50:04 -0300 Received: (qmail 4752 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2000 02:26:52 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 16 Nov 2000 02:26:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13103; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:24:36 -0500 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13046 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13041 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from chmjra ([131.94.2.163]) by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.02.00.07 201-232-116-107 license aefe03f970491859ae13d618536ca7ad) with SMTP id <20001116021642.QTVZ15386.spn25c0@chmjra>; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:16:42 -0500 Message-ID: <002c01c04f74$46111860$a3025e83@fiu.edu> From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dr._Jos=E9_R._Almirall?=" To: , References: <200011152124.QAA09124@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Subject: Re: Glass Occurrence Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:23:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi Helen, Great idea. Let me suggest that you pose the question: How often are you likely to encounter two glasses with "matching" refractive index from a given set of different selected glass knowns. Select a variety of sources of glass and then a number of glass samples from each source(the greater, the better, ie. 20 from each of house windows, containers, vehicle side windows, vehicle windshields, headlamps) Measure the RI with the best precision you have available (for each glass, take measurements from a minimum of 5 different fragments (10 fragments, is better still) to represent the variation in RI for that object of glass). Calculate the mean and standard deviation. Use a pairwise comparison to determine how many, from the possible pairs, end up "matching" by your criterion. (This means that you have to decide on a criterion, probably the one you use in casework, if you are to make this exercise useful to you). There are n(n-1)/2 ways to compare n sample means with each other while excluding the comparison of the sample mean with itself. For example, if there are 3 glass samples, the total number of possible comparisons is 3. If there are 100 glass samples, the total number of possible comparisons is 4950. You will be able to compare glass sample #1 with #2, #1 with #3, #1 with #4.#1 with #100, #2 with #3, ...#2 with #100, #3 with #4, etc, etc You will end up with a number of indistinguishable pairs to divide by the possible pairs for "matching" glass that you know did not originate from the same source. You should get about 9%-15% of the pairs not distinguished, depending on how you select the glass, even though they came from different sources. (If you did this with a collection of just headlamp borosilicate glasses, the number of indistinguishable pairs is closer to 35%-50%, depending on what criteria you use). There is commercial statistical software (SPSS or SYSTAT) that can make this operation relatively painless, once you've gathered the data. Good luck, Jose P.S. Wouldn't it be interesting to then take your indistinguishable pairs and see how many can be distinguished with a very sensitive elemental analysis (such as ICP/MS)? _________________ José R. Almirall, Ph.D. Director, Forensic Science Graduate Program Associate Director, International Forensic Research Institute Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Florida International University, U.P. Miami, FL, 33199 305.348.3917 (Office) 305.348.3772 (Fax) almirall@fiu.edu http://www.fiu.edu/~almirall/ http://www.fiu.edu/~ifri/ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:22 PM Subject: Glass Occurrence > I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I > am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with > a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index > from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from > the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive > refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how > many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I > recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated > numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our > lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't > be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. > Helen Griffin From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 08:05:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19930 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19907 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:04:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:03:51 -0500 Message-ID: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4D0104EA50@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: GLASS ISSUES Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:03:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C04FCD.AF716C70" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04FCD.AF716C70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" What is the expected variation in density across a "pane" of flat glass and tempered glass? What is the volume of the density testing vessel which is used in your lab? How much do you vary the density of this solution when you add one "drop" of the more dense liquid used in your lab? What difference in density to you expect to be able to visualize in the "sink/float method you use? Thank you for the time to provide this information, Tony Aldridge, Crime Lab Charlotte, NC ------_=_NextPart_001_01C04FCD.AF716C70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable GLASS ISSUES

What is the expected variation in = density across a "pane" of flat glass and tempered = glass?

What is the volume of the density = testing vessel which is used in your lab?

How much do you vary the density of = this solution  when you add one "drop" of the more dense = liquid used in your lab?

What difference in density to you = expect to be able to visualize in the "sink/float method you = use?

Thank you for the time to provide this = information, Tony Aldridge, Crime Lab  Charlotte, NC

       =20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C04FCD.AF716C70-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 12:46:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA24250 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:46:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24245 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:46:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from hdcdojnet.state.ca.us by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23730; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:49:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3A141D80.6E74DC7F@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:46:41 -0800 From: Keith Inman Reply-To: kinman@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dr. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9?= R. Almirall" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Glass Occurrence References: <200011152124.QAA09124@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> <002c01c04f74$46111860$a3025e83@fiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO "Dr. José R. Almirall" wrote: > Hi Helen, > > Great idea. Let me suggest that you pose the question: How often are you > likely to encounter two glasses with "matching" refractive index from a > given set of different selected glass knowns. > > Select a variety of sources of glass and then a number of glass samples from > each source(the greater, the better, ie. 20 from each of house windows, > containers, vehicle side windows, vehicle windshields, headlamps) > > Measure the RI with the best precision you have available (for each glass, > take measurements from a minimum of 5 different fragments (10 fragments, is > better still) to represent the variation in RI for that object of glass). > Calculate the mean and standard deviation. > snip... Helen and Jose, Having been out of the trace business for longer than I care to remember, I'm wondering if labs are now able to routinely measure RI at multiple wavelengths. In a 1989 JFS article, Thornton proposes a very elegant method for adding enormous discrimination to glass comparisons by determining the slope of dispersion vs. density (JFS; 34:6; pg 1323). This requires measuring the RI at the D, F, and C lines, and calculating the dispersion, as well as measuring the density of a fragment. Are these measurements within the capability of most labs now? If this is now within the capability of most labs (or Helen's), then adding this analysis to the experiment will also allow for a comparision of the discrimination added by this technique to the normal RI measurements -- Keith Inman, MCrim, FABC kinman@ix.netcom.com http://www.forensicdna.com/ From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 14:19:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA25742 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:19:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA25737 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:19:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:19:43 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Vincent Desiderio ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:26:34 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Vincent Desiderio ] >From forens-owner Wed Nov 15 19:26:34 2000 Received: from InterJet.forensica.com (mail.forensica.com [64.121.139.18]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA11667 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by InterJet.forensica.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA26407 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:10:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeus.forensica.com(64.121.139.21), claiming to be "zeus" via SMTP by InterJet.forensica.com, id smtpdK26405; Thu Nov 16 02:10:36 2000 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20001115161819.00962c50@mail.forensica.com> X-Sender: vdesiderio@mail.forensica.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:18:19 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Vincent Desiderio Subject: Remington Cartridge Cases Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Does anyone out there know if Remington uses profile cutters to machine extractor grooves on their .380 Auto cartridge cases? Alternatively, does anyone know the number for the forensic contact at Remington? Thanks, Vinny From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 14:49:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26328 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:49:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26323 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:49:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011161949.OAA26323@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id W684YVZA; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:55:18 +1300 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:53:00 +1200 From: "Walsh, Kevan" Subject: RE: Glass Occurrence To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi Helen This is an interesting question and thanks for sharing it with us. Depending on how you go about it, I'm not sure what it would achieve. (although it would build up your database - but then you need to think about how to structure those databases. For starters have a look at "Who is 'random man'?" by Buckleton, Walsh and Evett. J. For. Sci. Soc. (1991) 31 (4); 463-468) In my opinion it depends on your matching method and criteria. ie. how you go about comparing your chosen glass sample versus your surveyed sample(s). I think you can quickly see that if you choose a simple one RI measurement vs another, this reduces to a binning type approach, which is akin to doing in reverse the act of getting the survey data then choosing an RI to 'match'. You would find that the question of "how many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample" is simply a reflection of your survey frequencies. Others have suggested doing at least 5 RI measurements for each sample. This has considerable merit and would allow more meaningful comparisons of samples, but requires a lot more effort obviously. But at the end of the day (or summer) what have you achieved? Perhaps you could answer the question "Is it worth the extra effort to build surveys using multiple measurements for each sample?" There may be something to be gained in comparing the approach mentioned above with the conventional casework approach of comparing to your database (which would be compiled from those same data, but typically which loses the individual variation measure when reduced to one RI data point). This can be done without collecting any more data as you can just use the data you've obtained. I haven't explained myself well. I'll have another go. What I suggest could be done is to compare a chosen sample (with its own population variance) against a survey of other samples (each having their own population variance), using say, a t-test type approach. This would result in some 'survey matching statistic'. This could then be compared to comparing a chosen sample (with its own population variance) against a survey of other samples (a compilation of the means of each sample, which loses that population variance for each sample) - this is the more conventional casework approach to assessing 'frequency'. The surveys might then become important factors and from a point of view of effort required, you may be well advised to choose a couple of survey sets instead of many. I would expect differences between applying the above approach to a window glass survey (each sample having a low variance) versus a container glass survey (where each sample would be expected to have a larger variance). Rather than simply taking a chosen glass sample and comparing it to a survey, it would be better to just get lots of survey data then perform some computer-assisted multiple pairwise testing of the data. Perhaps the best advice I ever got was to talk to a statistician before beginning such a project. I'd be interested to hear what you decide to do and look forward to reading the results somewhere. Kevan Walsh ESR Private Bag 92021 Auckland New Zealand Ph: 09-8153903 email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz ---------- From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov[SMTP:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2000 10:22 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Occurrence I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. Helen Griffin From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 20:14:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00344 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (IDENT:qmailr@host000012.arnet.net.ar [200.45.0.12] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA00339 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:14:04 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Received: (qmail 16525 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2000 01:09:14 -0000 Received: ThePolice Version 0.02 by GCM Received: AntiBombing Version 0.08 by GCM Received: from host000004.arnet.net.ar (HELO mail1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.4) by host000012.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 17 Nov 2000 01:09:14 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:55:45 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:05:19 -0300 Received: (qmail 21833 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2000 21:30:02 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 15 Nov 2000 21:30:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA09170; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:34 -0500 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09129 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09124 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:24:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011152124.QAA09124@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:27:10 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Occurrence Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:22:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. Helen Griffin From forens-owner Thu Nov 16 20:17:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00577 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:17:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (IDENT:qmailr@host000012.arnet.net.ar [200.45.0.12] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA00572 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25130 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2000 01:13:00 -0000 Received: ThePolice Version 0.02 by GCM Received: AntiBombing Version 0.08 by GCM Received: from host000004.arnet.net.ar (HELO mail1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.4) by host000012.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 17 Nov 2000 01:13:00 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:12:36 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:46:04 -0300 Received: (qmail 23774 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2000 22:46:02 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 15 Nov 2000 22:46:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA10530; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:45:26 -0500 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10489 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from sierra.onr.com (sierra.onr.com [199.1.90.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10484 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu (austin1-51.onr.com [64.28.100.51]) by sierra.onr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 87E94F17FD for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:44:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Glass Occurrence Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:43:53 -0600 Message-ID: <005001c04f55$87cac040$3346a218@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO A slightly different project would be to collect a large number of randomly-chosen glass samples and measure several pieces of each sample to determine the range of refractive indices for a given sample. You could then create a table giving the identification of each sample and the corresponding index range. The results of this set of experiments could be useful in helping determine the significance of apparent "matches" in real cases. It really doesn't matter whether similar projects have been done before. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glass Occurrence I proposed a project for a summer intern to my supervisor the other day. I am proposing using the sodium D refractive index of a colorless glass (with a common refractive index) and searching for a matching refractive index from randomly collected glass from as many sources as possible - glass from the street, glass from broken drinking glasses, glass from automotive refinishers, glass from a glass supplier, etc. The question would be how many samples of glass are analyzed prior to finding a matching sample. I recognize that this would not provide any kind of statistic, but if repeated numerous times, a pattern might emerge. Also, it would add samples to our lab's glass data base. Does anyone know of any reason the project shouldn't be done? Has it been done before? Thanks ahead of time for any input. Helen Griffin Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@austin.rr.com From forens-owner Fri Nov 17 01:09:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04205 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r17.mail.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04200 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:09:14 -0500 (EST) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.7d.d1db36a (7867) for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:08:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7d.d1db36a.27462565@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:08:37 EST Subject: Re: Skeleton in the closet To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 147 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/15/2000 05:45:54 AM, LEGALEYE1@aol.com writes: >I am probably either missing the issue totally or over stating the obvious, >but if the responsible party(ies) are deceased isn't it academic whether >a crime was committed? I am assuming of course that the interest in this >case involves a criminal investigation as opposed to professional curiosity >or literary intent. It seems to me that it would save time and expense to >first determine whether any potential responsible parties are still living and >prosecutable, should the investigation determined a crime has been committed. > Of course it is desirable to identify the family name of the deceased >child. It just seems right to me that the child be properly buried under it's >family name. I said that "the guilty parties may already be deceased..." The people who bought the house died about eight years ago, leaving the house to their two daughters, who were about five to ten years old at the time. The previous owners of the house have yet to be found. Since they sold the house in '66, there's a lot of paper tracking to do by the detectives. The suitcase was found on November 5th, so there's only been a couple of weeks work on it so far. >But I don't see the point in expending the resources to find out if a crime >was involved if there is no one to hold accountable under the law. If the >child did die wrongly and the responsible party is deceased, then they >have already been tried and a verdict and sentence handed down in a court that >never commits a miscarriage of justice. Until we establish that a crime has been committed, we don't know who to prosecute. If we knew which family the baby belongs to, then we could see if the guilty party is still alive in order to prosecute. If there is a guilty party, since we don't know if we have a crime... It's like the chicken-and-the-egg argument. Arthur From forens-owner Fri Nov 17 08:42:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA08078 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r16.mail.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08073 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:42:53 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id c.47.39cbdaf (9762); Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:42:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47.39cbdaf.27468fb2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:42:10 EST Subject: Re: air-bag case To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I have heard that the court ruled in favor of Eric Thomas, apparently rejecting the Baden hypothesis. Just hearsay. No first hand knowledge. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 11/15/00 3:29:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, EJWagner@worldnet.att.net writes: << On July 20 of this year, the NYTimes reported that Ford Motor co was being sued by Dr.Eric Thomas,whose wife was killed in an auto accident. The claim was death caused by air bag inflating at 200 mph when the wife hit a utility pole at 15 miles per hour.Her husband and child were in the car at the time. Ford defended by claiming that the woman died not by accident, as determined by the county prosecutor, but by "compression of the neck by the hands of another",a written opinion given by Dr. Michael M. Baden. Anyone on the list have any further information on this case and its disposal? >> From forens-owner Fri Nov 17 10:49:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09692 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.47]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09687 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:49:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.169]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20001117154837.EHMO8012.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:48:37 +0000 Message-ID: <3A15536D.24197BC2@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:49:10 -0500 From: "E. J. Wagner" Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: air-bag case References: <47.39cbdaf.27468fb2@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Thanks for the information, Fred. Evidently, Thomas tried to expand his suit to include defamation,and Ford was defending on 1st amendment grounds. I've no idea of how that was decided. EJ Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > > I have heard that the court ruled in favor of Eric Thomas, apparently > rejecting the Baden hypothesis. Just hearsay. No first hand knowledge. > Fred Whitehurst > > In a message dated 11/15/00 3:29:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, > EJWagner@worldnet.att.net writes: > > << On July 20 of this year, the NYTimes reported that Ford Motor co was > being sued by Dr.Eric Thomas,whose wife was killed in an auto accident. > The claim was death caused by air bag inflating at 200 mph when the > wife hit a utility pole at 15 miles per hour.Her husband and child were > in the car at the time. > > Ford defended by claiming that the woman died not by accident, as > determined by the county prosecutor, but by "compression of the neck by > the hands of another",a written opinion given by Dr. Michael M. Baden. > > Anyone on the list have any further information on this case and its > disposal? > >> From forens-owner Fri Nov 17 14:29:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12512 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12507 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:54 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Received: from LeonStein@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.cb.b555e3b (16788) for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:29:20 EST Subject: Re: air-bag case To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cb.b555e3b.2746e110_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_cb.b555e3b.2746e110_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The National Forensic Science Technology Center has posted a new Request for Proposal (RFP) on its website (www.nfstc.org) for the manufacture and packagaing of quality samples containing controlled substances. Please visit the website and follow the "Quality Samples" link and review the RFP and the Master Agreement. After reading these, if you are interested in submitting a proposal, kindly complete the confirmation of receipt page in the RFP and forward it to me. If you know of a manufacturer who is interested in this type of project, please forward this information to them. Thank you, David M. Epstein NFSTC Director of Scientific Services P. O. Box 2710 Largo, FL 33779 727-549-6067 - voice 727-549-6070 - fax dme@nfstc.org www.nfstc.org --part1_cb.b555e3b.2746e110_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The National Forensic Science Technology Center has posted a new Request for
Proposal (RFP) on its website (www.nfstc.org) for the manufacture and
packagaing of quality samples containing controlled substances.  Please visit
the website and follow the "Quality Samples" link and review the RFP and the
Master Agreement.  After reading these, if you are interested in submitting a
proposal, kindly complete the confirmation of receipt page in the RFP and
forward it to me.

If you know of a manufacturer who is interested in this type of project,
please forward this information to them.

Thank you,

David M. Epstein
NFSTC
Director of Scientific Services
P. O. Box 2710
Largo, FL  33779

727-549-6067 - voice
727-549-6070 - fax
dme@nfstc.org
www.nfstc.org --part1_cb.b555e3b.2746e110_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Nov 17 16:01:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13951 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13946 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:01:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from chmjra ([131.94.48.45]) by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.02.00.07 201-232-116-107 license aefe03f970491859ae13d618536ca7ad) with SMTP id <20001117205356.ULYV15386.spn25c0@chmjra>; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:53:56 -0500 Message-ID: <005801c050d9$84bbcf40$2d305e83@fiu.edu> From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dr._Jos=E9_R._Almirall?=" To: , References: <200011152124.QAA09124@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> <002c01c04f74$46111860$a3025e83@fiu.edu> <3A141D80.6E74DC7F@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us> Subject: Re: Glass Occurrence Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:01:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Keith, Thanks for the input. Dr. Thorton's paper proposed a calculation to improve the interpretation of density and refractive index measurements, including dispersion, using a term he calls the k value. He uses data to show how the calculation of the k value can improve on a previous match criterion (proposed by Miller) to distinguish between "within-item" variations and "between-item" variations. Thorton uses 2 examples to show the utility of his technique. The first example compares a single real case to 7 sets of hypothetical data and the second example compares two data sets coming from 2 glass cases. This paper generated some discussion, including a letter to the editor of JFS (Koons, R.D., Discussion of "The Use of k values in the interpretation of Glass Density and Refractive Index Data", Letters to the Editor, JFS 1990; 35: 1261-1263.). The discussion from this letter and at least one other publication is that the discriminating capability of the k values, as proposed by Thorton, where overestimated due to the fact that Thorton does not account for the error in the dispersion calculation, in particular, the analytical uncertainty associated with the measurement of nF (486.1nm) and nC (656.3 nm), and the propagation of the uncertainties within the dispersion calculation. Thorton's calculations require measurements of RI at three wavelengths, and most labs measuring RI (either by Emmons Double Variation (EDV) or by GRIM1or2) can do this. Labs using EDV can gather the data at the 3 wavelengths essentially simultaneously ("Characterization and Matching of Glass Fragments; Dispersion Microscopy (Double Variation Method), (973.65) Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990; 637-639.) GRIM users will take three times as long to compile this data, requiring separate measurements for each wavelength. ("Standard Test Method for the Automated Determination of Refractive Index of Glass Samples Using the Oil Immersion Method and a Phase Contrast Microscope", E1967-98, Annual Book of Standards, Volume 14.02, 2000, ASTM, pp. 819-821). Thorton's k value calculation also requires a density measurement. This is a lot of work! The wider questions that have been posed have been: What is the most cost effective way to extract probative information from glass comparisons? Certainly, RI comparisons provide a fair amount of discrimination between sources, and in my opinion, worthwhile evidence. GRIM methods are fast, objective, and provide excellent precision for the measurement (studies show that the temperature variation method such as used in GRIM is more precise than the EDV). A sub-question is: Do we gain discrimination power by adding dispersion (and having to measure at the 2 other wavelengths) from just measuring at the nD (589.3 nm), as Helen proposes? Publications addressing this question suggest that the answer is essentially no. There is correlation between dispersion and the RI at nD, they are not independent variables. 1. Slater DP and Fong W, "Density, Refractive Index, and Dispersion in the Examination of Glass: Their Relative Worth as Proof", J. of Forensic Science, 1982: 27; 474-483., 2. Locke, J. Underhill, M., Russel, P., Cox, P. and Perryman, A.C. "The Evidential Value of Dispersion in the Examination of Glass", Forensic Science International, 1986; 32: 219-227. 3.Cassista A.R. and Sandercock P.M.L., "Precision of Glass Refractive Index Measurements: Temperature Variation and Double Variation Methods, and the Value of Dispersion", Canadian Society of Forensic Science, 1994: 27: 203-208. Secondly: Do we gain any significant discrimination potential by adding density and performing comparisons including density as a variable (even though we know, at the very beginning, that this variable is highly correlated with RI (and Thorton's paper describes why nicely))? It is my opinion that there is a very small improvement in the discrimination power by adding density to the analysis protocol and perhaps it is not cost effective. I would ask, should examiners invest their resources in added RI and density measurements or should we, as examiners or managers or customers invest in technologies that we know provide improved discrimination over added RI measurements and density measurements. Another interesting question is: How do we go about quantifying the amount of discrimination we obtain, no matter the method we use, so that we don't overestimate OR underestimate the value of the evidence? Helen's project is a good idea because, absent at least a notion of the informing power of a particular technique, we fall back to the old "could have come from" bit. It is helpful to the triers of facts to have the benefit of this information (informing power of the technique), in addition to the information that we could not distinguish the glasses by any given method. (I'm just talking about a straight comparison here, not the "totality" of the trace evidence, I realize that there is evidence to be teased from such information as how many fragments were found, how common the RI is (the RI is likely to be common :), etc.) What can be gained by her study? A pairwise (or multiple) comparison of the data, including the within-source variation into the "match" criteria, would yield a quantitative value for the discrimination power of RI measured at nD FOR HER SELECTED SET OF GLASSES. It is anecdotal evidence that she can add to previously published studies about the meaning of the comparison. Regards, Jose _________________ José R. Almirall, Ph.D. Director, Forensic Science Graduate Program Associate Director, International Forensic Research Institute Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Florida International University, U.P. Miami, FL, 33199 305.348.3917 (Office) 305.348.3772 (Fax) almirall@fiu.edu http://www.fiu.edu/~almirall/ http://www.fiu.edu/~ifri/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Inman" To: "Dr. José R. Almirall" ; Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Glass Occurrence "Dr. José R. Almirall" wrote: > Hi Helen, > > Great idea. Let me suggest that you pose the question: How often are you > likely to encounter two glasses with "matching" refractive index from a > given set of different selected glass knowns. > > Select a variety of sources of glass and then a number of glass samples from > each source(the greater, the better, ie. 20 from each of house windows, > containers, vehicle side windows, vehicle windshields, headlamps) > > Measure the RI with the best precision you have available (for each glass, > take measurements from a minimum of 5 different fragments (10 fragments, is > better still) to represent the variation in RI for that object of glass). > Calculate the mean and standard deviation. > snip... Helen and Jose, Having been out of the trace business for longer than I care to remember, I'm wondering if labs are now able to routinely measure RI at multiple wavelengths. In a 1989 JFS article, Thornton proposes a very elegant method for adding enormous discrimination to glass comparisons by determining the slope of dispersion vs. density (JFS; 34:6; pg 1323). This requires measuring the RI at the D, F, and C lines, and calculating the dispersion, as well as measuring the density of a fragment. Are these measurements within the capability of most labs now? If this is now within the capability of most labs (or Helen's), then adding this analysis to the experiment will also allow for a comparision of the discrimination added by this technique to the normal RI measurements -- Keith Inman, MCrim, FABC kinman@ix.netcom.com http://www.forensicdna.com/ From forens-owner Fri Nov 17 16:06:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14142 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14136 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:06:50 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Received: from LeonStein@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.12.50a1f2c (17377) for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:06:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12.50a1f2c.2746f7ca@aol.com> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:06:18 EST Subject: NFSTC - Request for Proposal To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12.50a1f2c.2746f7ca_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_12.50a1f2c.2746f7ca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The National Forensic Science Technology Center has posted a new Request for= =20 Proposal (RFP) on its website (www.nfstc.org) for the manufacture and=20 packagaing of quality samples containing controlled substances. =A0Please vi= sit=20 the website and follow the "Quality Samples" link and review the RFP and the= =20 Master Agreement. =A0After reading these, if you are interested in submittin= g a=20 proposal, kindly complete the confirmation of receipt page in the RFP and=20 forward it to me.=20 If you know of a manufacturer who is interested in this type of project,=20 please forward this information to them.=20 Thank you,=20 David M. Epstein=20 NFSTC=20 Director of Scientific Services=20 P. O. Box 2710=20 Largo, FL =A033779=20 727-549-6067 - voice=20 727-549-6070 - fax=20 dme@nfstc.org=20 www.nfstc.org=20 --part1_12.50a1f2c.2746f7ca_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The National Forensic Science Technology Center has posted a= new Request for
Proposal (RFP) on its website (www.nfstc.org) for the m= anufacture and
packagaing of quality samples containing controlled subst= ances. =A0Please visit
the website and follow the "Quality Samples" link= and review the RFP and the
Master Agreement. =A0After reading these, if= you are interested in submitting a
proposal, kindly complete the confir= mation of receipt page in the RFP and
forward it to me.=20

If you know of a manufacturer who is interested in this type of project,=
please forward this information to them.=20

Thank you,=20

David M. Epstein=20
NFSTC=20
Director of Scientific Services=20
P. O. Box 2710=20
Largo, FL =A033779=20

727-549-6067 - voice=20
727-549-6070 - fax=20
dme@nfstc.org=20
www.nfstc.org


--part1_12.50a1f2c.2746f7ca_boundary-- From forens-owner Sun Nov 19 18:03:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13329 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f12.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.12]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13324 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:03:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:03:05 -0800 Received: from 203.173.132.134 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:03:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [203.173.132.134] From: "Richard Wright" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Software for generating 3-D rotatable human stick figures Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:03:05 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Nov 2000 23:03:05.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0080C20:01C0527C] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I have prepared the beta version of a software kit for generating rotatable representations of multiple human bodies and skeletons (BODROT). The humans are represented as stick figures. One specific purpose of such representations is searching for 3-D pattern in the distribution of dumps of bodies in mass graves. Such overall patterns may not have been recognised during an exhumation, if each body was exhumed as soon as it was uncovered. There are three steps towards getting such representations: 1. Collecting the 3-D coordinates of a body; BODROT uses twelve anatomical landmarks on each body - cranium, shoulders, elbows, wrists, pelvis, knees and ankles. This survey job can be done by any instrument that outputs 3-D coordinates. 2. Parsing the survey data for errors and generating a formatted data file for use by the rotating software. 3. Rotating the data file using 3-D software. The package BODROT carries out step 2 above, with the aim of displaying the 3-D file on the program ROTATE in step 3. The program ROTATE is written by Marijke van Gans and downloadable from http://www.silicon-alley.com/cat/rotate.html. I am happy to email the beta version of BODROT to anybody who requests it, and will welcome comments. There is no charge. The package was prepared during intervals between forensic exhumation work for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). An advantage for evidentiary purposes is that the ROTATE software can be freely distributed on a disk with the data file generated by BODROT, i.e. no installation of a CAD program is required on the recipient's computer. Richard Wright _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. From forens-owner Mon Nov 20 13:34:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24351 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24346 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:34:06 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200011201834.NAA24346@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:36:40 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, maldridge@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us Subject: RE: GLASS ISSUES Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:18:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I want to thank everyone who contributed to the glass discussion. It has helped me understand some of the questions I have regarding presenting glass evidence in court. My general approach has been to use the FBI data to obtain a percentage for the glass type I have analyzed. This value is usually around 10%, as noted by Dr. Almirall (9% - 15%). As Kevin Walsh points out this is comparing mean values rather than comparing actual data that has within glass variance using something like the t-test. It appears to me that it also does not take into account whether a person is more likely to encounter broken bottle glass, container glass, tempered glass, float glass, glass newly manufactured, glass manufactured years ago, etc. It still provides some concept of frequency of occurrence so it is what I currently use. In terms of dispersion, our system found a strong correlation between nD and dispersion. When we started using GRIM we stopped using dispersion. I tried to do some validation on glass density about seven years ago. I decided on the temperature variation method. The density range of particles from one window was quite large. The density range was large enought to include glass from a different (by nD) glass sample. I didn't feel that I could trust the technique. What seemed to be happening was that even though I had tried to select only bulk glass some particles had traces of float surface that I had missed on first viewing them, others had inclusions, etc. Density seems like a good preliminary technique to screen large quantities of glass. Density is also very sensitive if you can assure that the two pieces you are comparing have no surface, no inclusions etc. However, it does have some correlation to refractive index and, given the problems I encountered with it, I decided not to use density. These opinions are my own and do not reflect those of the Washington State Patrol or its employees. Helen R. Griffin ---------- From: Aldridge, Michael To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: GLASS ISSUES Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:03AM What is the expected variation in density across a "pane" of flat glass and tempered glass? What is the volume of the density testing vessel which is used in your lab? How much do you vary the density of this solution when you add one "drop" of the more dense liquid used in your lab? What difference in density to you expect to be able to visualize in the "sink/float method you use? Thank you for the time to provide this information, Tony Aldridge, Crime Lab Charlotte, NC From forens-owner Mon Nov 20 14:05:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24759 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:05:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24754 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-97.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.97]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id eAKJ5W221849 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:05:32 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001120105832.00aac2f0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:04:02 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Impact of Daubert Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I thought the recent report of the Federal Judicial Center on the impact of Daubert and its progeny on the use of expert witnesses in Federal Courts might be of some interest. The report can be found at http://air.fjc.gov/public/fjcweb.nsf/pages/336. I would be interested in knowing the experience of people with acceptance of expert testimony in State courts in the post-Daubert era. I know there have been a lot of hearings in DNA, hair, drugs, and even fingerprint cases. But what about such things as reconstruction, blood spatter pattern analysis, firearm-related issues, bite mark comparison, etc., etc. A brief synopsis of the evidence, the nature of the challenge, and the results would be interesting. Also, mention whether the jurisdiction has adopted Daubert, or follows another criteria for the admissibility of scientific or expert evidence. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Tue Nov 21 00:20:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01719 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r11.mail.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01714 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:20:45 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.9e.c497cc2 (4426) for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:20:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9e.c497cc2.274b6004@aol.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:20:04 EST Subject: Re: Skeleton in the closet To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 87 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/16/00 10:17:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, ArtWYoung@aol.com writes: > It's like the chicken-and-the-egg argument. I see your point regarding the necessity of determining if a crime exists before seeking prosecutable guilty parties, as well as determining if there is someone to prosecute before investigating the existence of a crime. I guess that's where the experience and judgment of the detectives shows it's value. But as for the chicken and egg analogy, there are some of us who know the answer to that conundrum. Regards, Bill From forens-owner Tue Nov 21 08:51:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05712 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05707 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:51:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:50:59 -0500 Message-ID: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4D0104EA58@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: FW: GLASS ISSUES Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:51:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C053C2.1C019340" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C053C2.1C019340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" our lab need input on the current issues: -----Original Message----- From: Aldridge, Michael Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:04 AM To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail) Subject: GLASS ISSUES What is the expected variation in density across a "pane" of flat glass and tempered glass? What is the volume of the density testing vessel which is used in your lab? How much do you vary the density of this solution when you add one "drop" of the more dense liquid used in your lab? What difference in density to you expect to be able to visualize in the "sink/float method you use? Thank you for the time to provide this information, Tony Aldridge, Crime Lab Charlotte, NC ------_=_NextPart_001_01C053C2.1C019340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" GLASS ISSUES
our lab need input on the current issues:
-----Original Message-----
From: Aldridge, Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:04 AM
To: Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)
Subject: GLASS ISSUES

What is the expected variation in density across a "pane" of flat glass and tempered glass?

What is the volume of the density testing vessel which is used in your lab?

How much do you vary the density of this solution  when you add one "drop" of the more dense liquid used in your lab?

What difference in density to you expect to be able to visualize in the "sink/float method you use?

Thank you for the time to provide this information, Tony Aldridge, Crime Lab  Charlotte, NC

       

------_=_NextPart_001_01C053C2.1C019340-- From forens-owner Tue Nov 21 09:55:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06505 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:55:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from email.state.ut.us (email.state.ut.us [168.180.96.41]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06500 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from STATE-GATE-Message_Server by email.state.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:55:20 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 X-GWFix: Yes Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:55:11 -0700 From: "J. Gabriel Bier" To: Subject: Glass Manufacture Video Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id JAA06501 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am a glass expert and I would like to obtain a video of a commercial glass factory. Thank you, David S. Murdock From forens-owner Tue Nov 21 10:07:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06708 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:07:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from email.state.ut.us (email.state.ut.us [168.180.96.41]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA06703 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:07:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from STATE-GATE-Message_Server by email.state.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:07:01 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 X-GWFix: Yes Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:06:52 -0700 From: "J. Gabriel Bier" To: Subject: Glass Manufacture Video Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id KAA06704 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am a glass expert and I would like to obtain a video of a commercial glass factory. Thank you, David S. Murdock From forens-owner Tue Nov 21 10:25:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07021 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:25:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07016 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from chmjra ([131.94.48.45]) by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.02.00.07 201-232-116-107 license aefe03f970491859ae13d618536ca7ad) with SMTP id <20001121151726.ZKJN15386.spn25c0@chmjra>; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:17:26 -0500 Message-ID: <001d01c053c6$c96d7e00$2d305e83@fiu.edu> From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dr._Jos=E9_R._Almirall?=" To: "J. Gabriel Bier" , References: Subject: Re: Glass Manufacture Video Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:24:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi Gabriel, I purchased a nice video from the National Glass Association on the float manufacturing process and the making of a windshield. It cost ~ $ 20.00. www.glass.org National Glass Association 8200 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA 22102 Phone: 703/442-4890 Fax: 703/442-0630 Regards, Jose _________________ José R. Almirall, Ph.D. Director, Forensic Science Graduate Program Associate Director, International Forensic Research Institute Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Florida International University, U.P. Miami, FL, 33199 305.348.3917 (Office) 305.348.3772 (Fax) almirall@fiu.edu http://www.fiu.edu/~almirall/ http://www.fiu.edu/~ifri/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. Gabriel Bier" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:06 AM Subject: Glass Manufacture Video > I am a glass expert and I would like to obtain a video of a commercial glass factory. > > Thank you, > David S. Murdock > > From forens-owner Tue Nov 21 12:35:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09115 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:35:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r17.mail.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09110 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:35:02 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id x.aa.d4cbe4b (3953); Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:34:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:34:18 EST Subject: Re: Impact of Daubert To: pbarnett@fsalab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Peter I testified in a Daubert hearing in a drug case in September 9, 1999. Case U.S. v. Everth Lopez, Pensacola, Florida. Issue was forensic paint analysis. I was left with the impression that the court accepted that forensic paint analysis would be grandfathered in because it had been done for so long and no one objected. My issues were the data and interpretation first, and then the fact that we do not necessarily know if accepted protocols are giving us the correct answers when utilized on new analytes. Some on this list expressed concern that the data did not support the government's opinions concerning possible sources. Beyond the data, again, though was the question concerning whether the protocol had been tested on this particular analyte, and the error rate of the protocol when used on this particular analyte. The government had no such data but, in my opinion, the court misunderstood. With paint chemistry changing so fast I am not sure how we can validate existing protocols with the new chemistries. But we have talked about this before here. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Nov 22 16:15:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29381 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:15:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from swvx12.swmed.edu (swvx12.swmed.edu [199.165.152.12]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29376 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:15:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from pathology.swmed.edu ([129.112.20.7]) by SWVX12.SWMED.EDU (PMDF V6.0-24 #46721) with ESMTP id <01JWUFU1NM1C9JEB6Y@SWVX12.SWMED.EDU> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:14:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pathology.swmed.edu (206.50.80.84) by pathology.swmed.edu with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:23:11 -0600 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:30 -0600 From: "Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D." Subject: Presumptive tests for seminal fluid To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <3A1C3826.1E700F96@pathology.swmed.edu> Organization: Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001120105832.00aac2f0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I'm looking for information on possible interference of lubricant gels such as KY Jelly in presumptive tests for seminal fluid. Thanks, Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas, TX From forens-owner Thu Nov 23 16:04:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11568 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from arnie.systems.sa.gov.au (arnie.systems.sa.gov.au [203.26.120.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11563 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from arnie.systems.sa.gov.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arnie.systems.sa.gov.au OUTGOING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02793 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 07:33:45 +1030 (CST)' Received: from sagemsbb002.saugov.sa.gov.au (sagemsbb002.saugov.sa.gov.au [143.216.59.12]) by arnie.systems.sa.gov.au INCOMING (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02789 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 07:33:45 +1030 (CST)' Received: by SAGEMSBB002.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 07:33:45 +1030 Message-ID: <833BFC64AC56D21190F00008C71E395406F12203@SAGEMSG0002.sagemsmrd01.sa.gov.au> From: "Donnelly, Andrew (FORENSIC)" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Presumptive tests for seminal fluid Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 07:33:44 +1030 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi Timothy, the following papers dealing with prostate specific antigen have info re lubricant gels: 1) Science & Justice Vol 38 pages 157-164, 1998. 2) Journal od Forensic Sciences Vol 38 pages 250-258, 1993. 3) Journal of Forensic Sciences Vol 23 pages 106-115, 1977. Cheers, Andrew Donnelly Forensic Science Centre Adelaide, South Australia From forens-owner Sat Nov 25 23:18:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06809 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:18:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06804 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:17:59 -0500 (EST) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Received: from ForensicRe@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.66.9995956 (4511) for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:17:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <66.9995956.2751e8d5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:17:25 EST Subject: Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 123 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's Well, it was not actually as advanced as the Internet, and it wasn't actually invented by Albert Gore, Jr., but by John K. Gore, and it was actually in the 1890's. All the same, there are some interesting lines in the write up about Mr. Gore's machine from the "Punched Card Systems" section of the November 1938 issue of _American Office Machines Research Service_. Please note that the system "operated on a different principle" and that "one of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards sensed and selected at one operation varied according to the number of similar cards that happened to be together on a particular sort." When we think of how slowly counting can goes, regardless of rule modifications that may or may not favor one result or another, one last comment on Mr. Gore's system might be significant: "while the machine operating speed was constant, the output was materially increased under favorable circumstances." Below is the full text of the section on Mr. Gore's invention. GORE Perhaps it will be of interest to know that in the early '90's, an actuary, John K. Gore, developed and produced an automatic card feed punch and a card sorter, or selecting machine. This equipment was used by one of the large insurance companies by whom Gore was employed, to punch and sort the exceptionally large volume of cards in their policy record files. The sorter operated on a different principle than any of the machines used today. One of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards sensed and selected at one operation varied according to the number of similar cards that happened to be together on a particular sort. One card or a large group of cards could be selected and deposited on one receiving receptacle at one operation. Therefore, while the machine operating speed was constant, the output was materially increased under favorable circumstances. The card receiving receptacles, of which there were 40 (ten in four circular tiers), revolved in a frame under 40 stacks of cards. When the selecting pins in a receiving receptacle sensed the correct card (or all cards with the same group indication), the card or cards were deposited on the pins. _American Office Machines Research Service_, November 1938, "Punched Card Systems" (Sec. 1.2, p. 5). This is all for real. (Even I can't make up stuff this good.) The text is available for inspection. I don't know if John K. Gore was from Tennessee or a relative of the VP. A patent search might turn up more information. But for now, just try to enjoy this slightly more ironic little historical joke while watching the bigger one. Peter Tytell, NYC From forens-owner Sun Nov 26 00:26:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07486 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07481 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:26:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from forensicdna.com (user-2ivfjij.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.206.83]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA20306 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:26:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A202E4A.D2EDD961@forensicdna.com> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:25:31 +0000 From: Norah Rudin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's References: <66.9995956.2751e8d5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO So, if pregnant chads are counted, should each be worth two votes? Norah Rudin -- Norah Rudin, Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ForensicRe@aol.com wrote: > Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's > > Well, it was not actually as advanced as the Internet, and it wasn't actually > invented by Albert Gore, Jr., but by John K. Gore, and it was actually in the > 1890's. All the same, there are some interesting lines in the write up about > Mr. Gore's machine from the "Punched Card Systems" section of the November > 1938 issue of _American Office Machines Research Service_. > > Please note that the system "operated on a different principle" and that "one > of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards sensed and > selected at one operation varied according to the number of similar cards > that happened to be together on a particular sort." > > When we think of how slowly counting can goes, regardless of rule > modifications that may or may not favor one result or another, one last > comment on Mr. Gore's system might be significant: "while the machine > operating speed was constant, the output was materially increased under > favorable circumstances." > > Below is the full text of the section on Mr. Gore's invention. > > GORE > Perhaps it will be of interest to know that in the early '90's, an actuary, > John K. Gore, developed and produced an automatic card feed punch and a card > sorter, or selecting machine. This equipment was used by one of the large > insurance companies by whom Gore was employed, to punch and sort the > exceptionally large volume of cards in their policy record files. > > The sorter operated on a different principle than any of the machines used > today. One of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards > sensed and selected at one operation varied according to the number of > similar cards that happened to be together on a particular sort. One card or > a large group of cards could be selected and deposited on one receiving > receptacle at one operation. Therefore, while the machine operating speed was > constant, the output was materially increased under favorable circumstances. > The card receiving receptacles, of which there were 40 (ten in four circular > tiers), revolved in a frame under 40 stacks of cards. When the selecting > pins in a receiving receptacle sensed the correct card (or all cards with the > same group indication), the card or cards were deposited on the pins. > > _American Office Machines Research Service_, November 1938, "Punched Card > Systems" (Sec. 1.2, p. 5). > > This is all for real. (Even I can't make up stuff this good.) The text is > available for inspection. I don't know if John K. Gore was from Tennessee or > a relative of the VP. A patent search might turn up more information. But for > now, just try to enjoy this slightly more ironic little historical joke while > watching the bigger one. > > Peter Tytell, NYC From forens-owner Sun Nov 26 10:15:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11868 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11863 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:15:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22425 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2000 09:15:41 -0600 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2000 09:15:41 -0600 Message-ID: <002101c057bb$66899f50$3def87d0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:13:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Only if fetal chad is viable ;) -----Original Message----- From: Norah Rudin To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:37 PM Subject: Re: Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's So, if pregnant chads are counted, should each be worth two votes? Norah Rudin -- Norah Rudin, Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ForensicRe@aol.com wrote: > Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's > > Well, it was not actually as advanced as the Internet, and it wasn't actually > invented by Albert Gore, Jr., but by John K. Gore, and it was actually in the > 1890's. All the same, there are some interesting lines in the write up about > Mr. Gore's machine from the "Punched Card Systems" section of the November > 1938 issue of _American Office Machines Research Service_. > > Please note that the system "operated on a different principle" and that "one > of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards sensed and > selected at one operation varied according to the number of similar cards > that happened to be together on a particular sort." > > When we think of how slowly counting can goes, regardless of rule > modifications that may or may not favor one result or another, one last > comment on Mr. Gore's system might be significant: "while the machine > operating speed was constant, the output was materially increased under > favorable circumstances." > > Below is the full text of the section on Mr. Gore's invention. > > GORE > Perhaps it will be of interest to know that in the early '90's, an actuary, > John K. Gore, developed and produced an automatic card feed punch and a card > sorter, or selecting machine. This equipment was used by one of the large > insurance companies by whom Gore was employed, to punch and sort the > exceptionally large volume of cards in their policy record files. > > The sorter operated on a different principle than any of the machines used > today. One of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards > sensed and selected at one operation varied according to the number of > similar cards that happened to be together on a particular sort. One card or > a large group of cards could be selected and deposited on one receiving > receptacle at one operation. Therefore, while the machine operating speed was > constant, the output was materially increased under favorable circumstances. > The card receiving receptacles, of which there were 40 (ten in four circular > tiers), revolved in a frame under 40 stacks of cards. When the selecting > pins in a receiving receptacle sensed the correct card (or all cards with the > same group indication), the card or cards were deposited on the pins. > > _American Office Machines Research Service_, November 1938, "Punched Card > Systems" (Sec. 1.2, p. 5). > > This is all for real. (Even I can't make up stuff this good.) The text is > available for inspection. I don't know if John K. Gore was from Tennessee or > a relative of the VP. A patent search might turn up more information. But for > now, just try to enjoy this slightly more ironic little historical joke while > watching the bigger one. > > Peter Tytell, NYC From forens-owner Sun Nov 26 12:09:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12887 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12882 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:09:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([203.197.229.225]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA07201; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:42:25 -0500 (GMT) Message-ID: <3A2136B0.EDAA221B@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 21:43:37 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.71 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (Linguistics)" Subject: Papers for Internet Journal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear List members, I am happy to announce that Volume II, No I (Jan-June 2001) of the Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology would be put on the web on January 1, 2001 (The address of the journal is given below). Currently we are finalizing the papers for this issue. Those members who want to send papers and /or thesis etc for the issue, may contact me or any of the editors by Email. Contributions can be sent in many different forms (besides papers). They could be random thoughts, contributions for undergraduate and Postgraduate sections, for coffee break and so on. Please visit the journal to see what sections we have there. Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From forens-owner Sun Nov 26 15:02:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14489 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.49]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14482 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:02:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.205.20]) by mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with ESMTP id <20001126200147.OTVJ13270.mtiwmhc24.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:01:47 +0000 Message-ID: <3A216B9B.5D77E532@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:59:23 -0800 From: John Bowden Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ForensicRe@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's References: <66.9995956.2751e8d5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO A very interesting presentation. But some (other) facts need to be mentioned. The punch card was created by French inventor Joseph-Marie Jacquard. They were used to program patterns on looms. He was rewarded by Napoleon I for his invention. He had to flee Lyon pursued by a mob of angry weavers who feared they would lose their jobs due to the invention, no doubt due to "downsizing" . Some Jacquard looms are still in use today. Charles Babbage, English mathematician and inventor, designed the "Analytical Engine" a mechanical device that was to use punch cards for permanent memory storage. Unfortunately the machine was never built. His simpler "Difference Engine" was designed to do 20 decimal mathematical calculations. He was never able to complete construction of this device. In 1991 a group of British scientists build the Difference Engine from Babbage's detailed plans. It is said to work flawlessly. Babbage also invented the speedometer and the cowcatcher. American Herman Hollerith devised a machine with electrical contacts to detect the holes in punch cards. It was used in the 1890 census, and cut the processing time to about a fourth of hand counting. In 1896, Hollerith started the Tabulating Machine Company, one of the predecessors of IBM. Indeed the cards I used for my 360 assembler course, the standard 80 column card, was called Hollerith cards. In the early 1970's the California Department of Justice was still using Hollerith card input at its Data Center. They were being phased out at that time. For these comments, I relied heavily on MicroSoft's Encarta 99, as well as my recollections of James Burke's "Connections" series and of my first FORTRAN class at UCLA in 1961. They actually allowed us real computer time (using punch cards, of course) at the Western Data Processing Center, a very expensive commodity at that time. John P. Bowden Retired Criminalist "Dum Spiro Spero" ForensicRe@aol.com wrote: > Gore invented punch card machines in the '90's > > Well, it was not actually as advanced as the Internet, and it wasn't actually > invented by Albert Gore, Jr., but by John K. Gore, and it was actually in the > 1890's. All the same, there are some interesting lines in the write up about > Mr. Gore's machine from the "Punched Card Systems" section of the November > 1938 issue of _American Office Machines Research Service_. > > Please note that the system "operated on a different principle" and that "one > of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards sensed and > selected at one operation varied according to the number of similar cards > that happened to be together on a particular sort." > > When we think of how slowly counting can goes, regardless of rule > modifications that may or may not favor one result or another, one last > comment on Mr. Gore's system might be significant: "while the machine > operating speed was constant, the output was materially increased under > favorable circumstances." > > Below is the full text of the section on Mr. Gore's invention. > > GORE > Perhaps it will be of interest to know that in the early '90's, an actuary, > John K. Gore, developed and produced an automatic card feed punch and a card > sorter, or selecting machine. This equipment was used by one of the large > insurance companies by whom Gore was employed, to punch and sort the > exceptionally large volume of cards in their policy record files. > > The sorter operated on a different principle than any of the machines used > today. One of its outstanding differences was that the number of cards > sensed and selected at one operation varied according to the number of > similar cards that happened to be together on a particular sort. One card or > a large group of cards could be selected and deposited on one receiving > receptacle at one operation. Therefore, while the machine operating speed was > constant, the output was materially increased under favorable circumstances. > The card receiving receptacles, of which there were 40 (ten in four circular > tiers), revolved in a frame under 40 stacks of cards. When the selecting > pins in a receiving receptacle sensed the correct card (or all cards with the > same group indication), the card or cards were deposited on the pins. > > _American Office Machines Research Service_, November 1938, "Punched Card > Systems" (Sec. 1.2, p. 5). > > This is all for real. (Even I can't make up stuff this good.) The text is > available for inspection. I don't know if John K. Gore was from Tennessee or > a relative of the VP. A patent search might turn up more information. But for > now, just try to enjoy this slightly more ironic little historical joke while > watching the bigger one. > > Peter Tytell, NYC -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for two free plane tickets: http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/ From forens-owner Mon Nov 27 12:15:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26971 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:15:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26966 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:15:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 17:15:07 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:13:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Impact of Daubert Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:13:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C05895.67ABD620" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C05895.67ABD620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Pete, Florida has not accepted Daubert and still applies the Frye standard. We also have something called a "Bender hearing" which is used to establish the efficacy of scientific testimony involving methods which are NOT new or novel. It takes a couple of hours as opposed to a full-fledge Frye hearing for new methodologies, which can take days. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:04 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Impact of Daubert I thought the recent report of the Federal Judicial Center on the impact of Daubert and its progeny on the use of expert witnesses in Federal Courts might be of some interest. The report can be found at http://air.fjc.gov/public/fjcweb.nsf/pages/336. I would be interested in knowing the experience of people with acceptance of expert testimony in State courts in the post-Daubert era. I know there have been a lot of hearings in DNA, hair, drugs, and even fingerprint cases. But what about such things as reconstruction, blood spatter pattern analysis, firearm-related issues, bite mark comparison, etc., etc. A brief synopsis of the evidence, the nature of the challenge, and the results would be interesting. Also, mention whether the jurisdiction has adopted Daubert, or follows another criteria for the admissibility of scientific or expert evidence. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C05895.67ABD620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Impact of Daubert

Pete,

Florida has not accepted Daubert and still applies = the Frye standard.  We also have something called a "Bender = hearing" which is used to establish the efficacy of scientific = testimony involving methods which are NOT new or novel.  It takes = a couple of hours as opposed to a full-fledge Frye hearing for new = methodologies, which can take days.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 2:04 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Impact of Daubert


I thought the recent report of the Federal Judicial = Center on the impact of
Daubert and its progeny on the use of expert = witnesses in Federal Courts
might be of some interest.  The report can be = found  at
http://air.fjc.gov/public/fjcweb.nsf/pages/336.

I would be interested in knowing the experience of = people with acceptance
of expert testimony in State courts in the = post-Daubert era.  I know there
have been a lot of hearings in DNA, hair, drugs, and = even fingerprint
cases.  But what about such things as = reconstruction, blood spatter pattern
analysis, firearm-related issues, bite mark = comparison, etc., etc.  A brief
synopsis of the evidence, the nature of the = challenge, and the results
would be interesting.  Also, mention whether = the jurisdiction has adopted
Daubert, or follows another criteria for the = admissibility of scientific or
expert evidence.

Pete Barnett
Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 = pbarnett@FSALab.com

http://www.fsalab.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C05895.67ABD620-- From forens-owner Mon Nov 27 17:46:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01847 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:46:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01842 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:46:19 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.95.37e661e (4505) for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:45:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <95.37e661e.27543e18@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:45:44 EST Subject: I was just wondering To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I was just wondering. Seems to be something wrong with the following statement: "A. Yeah. Now with any test, I don't care what test you're doing, you're trying to find differences, okay, and if you can't find differences you have to come up with the conclusion that they are consistent. If they were different, the differences would show up. Q. Were there any other tests performed on these samples? A. On the fibers, no. Q. All right. So we've got a microscopic, a miscrospectrophotometer, an infrared spectrophotometer, melting point. A. Melting point and cross section. Q. And cross section. So, there would be essentially five basic tests which you performed on the samples? A. Right. Q. All right. A. Now, there is probably a thousand tests you can do on the fiber including you can drop them and see if they hit the floor at the same time. I'm not being sarcastic, but it's only a good test if it gives you conclusive results. In other words, it's going to separate this fiber out from another fiber and this basically is all you can do. With the state of the art, these are the only conclusive tests there are today." [This is 1985 testimony. It sort of gives me heart burn. Any comments?] Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Mon Nov 27 18:11:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02180 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:11:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02175 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:10:59 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.4d.40b991f (4505) for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:10:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4d.40b991f.275443ca@aol.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:10:02 EST Subject: H'air To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Another testimony: "A.... If this is a hair shaft, we're looking inside the hair shaft itself because this is where you're going to find microscopic characteristics of the hair. This is what gives us its uniqueness. Now, we identify every one of them we can find and at this point which is kind of a secondstep, we're kind of conservative, we got to come up with 15 distinct points of identification, 15 individual microscopic characteristics. Q. Who's we? A. Our lab. Q. Why? A. All right. We've been doing this for 40 years. We feel, or I feel, that if we don't have 15 it's not unique enough to do a full comparison. In other words, the whole key is it's got to be unique. You got to be able to separate it out from somebody else. Q. Okay. A. If we don't come up with these 15 characteristics we'll stop the exam here and what we'll do is we'll say we'll report out the hair as being of no value for comparison basically, just means it's no good. .." We have discussed this issue before and, I believe it was last year, Max Houck at the FBI lab told us that this standard was inappropriate. This standard of a minimum number of characteristics found before useful conclusions could be drawn concerning hairs. The testimony above is that of an FBI examiner in 1985. I have others from other Bu examiners from the early 80's until the 90's that give the same standard. When was this standard determined to be flawed? Why was the standard changed? Who made the decision? How was the change in the standard documented? I ask the members of this list because there are a number of you who were trained in forensic hair analysis by the FBI back in the 1980's and 1990's. If any of you have training materials from that training I would greatly appreciate copies of those materials. Mostly however I am interested in the evolution of the forensic hair analysis community's understanding of this issue. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 10:59:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12039 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:59:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r20.mail.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12034 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:59:24 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id y.2b.dba6076 (1758) for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:58:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2b.dba6076.27553037@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:58:47 EST Subject: Hair To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO List As if it is not obvious I am studying forensic hair analysis. Without the benefit of having a trained examiner as an in-house tutor I have to read and observe. My training staff are transcripts from experienced examiners, scientific papers, my time on the microscope as well as you. It seems that the key to all of this is that once you've identified all the characteristics in hairs, the next step is the key to the whole exam. You've got to see how they are arranged within that hair because they're arranged slightly differently in almost everbody's hair. So you're looking for this arrangement and this is where experience is so important because it takes a long time to pattern recognize it to do this. How do we know that the characteristics are arranged slightly differently in almost everybody's hair? Is there a data base of hair comparison data? If it is our experience that guides us in deciding this, do we actually compare the hair we are looking at to all the thousands and hundreds of thousands of hairs we have looked at in the past. This seems like a phenomenal task. How do we remember, for instance, the characteristics of the 6,437th hair that we analyzed when we are working on the 174,348th hair in our career? What am I missing? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 11:08:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12257 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:08:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12252 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:08:31 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.85.37bf902 (1758) for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:07:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <85.37bf902.27553252@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:07:46 EST Subject: Hair To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO "What we're doing is looking at a question here, an unknown here, here side by side, same magnification, same conditions. What you're doing is comparing the arrangement of charactgeristics unknown and the known. If there is one significant difference you can eliminate the guy." Is this really true. When I look at my 53 year old head of hair in the mirror I find that there are a whole bunch of hairs of different description. Gray seems to be the overall impression I am left with until I look at the separate hairs. So it seems that two hairs out of my head may be different but that would not "eliminate the guy" as being the source. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 11:17:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12438 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:17:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12433 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:17:17 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id y.df.cfca603 (1758) for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:15:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:15:18 EST Subject: Hair To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Ahh, I got the right quotes. No what is so wrong with them and if they are so wrong do they do any harm and if they do harm why are they allowed to continue to be made: "Q: Is there any statistical breakdowns as to the portion of population of which would have this particular characteristic? A: Okay. There has been one study done, one accepted study done by the RCMP Lab in Toronto and by the leader in the field, a guy by the name of Barry Goddette, head of microscopic analysis up there. He did a study and his techniques are very similar to ours, same characteristics same kind of scopes, except we do ours at a much higher magnification, and he says the chances of, if you match a hair to one individual, the chance of finding another individual -- we're dealing with Caucasians -- the chances of finding another individual is one in 2,500. My own experience, and I've kept track of it over the ten years I've looked at hairs from 10,000 different people myself, and twice it's happened to me where I had hairs from two different people that were so close that I couldn't distinguish them. So it's happened twice to me. So that's the closest thing I can give you in numbers." This guy is not saying that this is really a true indication of the statistical variation in hairs but just anecdotal evidence from his own case work. What is the problem with that? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 11:26:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12689 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:26:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp05.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA12684 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:26:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17767 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 16:26:14 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.35 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Nov 2000 16:26:14 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 16:20:24 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Tue Nov 28 08:25:12 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:24:32 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:23:57 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Fred, I think you are making a serious mistake here. Your training should not rely on court transcripts and scientific papers. How can you legitimately critique the work without sufficient background of training and experience. If you are going to review such material, then find an expert with the background or knowledge who will critique the material or take tuteledge from him. What you are doing is dangerous and is certainly not helping the cause of justice. Just my opinion, but one I believe is shared by consensus in the forensic community Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> 11/28 7:58 AM >>> List As if it is not obvious I am studying forensic hair analysis. Without the benefit of having a trained examiner as an in-house tutor I have to read and observe. My training staff are transcripts from experienced examiners, scientific papers, my time on the microscope as well as you. It seems that the key to all of this is that once you've identified all the characteristics in hairs, the next step is the key to the whole exam. You've got to see how they are arranged within that hair because they're arranged slightly differently in almost everbody's hair. So you're looking for this arrangement and this is where experience is so important because it takes a long time to pattern recognize it to do this. How do we know that the characteristics are arranged slightly differently in almost everybody's hair? Is there a data base of hair comparison data? If it is our experience that guides us in deciding this, do we actually compare the hair we are looking at to all the thousands and hundreds of thousands of hairs we have looked at in the past. This seems like a phenomenal task. How do we remember, for instance, the characteristics of the 6,437th hair that we analyzed when we are working on the 174,348th hair in our career? What am I missing? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 11:27:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12816 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:27:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12811 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:27:44 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id y.85.37bf905 (1758) for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:27:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <85.37bf905.275536da@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:27:06 EST Subject: Hair To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO John Hicks wrote a text called "Microscopy of Hair" back in the 1980's. Where can I get a copy of that text? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 12:00:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13377 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13372 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4131 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 11:00:00 -0600 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 11:00:00 -0600 Message-ID: <009c01c0595c$5cb14a80$3def87d0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Hair Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:57:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Fred, I thought hair testimony was a dead issue. What is disturbing about the hair testimony cult is how it ever got started. I guess it goes to show that people pretending to be scientists can develop a complex but completely worthless technology. At least they didn't claim, thru study and experience to be able to see a trichohumiculus who's physical features were identical with the donor of the hair. JTP -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 10:07 AM Subject: Hair List As if it is not obvious I am studying forensic hair analysis. Without the benefit of having a trained examiner as an in-house tutor I have to read and observe. My training staff are transcripts from experienced examiners, scientific papers, my time on the microscope as well as you. It seems that the key to all of this is that once you've identified all the characteristics in hairs, the next step is the key to the whole exam. You've got to see how they are arranged within that hair because they're arranged slightly differently in almost everbody's hair. So you're looking for this arrangement and this is where experience is so important because it takes a long time to pattern recognize it to do this. How do we know that the characteristics are arranged slightly differently in almost everybody's hair? Is there a data base of hair comparison data? If it is our experience that guides us in deciding this, do we actually compare the hair we are looking at to all the thousands and hundreds of thousands of hairs we have looked at in the past. This seems like a phenomenal task. How do we remember, for instance, the characteristics of the 6,437th hair that we analyzed when we are working on the 174,348th hair in our career? What am I missing? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 12:11:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13547 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13542 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:11:39 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id p.84.dd22e0d (1758); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:10:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <84.dd22e0d.27554105@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:10:29 EST Subject: Re: Hair To: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Greg I could not agree with you more. However, by reviewing the transcripts of many hair examiners and the literature, I do complete part of the training requirements that I had to complete while at the FBI lab. Of course there was lab work. But as I said in the email, "I am studying forensic hair analysis." When I read the different transcripts and scientific literature I am able to see the breadth of the controversy. The literature goes from Peter DeForest's disagreement with the "10,000 people whose hairs have been looked at with only two times not being able to differentiate hair of two different people" to folks using the phrase "outright fraud" to those who essentially agree with a need for forensic hair analysis as long as the opinions are conservative. Frye looked for acceptance by the relevant scientific community. I fail to see that acceptance...Yet. Daubert asks for an error rate and I don't see that that has been established for many fields of forensic science, hair analysis being one of those. Williamson v. Reynolds from Judge Seay in the Eastern District of Oklahoma threw hair testimony out citing the fact that Deedrick of the FBI had testified in Seay's court that Deedrick knew of no scientific data that addressed a particular issue in hair analysis . The government responded and pushed hair evidence back into that courtroom and overruled Seay. Williamson spent years and years and years on death row. Then DNA analysis showed that none of the 17 hairs deemed to have originated from Williamson and his partner were from them at all while in fact two of the hairs were from the victim. Williamson was innocent. And is now free. Forensic hair analysis failed. The LEAA proficiency audit in the late 1970's told us that forensic hair analysis can have an error rate of up to 68% and yet we still use it. The 1985 International Symposium on Forensic Hair Comparison at Quantico was, in my opinion, a brilliant effort to put the controversy on the table. Now that I have the Proceedings I find it fascinating that we knew long ago so well of the controversy. And on and on and on. This information does not come from my having to sit with a training examiner and look at hairs. I am simply studying forensic hair analysis. That information from that study comes from the hard work of collection and studying and hoping that folks on this list and others will help me to understand whether we have controversy, misfeasance or malfeasance. For instance I recently heard allegations of malfeasance in this field which were supported by information that others in the community would not render such opinions. And yet in my collection of transcripts I have one of the accused's own colleagues making such statements as the accused was labelled with as if he had done something very wrong. The "accused" may have simply belong to a group that believed, really believed, in what they were doing, not knowing if it was right or wrong, and therefore we have not malfeasance but misfeasance. This is a study of forensic hair analysis. It ultimately may require that I use my microscope. For right now it requires that I be taught by the community, that I hear all sides of the story. That takes time. At this point the only thing I can really decide might be wrong with all of this is that as a trier-of-fact entrusted with deciding to put a fellow citizen into a cage or a death chamber I would be angry if I was not advised concerning the obvious level of controversy surrounding this field were it to present evidence in a trial in which I took part. I would want to know about the LEAA tests in the 1970's, the possible error rate. Realizing that that is all ideal, I accept that decisions of guilt or innocence are not based on a perfect system of fact finding and are often seriously hampered by human frailty. If one's own unchallengeable personal experience is the key basis for opinion and one's colleague, practicing mere feet away, utilizing his own experience would render a completely different opinion, and if any one of eleven colleagues practicing within a forensic lab in the same area, forensic hair analysis, would render different opinions based upon their own experiences, then justice depends upon a roll of the dice. I am troubled by that. Notwithstanding the statement that I read in transcripts that anyone else would agree with the testifier if they knew what they were doing, I am not so sure that that is necessarily true in forensic hair analysis. I am not convinced that Frye or Daubert or any other reasonable standard of acceptance of evidence is being satisfied by forensic hair analysis evidence. That is not necessarily a damnation of the field, simply a student's observation, an observation awaiting the next lesson. Which I hope will be forthcoming. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 11/28/00 11:26:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, glaskows@co.kern.ca.us writes: << Fred, I think you are making a serious mistake here. Your training should not rely on court transcripts and scientific papers. How can you legitimately critique the work without sufficient background of training and experience. If you are going to review such material, then find an expert with the background or knowledge who will critique the material or take tuteledge from him. What you are doing is dangerous and is certainly not helping the cause of justice. Just my opinion, but one I believe is shared by consensus in the forensic community 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 forens-owner Tue Nov 28 12:11:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13658 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:11:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13628 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.238.5]) by hydrogen.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03101; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:11:35 GMT Received: from Brutonpc (bruton-day-pc.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.40]) by kestrel.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA10824; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:11:25 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001128171131.03d070bc@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:11:31 +0000 To: Robert Parsons , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Geoff Bruton Subject: RE: Impact of Daubert In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Perhaps a wee bit earlier for the Friday Follies, But I am the only one who seems to think that most of these folks sound like they belong in "Futurama"?!? ;) Warm regards to all - and roll on Friday! -G. At 12:13 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Robert Parsons wrote: >>>> Pete, Florida has not accepted Daubert and still applies the Frye standard. We also have something called a "Bender hearing" which is used to establish the efficacy of scientific testimony involving methods which are NOT new or novel. It takes a couple of hours as opposed to a full-fledge Frye hearing for new methodologies, which can take days. Bob Parsons, F-ABC From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 12:30:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13919 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r19.mail.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13914 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:30:14 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id b.14.c295459 (1758); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:27:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <14.c295459.27554519@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:27:53 EST Subject: Re: Hair To: tprice@prosector.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/28/00 12:01:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, tprice@prosector.com writes: << Fred, I thought hair testimony was a dead issue. What is disturbing about the hair testimony cult is how it ever got started. I guess it goes to show that people pretending to be scientists can develop a complex but completely worthless technology. At least they didn't claim, thru study and experience to be able to see a trichohumiculus who's physical features were identical with the donor of the hair. JTP >> JTP Why should hair analysis be dead? If we can see, the data can be important. If we kill hair analysis then we have lost a piece of evidence that may bring us closer to truth. Should we ignore any piece of information? Misinterpretation by one or some is not a basis for discarding data. Another issue comes to mind. If we have a new understanding of old data, can we not add this to the mix when we review old cases? Victims of our misunderstanding and misinterpretation deserve the opportunity to review our new understanding. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 12:38:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA14125 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:38:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14120 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:38:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([203.197.229.137]) by giasdl01.vsnl.net.in (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA20617; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:12:14 -0500 (GMT) Message-ID: <3A23E687.6924F4F6@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:38:23 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.71 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Age of viability of fetus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear List members, Can somebody tell me what is the age of viability of fetus? If you read "Forensic Pathology" 2nd Edition by Bernard Knight, on page 438, it says, "In English law a period of 24 weeks is fixed for the onset of viability, for the purpose of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 1929." My first humble question is: Can someone tell me which section of this law says this? Better still can someone pass me this Act as a document file? Thanks. My second question is: Is this period from LMP or from the formation of zygote? If we read "Gray's Anatomy" 36th Edition, on page 227, it says "Legally the infant is regarded as viable if born after the end of seven calender months.." This is clearly at variance with what Knight would have us believe. Both are English books, so obviously both are speaking about laws in the same country. My third question is "Who among these two authentic books is right?" My fourth question is "Is the legal age of viability any different from medical age of viability?" i.e. is it possible to save an infant born, say, before 24 weeks of gestation. Can somebody enlighten please? Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 13:18:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14560 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:18:49 -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 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14555 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id KAA03191 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:18:46 -0800 (PST) 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 KAA03175 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:18:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:18:44 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:17:18 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:16:50 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, glaskows@co.kern.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 163D288E165495-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id NAA14556 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO "The LEAA proficiency audit in the late 1970's told us that forensic hair analysis can have an error rate of up to 68% and yet we still use it. " Was that "proficiency audit" designed to test the error rate of the field or the error rate of the tests? As I recall, many attorneys took a set of tests that were designed to evaluate the testing procedures in several areas and tried to attribute the "errors" to those tested rater than what they were designed for. The early tests were testing the testing process not the error rate of the field. This occurred in the late '70s. Are you sure what LEAA was looking at? Jim Roberts >>> 11/28/00 09:10AM >>> Greg I could not agree with you more. However, by reviewing the transcripts of many hair examiners and the literature, I do complete part of the training requirements that I had to complete while at the FBI lab. Of course there was lab work. But as I said in the email, "I am studying forensic hair analysis." When I read the different transcripts and scientific literature I am able to see the breadth of the controversy. The literature goes from Peter DeForest's disagreement with the "10,000 people whose hairs have been looked at with only two times not being able to differentiate hair of two different people" to folks using the phrase "outright fraud" to those who essentially agree with a need for forensic hair analysis as long as the opinions are conservative. Frye looked for acceptance by the relevant scientific community. I fail to see that acceptance...Yet. Daubert asks for an error rate and I don't see that that has been established for many fields of forensic science, hair analysis being one of those. Williamson v. Reynolds from Judge Seay in the Eastern District of Oklahoma threw hair testimony out citing the fact that Deedrick of the FBI had testified in Seay's court that Deedrick knew of no scientific data that addressed a particular issue in hair analysis . The government responded and pushed hair evidence back into that courtroom and overruled Seay. Williamson spent years and years and years on death row. Then DNA analysis showed that none of the 17 hairs deemed to have originated from Williamson and his partner were from them at all while in fact two of the hairs were from the victim. Williamson was innocent. And is now free. Forensic hair analysis failed. The LEAA proficiency audit in the late 1970's told us that forensic hair analysis can have an error rate of up to 68% and yet we still use it. The 1985 International Symposium on Forensic Hair Comparison at Quantico was, in my opinion, a brilliant effort to put the controversy on the table. Now that I have the Proceedings I find it fascinating that we knew long ago so well of the controversy. And on and on and on. This information does not come from my having to sit with a training examiner and look at hairs. I am simply studying forensic hair analysis. That information from that study comes from the hard work of collection and studying and hoping that folks on this list and others will help me to understand whether we have controversy, misfeasance or malfeasance. For instance I recently heard allegations of malfeasance in this field which were supported by information that others in the community would not render such opinions. And yet in my collection of transcripts I have one of the accused's own colleagues making such statements as the accused was labelled with as if he had done something very wrong. The "accused" may have simply belong to a group that believed, really believed, in what they were doing, not knowing if it was right or wrong, and therefore we have not malfeasance but misfeasance. This is a study of forensic hair analysis. It ultimately may require that I use my microscope. For right now it requires that I be taught by the community, that I hear all sides of the story. That takes time. At this point the only thing I can really decide might be wrong with all of this is that as a trier-of-fact entrusted with deciding to put a fellow citizen into a cage or a death chamber I would be angry if I was not advised concerning the obvious level of controversy surrounding this field were it to present evidence in a trial in which I took part. I would want to know about the LEAA tests in the 1970's, the possible error rate. Realizing that that is all ideal, I accept that decisions of guilt or innocence are not based on a perfect system of fact finding and are often seriously hampered by human frailty. If one's own unchallengeable personal experience is the key basis for opinion and one's colleague, practicing mere feet away, utilizing his own experience would render a completely different opinion, and if any one of eleven colleagues practicing within a forensic lab in the same area, forensic hair analysis, would render different opinions based upon their own experiences, then justice depends upon a roll of the dice. I am troubled by that. Notwithstanding the statement that I read in transcripts that anyone else would agree with the testifier if they knew what they were doing, I am not so sure that that is necessarily true in forensic hair analysis. I am not convinced that Frye or Daubert or any other reasonable standard of acceptance of evidence is being satisfied by forensic hair analysis evidence. That is not necessarily a damnation of the field, simply a student's observation, an observation awaiting the next lesson. Which I hope will be forthcoming. Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 11/28/00 11:26:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, glaskows@co.kern.ca.us writes: << Fred, I think you are making a serious mistake here. Your training should not rely on court transcripts and scientific papers. How can you legitimately critique the work without sufficient background of training and experience. If you are going to review such material, then find an expert with the background or knowledge who will critique the material or take tuteledge from him. What you are doing is dangerous and is certainly not helping the cause of justice. Just my opinion, but one I believe is shared by consensus in the forensic community 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 forens-owner Tue Nov 28 13:59:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15042 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15037 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:59:45 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id a.f2.4f871c9 (1759); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:58:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:58:29 EST Subject: Re: Hair To: James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us, glaskows@co.kern.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 11/28/00 1:19:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us writes: << "The LEAA proficiency audit in the late 1970's told us that forensic hair analysis can have an error rate of up to 68% and yet we still use it. " Was that "proficiency audit" designed to test the error rate of the field or the error rate of the tests? As I recall, many attorneys took a set of tests that were designed to evaluate the testing procedures in several areas and tried to attribute the "errors" to those tested rater than what they were designed for. The early tests were testing the testing process not the error rate of the field. This occurred in the late '70s. Are you sure what LEAA was looking at? Jim Roberts >> Jim That is an interesting question. What was that LEAA test testing. I assumed that it tested the proficiency of the labs. Here's a quote from Randolph Jonakait's paper "Forensic Science, The Need for Regulation" published in 1991. "A 1978 study funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) provides the most detailed picture available of the quality of our crime laboratories. Although some sporadic proficiency testing of crime labs has been done previously, this three-year investigation was the first broad, nationwide proficiency examination. Known samples in a wide range of forensice specialties were sent to labs for analyses. Particicpation in the testing was high since laboratories were guaranteed anonymity. A disturbing pattern emerged. A surprisingly large number of reports contained erroneous results. Indeed, only one quarter of the participating labs provided entirely acceptable responses in all cases. Two-thirds of the labs rendered unacceptable responses for at least 10% of the analyses. The problems, moreover, were not confined to any particular kind of test or evidence. Thus, the percentage of unsuitable conclusions reached 71% in one blood test, 51% in a paint test, and 67% in a hair test." That seems to be a situation where proficiency tests were given to individuals in various labs to determine their proficiency. Fred From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 14:43:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15671 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:43:00 -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 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15666 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id LAA09319 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:58 -0800 (PST) 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 LAA09305 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:56 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:41:30 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:40:55 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, glaskows@co.kern.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 163AD54A172268-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id OAA15667 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I believe this may have been one of the erroneous interpretations of the early tests that were a test of the system of testing and test preparation but am unsure. It has been years and my memory is not as good as it once was. The fact that a 1991 paper quotes a study from over 12 years earlier and doesn't look at more recent data makes me suspicious. By 1980 many labs were participating in ongoing proficiency tests but when they talk of "the first broad, nationwide proficiency examination." I question which test that was. The first tests were to test the testing system not the labs. This was widely misinterpreted, often to the advantage of the interpreting parties argument. (Kind of like only recounting votes in areas where you know you have an advantage and blocking counts that will favor your opponent.) Additionally in those original tests no look was taken at who was taking these tests, they were quite often given to people that were in training and not yet considered proficient as there was anonymity and this was a test of the test not the lab, as I recall this was even encouraged. I'd check on this further before I relied upon it Fred. I know there are others on this list that remember this problem and I suspect better than me. Jim >>> 11/28/00 10:58AM >>> In a message dated 11/28/00 1:19:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us writes: << "The LEAA proficiency audit in the late 1970's told us that forensic hair analysis can have an error rate of up to 68% and yet we still use it. " Was that "proficiency audit" designed to test the error rate of the field or the error rate of the tests? As I recall, many attorneys took a set of tests that were designed to evaluate the testing procedures in several areas and tried to attribute the "errors" to those tested rater than what they were designed for. The early tests were testing the testing process not the error rate of the field. This occurred in the late '70s. Are you sure what LEAA was looking at? Jim Roberts >> Jim That is an interesting question. What was that LEAA test testing. I assumed that it tested the proficiency of the labs. Here's a quote from Randolph Jonakait's paper "Forensic Science, The Need for Regulation" published in 1991. "A 1978 study funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) provides the most detailed picture available of the quality of our crime laboratories. Although some sporadic proficiency testing of crime labs has been done previously, this three-year investigation was the first broad, nationwide proficiency examination. Known samples in a wide range of forensice specialties were sent to labs for analyses. Particicpation in the testing was high since laboratories were guaranteed anonymity. A disturbing pattern emerged. A surprisingly large number of reports contained erroneous results. Indeed, only one quarter of the participating labs provided entirely acceptable responses in all cases. Two-thirds of the labs rendered unacceptable responses for at least 10% of the analyses. The problems, moreover, were not confined to any particular kind of test or evidence. Thus, the percentage of unsuitable conclusions reached 71% in one blood test, 51% in a paint test, and 67% in a hair test." That seems to be a situation where proficiency tests were given to individuals in various labs to determine their proficiency. Fred From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 14:54:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15870 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15865 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from hdcdojnet.state.ca.us by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20310; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:56:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3A240D39.91FB8EF2@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:53:29 -0800 From: Keith Inman Reply-To: kinman@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forensic mailing list Subject: Re: Hair References: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote:
snip...
What was that LEAA test testing.  I assumed
that it tested the proficiency of the labs.  Here's a quote from Randolph
Jonakait's paper "Forensic Science, The Need for Regulation" published in
1991.

"A 1978 study funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)
provides the most detailed picture available of the quality of our crime
laboratories.  Although some sporadic proficiency testing of crime labs has
been done previously, this three-year investigation was the first broad,
nationwide proficiency examination.  Known samples in a wide range of
forensice specialties were sent to labs for analyses.  Particicpation in the
testing was high since laboratories were guaranteed anonymity.
    A disturbing pattern emerged.  A surprisingly large number of reports
contained erroneous results.  Indeed, only one quarter of the participating
labs provided entirely acceptable responses in all cases.  Two-thirds of the
labs rendered unacceptable responses for at least 10% of the analyses.
    The problems, moreover, were not confined to any particular kind of test
or evidence.  Thus, the percentage of unsuitable conclusions reached 71% in
one blood test, 51% in a paint test, and 67% in a hair test."

That seems to be a situation where proficiency tests were given to
individuals in various labs to determine their proficiency.

Fred

But let's be extremely cautious here. As memory serves, the LEAA counted
"I don't know" as an unacceptable answer.  In other words, if the question was "Could these two hairs have a common origin?", and the lab answered "inconclusive," or "I can't tell," or "I cannot render an opinion based on the tests I have done," or any  answer other than the correct one, they counted the response as unacceptable.

And according to the quote above, they equated an unacceptable response with an erroneous result.

Ask yourself if "inconclusive" is an unsuitable conclusion and an erroneous result, and then evaluate the LEAA results with more than a grain of salt.

Where are the Florida spinmeisters when we need them?
 

--
Keith Inman, MCrim, FABC
kinman@ix.netcom.com
http://www.forensicdna.com/
  From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 14:58:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA16019 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA16014 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 19:57:44 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:58:12 -0800 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE047F169@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Thompson, Jeff" To: "'ForensL - On-Line Forensic Discussion Group'" Subject: Re: Hair Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:58:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Jim- Your memory is still pretty good. I was enrolled at CSU Long Beach majoring in Criminalistics in 1978 - 1980, & I specifically recall my instructor for Basic Crim. discussing the LEAA tests, including the aspect of trainees taking them, & specific problems with LEAA's idea of "unacceptable" answers, etc. He was responding to a question from one of the students about the media coverage about the study results, & how bad it made labs look. Jeff Thompson, F-ABC Supervising Criminalist Scientific Investigation Unit Huntington Beach Police Dept. Huntington Beach, CA (USA) From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 15:39:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16905 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ancmail1.state.ak.us (aaa.state.ak.us [146.63.92.75]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16900 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from dps.state.ak.us ([146.63.212.2]) by ancmail1.state.ak.us (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id G4R5CR00.42F for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:38:51 -0900 Message-ID: <3A2417DA.93C8B794@dps.state.ak.us> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:38:50 -0900 From: "Chris W. Beheim" Organization: Department of Public Safety X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: 1970's Hair Proficiency Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In the 1970's, LEAA funded the Laboratory Proficiency Testing Research Program. It was not a "proficiency audit", but rather a research project primarily concerning with how to design a proficiency testing program. The hair test did not deal with human hairs, but rather with species determination. It consisted of dog, cat, deer, cow and mink hairs. "Non-human" or "inconclusive" were scored as "unacceptable responses" in this project. There were, however, many incorrect responses, especially with cow hair. The advisory committee associated with this project concluded that errors may have occurred because of a lack of experience on the part of the examiner and/or inadequate reference collections of standard hairs of various animals. -- Chris W. Beheim Criminalist IV State of Alaska Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory 907/269-5743 Fax 907/338-6614 From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 15:44:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17170 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17165 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:44:46 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id y.3a.d5334ee (7093) for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:44:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3a.d5334ee.27557315@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:44:05 EST Subject: Summaries of today's USSC decisions. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 87 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Forward: USSC decisions These are not the decisions themselves nor excerpts from them, but summaries (syllabi) prepared by the Court's Reporter of Decisions. Instructions for accessing the full text of any of these decisions are provided at the end of this bulletin, as are instructions for subscribing in the event that this bulletin has been given you by a colleague and you'd like a subscription of your own. =============================================================== EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. v. MINE WORKERS (99-1038) Web-accessible at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1038.ZS.html Argued October 2, 2000 -- Decided November 28, 2000 Opinion author: Breyer =============================================================== The arbitration provisions in petitioner Eastern Associated Coal Corp.'s collective-bargaining agreement with respondent union specify, inter alia, that Eastern must prove in binding arbitration that it has "just cause" to discharge an employee, or else the arbitrator will order the employee reinstated. James Smith worked for Eastern as a truck driver subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations requiring random drug testing of workers engaged in "safety-sensitive" tasks. After each of two occasions on which Smith tested positive for marijuana, Eastern sought to discharge him. Each time, the union went to arbitration, and the arbitrator concluded that the drug use did not amount to "just cause" and ordered Smith's reinstatement on certain conditions. On the second occasion, Eastern filed suit to vacate the arbitrator's award. The District Court ordered the award's enforcement, holding that Smith's conditional reinstatement did not violate the strong regulation-based public policy against drug use by workers who perform safety-sensitive functions. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Held: Public policy considerations do not require courts to refuse to enforce an arbitration award ordering an employer to reinstate an employee truck driver who twice tested positive for marijuana. Pp. 3-9. (a) The Court assumes that the collective-bargaining agreement itself calls for Smith's reinstatement, as the parties have granted the arbitrator authority to interpret the meaning of their contract's language, including such words as "just cause," see Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, and Eastern does not claim here that the arbitrator acted outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority, see, e.g., Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38. Since the award is not distinguishable from the contractual agreement, the Court must decide whether a contractual reinstatement requirement would fall within the legal exception that makes unenforceable "a collective bargaining agreement that is contrary to public policy." W. R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers, 461 U.S. 757, 766. Any such policy must be "explicit," "well defined," and "dominant," and it must be "ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents, not from general considerations of supposed public interests." Ibid. The question is not whether Smith's drug use itself violates public policy, but whether the agreement to reinstate him does so. Pp. 3-5. (b) A contractual agreement to reinstate Smith with specified conditions does not run contrary to public policy. The District Court correctly articulated the standard set out in W. R. Grace and Misco and applied that standard to reach the right result. The public policy exception is narrow and must satisfy the principles set forth in those cases. Moreover, where two political branches have created a detailed regulatory regime in a specific field, courts should approach with particular caution pleas to divine further public policy in that area. Eastern asserts that a public policy against reinstatement of workers who use drugs can be discerned from an examination of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and DOT's implementing regulations. However, these expressions of positive law embody not just policies against drug use by employees in safety-sensitive transportation positions and in favor of drug testing, but also include a Testing Act policy favoring rehabilitation of employees who use drugs. And the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions must be read in light of background labor law policy that favors determination of disciplinary questions through arbitration when chosen as a result of labor-management negotiation. See, e.g., California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant, 444 U.S. 598, 608. The award here is not contrary to these several policies, taken together, as it does not condone Smith's conduct or ignore the risk to public safety that drug use by truck drivers may pose, but punishes Smith by placing conditions on his reinstatement. It violates no specific provision of any law or regulation, but is consistent with DOT rules requiring completion of substance-abuse treatment before returning to work and with the Act's driving license suspension requirements and its rehabilitative concerns. Moreover, the fact that Smith is a recidivist is not sufficient to tip the balance in Eastern's favor. Eastern's argument that DOT's withdrawal of a proposed "recidivist" rule leaves open the possibility that discharge is the appropriate penalty for repeat offenders fails because DOT based the withdrawal, not upon a determination that a more severe penalty was needed, but upon a determination to leave in place other remedies. The Court cannot find in the Act, the regulations, or any other law or legal precedent an explicit, well defined, dominant public policy to which the arbitrator's decision runs contrary. Pp. 5-9. 188 F.3d 501, affirmed. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. =============================================================== INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMOND (99-1030) Web-accessible at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1030.ZS.html Argued October 3, 2000 -- Decided November 28, 2000 Opinion author: O'Connor =============================================================== Petitioner city operates vehicle checkpoints on its roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs. Respondents, who were each stopped at such a checkpoint, filed suit, claiming that the roadblocks violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court denied respondents a preliminary injunction, but the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the checkpoints contravened the Fourth Amendment. Held: Because the checkpoint program's primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3-15. (a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez&nbhyph;Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 3-7. (b) The latter purpose is what principally distinguishes the checkpoints at issue from those the Court has previously approved, which were designed to serve purposes closely related to the problems of policing the border or the necessity of ensuring roadway safety. Petitioners state that the Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte checkpoints had the same ultimate purpose of arresting those suspected of committing crimes. Securing the border and apprehending drunken drivers are law enforcement activities, and authorities employ arrests and criminal prosecutions to pursue these goals. But if this case were to rest at such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities' ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. The checkpoint program is also not justified by the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem. The gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, the Court must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. Nor can the checkpoints' purpose be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that in Sitz, or merely likened to the antismuggling purpose in Martinez-Fuerte. Neither Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, nor Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, precludes an inquiry into the checkpoint program's purposes. And if the program could be justified by its lawful secondary purposes of keeping impaired motorists off the road and verifying licenses and registrations, authorities would be able to establish checkpoints for virtually any purpose so long as they also included a license or sobriety check. That is why the Court must determine the primary purpose of the checkpoint program. This holding does not alter the constitutional status of the checkpoints approved in Sitz and Martinez-Fuerte, or the type of checkpoint suggested in Prouse. It also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute. Nor does it impair police officers' ability to act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a checkpoint stop justified by a lawful primary purpose. Finally, the purpose inquiry is to be conducted only at the programmatic level and is not an invitation to probe the minds of individual officers acting at the scene. Pp. 7-15. 183 F.3d 659, affirmed. O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined as to Part I. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 16:17:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA17693 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17688 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:17:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by email.exchange.umkc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:17:54 -0600 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E6313@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'kinman@ix.netcom.com'" , Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forensic mailing list Subject: RE: Hair Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:17:49 -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 Status: RO The LEAA proficiency testing study of 1976 was one of the first undertaken by the Forensic Science Foundation (the research arm of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences). The study was actually designed by and for crime laboratory people, because the belief existed that the study would reveal that crime laboratories came to overwhelmingly "accurate" results, and that most laboratories would come up with the same conclusions on all testing of the various samples submitted. (I served on the Board of Directors of the Foundation in its early years when this study was contemplated and devised.) Only it didn't turn out that way. In fact, one of the crime laboratory directors who was a part of the study later stated, publicly, that "crime laboratories flunk analysis." It would be wrong to attach too much importance to this study at this time. Clearly, it acted as a wake-up call for many institutions; it was probably responsible in a major way for the creation and incorporation, in 1981, of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) Crime Laboratory Accreditation Board. Further, the study was poorly designed; the instructions given were unclear. It is probably unfair to cite the study as authority for ANY proposition today, except as a historical one that showed how many things can go wrong when proficiency testing is done by people who are unskilled at devising scientifically respectable testing procedures. At least some crime laboratory directors were under the impression that this was a test to be given to trainees in the various fields, rather than to the experienced examiners. (This was the experience in a crime laboratory on whose board of advisors I served for 8 years.) The proficiency testing experience also served to institute more intense training programs, proficiency testing, verification procedures, quality control measures, and the like. While crime laboratories are far from always being right even today, and sometimes still use techniques that are subject to a lot of scientific criticism, the deplorable conditions highlighted by the results of the 1976 proficiency study are almost certainly a thing of the past and not indicative of current conditions in our nation's crime laboratories. (For those who have my Scientific Evidence book [4th Edition], see a description of the study and other references relating to it at footnote 5 on pages 8 and 9.) Andre A. Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law UMKC School of Law http://www.forensic-evidence.com -----Original Message----- From: Keith Inman [mailto:inman@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:53 PM To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com; forensic mailing list Subject: Re: Hair Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: snip... What was that LEAA test testing. I assumed that it tested the proficiency of the labs. Here's a quote from Randolph Jonakait's paper "Forensic Science, The Need for Regulation" published in 1991. "A 1978 study funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) provides the most detailed picture available of the quality of our crime laboratories. Although some sporadic proficiency testing of crime labs has been done previously, this three-year investigation was the first broad, nationwide proficiency examination. Known samples in a wide range of forensice specialties were sent to labs for analyses. Particicpation in the testing was high since laboratories were guaranteed anonymity. A disturbing pattern emerged. A surprisingly large number of reports contained erroneous results. Indeed, only one quarter of the participating labs provided entirely acceptable responses in all cases. Two-thirds of the labs rendered unacceptable responses for at least 10% of the analyses. The problems, moreover, were not confined to any particular kind of test or evidence. Thus, the percentage of unsuitable conclusions reached 71% in one blood test, 51% in a paint test, and 67% in a hair test." That seems to be a situation where proficiency tests were given to individuals in various labs to determine their proficiency. Fred But let's be extremely cautious here. As memory serves, the LEAA counted "I don't know" as an unacceptable answer. In other words, if the question was "Could these two hairs have a common origin?", and the lab answered "inconclusive," or "I can't tell," or "I cannot render an opinion based on the tests I have done," or any answer other than the correct one, they counted the response as unacceptable. And according to the quote above, they equated an unacceptable response with an erroneous result. Ask yourself if "inconclusive" is an unsuitable conclusion and an erroneous result, and then evaluate the LEAA results with more than a grain of salt. Where are the Florida spinmeisters when we need them? -- Keith Inman, MCrim, FABC kinman@ix.netcom.com http://www.forensicdna.com/ From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 17:33:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18833 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18828 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:33:23 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id y.ea.df963d1 (4231) for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:32:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:32:49 EST Subject: Hair To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 114 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Then where does all this controversy come from about forensic hair analysis error rate? I know there is controversy. I hear it. I see it. Andre Moenssen, you have been around since they started analyzing hair, I think since hair was invented :-)) Can you tell me what is the basis for the controversy? And what is the error rate for forensic hair analysis? Are there any studies that establish that error rate? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Nov 28 22:53:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21491 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:53:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21486 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:53:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by email.exchange.umkc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:53:07 -0600 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C067E6318@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com '" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu '" Subject: RE: Hair Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:53:05 -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 Status: RO Fred: You're probably right in saying that I have been around since hair was first invented. Some days I feel that ancient. I don't know what the error rate is. I don't think anyone has ever published one that is scientifically defensible. The one you mentioned by RCMP's Gaudette, is the one that many witnesses have relied on, yet it has been discredited. The controversy arose in full strength after Daubert was decided, because the various Daubert factors (replicability, error rate, etc.) were impossible to meet with what was available in the way of serious scientific research. Determined attacks have been made on the technique, with varying results, in many courts, probably because inconsistent claims were being made by many examiners, some claiming to be able to "identify" a hair as having come from a certain person, others stating that the best they could say was that it could have come from a given person, and none of them having any solid research to back up the opinions. In my perhaps antiquated (or is it antique, ancient, or just senile) view, traditional microscopic hair examinations are due to disappear, because mDNA offers a much better opportunity in near-individualizing hairs in some cases. Most serious examiners will only testify that a particular evidence hair "could have come from" a given person (usually the defendant), but are unable to state with what level of confidence that opinion can be expressed. Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law UMKC School of Law Kansas City, MO http://www.forensic-evidence.com -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: 11/28/00 4:32 PM Subject: Hair Then where does all this controversy come from about forensic hair analysis error rate? I know there is controversy. I hear it. I see it. Andre Moenssen, you have been around since they started analyzing hair, I think since hair was invented :-)) Can you tell me what is the basis for the controversy? And what is the error rate for forensic hair analysis? Are there any studies that establish that error rate? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 08:24:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26734 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from duiisvr1.duii (gateway.duii.com [205.177.111.213]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26729 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by DUIISVR1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:21:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: Flora Kan To: "'Jason Lun'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: PI for both parents Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:21:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO The first way is to say that the normal calculation integrates data from both parents X = PM x PF, Y = PM x PR, Paternity Index = X/Y; where PM equals probability of finding Maternal Obligate Allele in mother, PF equals probability of finding Paternal Obligate Allele in father, PR equals probability of finding Paternal Obligate Allele in a random man (of a given race). The best reference ic: Inclusion Probabilities in Parentage Testing, AABB 1983 IBSN # 0-914404-81-4 The second way would be to calculate each of these probabilities seperately as one-parent tests X = PU x PK, Y = PU x PR, Paternity index = X/Y; where PU equals genotype frequency of non-matching allele in child, PK equals probability of finding Parental Obligate Allele in provided parent, PR = Childs phenotype frequency in population database (of a given race). The original reference for thsi equation is Brenner C H, Transfusion 1993;33:51-4 Both methods are refered to in Evett and Weir, Interpreting DNA Evidence, Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists, Sinauer 1998 ISBN # 0-87893-155-4 hope this is helpful. Flora Kan Data Unlimited International, Inc. (DUII) -----Original Message----- From: Jason Lun [mailto:tslun@singapore.com] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:27 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: PI for both parents Dear List members, Would you give me some published papers for calculating paternity index for both parents. In the words, I want to assess the chance of alleged parents of a child against the chance of a random couple being the natural parents of the child. Jason Lun ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 09:09:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27385 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:09:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27380 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:09:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:09:39 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BODROT beta softwar (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:36:54 EST From: Maconnor1@aol.com To: Owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BODROT beta softwar I got passed on an email saying that there's a beta version of a software for generating rotatable representations of masses of bodies. This email address was listed as the original - if not, forgive me I'd like to get a copy if possible. Can see uses for mass graves and archaeological bison kill sites. Happy to send feedback, if wanted. send to: maconnor1@aol.com thanks Melissa Connor From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 10:08:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28468 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28462 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:08:08 -0500 Message-ID: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4DC5C12E@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> From: "French, Tim" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Superfluous examinations Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:08:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C05A16.2DA8C730" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C05A16.2DA8C730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" We are trying to make a presentation to our department heads regarding some of the unnecessary examinations that we are requested to perform from time to time. Examinations such as a dye comparison of fibers or analyzing tape construction after a physical match is found between the known and unknown samples. Non-probative exams such as analysis of found property (drugs, weapons), "examine the tape lift/vacuumings and see what is in there" when there is no known fiber or hair samples for comparison or simply analyzing everything in the case simply because it is there and the prosecutor doesn't want to face "why didn't the prosecution test..." in court. My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management. We realize that a lot of these can be avoided by proper training of officers and investigators who are submitting the requests, but that still does not avoid ones that are being sent merely as a CYA situation. We also are aware that there may be situations where a case comes up in which these exams might prove to be fruitful. We don't want to write a policy that is so restrictive that we don't have the ability to do the exam should this situation arise. We are merely soliciting ideas for how this is handled outside our lab. Thank you for your time, Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C05A16.2DA8C730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Superfluous examinations

We are trying to make a presentation = to our department heads regarding some of the unnecessary examinations = that we are requested to perform from time to time. Examinations such = as a dye comparison of fibers or analyzing tape construction after a = physical match is found between the known and unknown samples. = Non-probative exams such as analysis of found property (drugs, = weapons), "examine the tape lift/vacuumings and see what is in = there" when there is no known fiber or hair samples for comparison = or simply analyzing everything in the case simply because it is there = and the prosecutor doesn't want to face "why didn't the = prosecution test..." in court.

My question to the list is this: what = if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of = requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle = these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, = the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is = the decision by management.

We realize that a lot of these can be = avoided by proper training of officers and investigators who are = submitting the requests, but that still does not avoid ones that are = being sent merely as a CYA situation. We also are aware that there may = be situations where a case comes up in which these exams might prove to = be fruitful. We don't want to write a policy that is so restrictive = that we don't have the ability to do the exam should this situation = arise. We are merely soliciting ideas for how this is handled outside = our lab.


Thank you for your time,

Tim French
Criminalist = II
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Crime = Laboratory
704-336-7750



------_=_NextPart_001_01C05A16.2DA8C730-- From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 11:30:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29510 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp06.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA29505 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:30:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13338 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 16:30:22 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by 10.209.20.36 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 Nov 2000 16:30:22 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [63.208.208.82]) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 16:24:26 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed Nov 29 08:29:44 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:28:10 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:27:16 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Superfluous examinations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Tim, The 'superffluous examination' often serves as a double edge sword inthe forensic/judicial arena. By superfluous, if you mean, an extra test that has no relative to the item of evidence under examination, then that can be a breech of ethics in many forensic organization. If however the test is seen as added insurance to support a conclusion, then that is entirely different. A case in point, a number of years ago my supervisor testified in a shooting case that the remnant of a shotgun stock physically matched the reaining piece of wood on a shotgun. Thus it share a common source and was at one time a single unit. The defense counsel countered, "How do you know that did you identify the wood?" My supervisor stated that while he didn't identify the species of the wood, there was no doubt that the two pieces matched because it was just 'common sense.' The judge ruled in favor of the defense because 'common sense' could not be defined. True, perhaps my supervisor could have stated things on the stand differently, and those of us whotestify regularly sometimes don't anticipate certain question and therefor speak off the cuff. Such is the nature of the beast. As far as processing endless items of trace evidence to aid the cause of an investigator's 'fishing expedition', this can be equally frustrating. I have been on more than one occassion put in the position of pawing through mounds of material to find the proverbial needle in the haystack. While these examinations are time consuming and some times it appears demeaning, they can be instructive. You may find that by examing the trace you may find some investigative information beneficial to the investigator. And sometimes it is the key evidence to the case. In many instsnces it serves as an excellent training exercise. You will build knowledge about the environment and what you might expect to find given every day circumstances. You migh understand more about the victim's and suspect's habits. So I would advise you not to be so dismissive about these kinds of examination even if they are a pain in the butt. I woould, however, say that you can get a better handle on these types of requests if you have regular briefings with investigators and prosecutors. They do go to seminars and watch all these forensic shows and somewhere in the back of their minds think that you will be a miracle worker and help them solve therre case through some esoteric test. Don't lose heart, it is in a way a form of flattery that they ask for the next to impossible. And when you do deliver, it really is sweet. I've gon on at length and with some passion, but that comes from having been there numerous times, but I hope it gives you some sense of what is at stake. I wish you the best of luck in whatever avenue you choose. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> "French, Tim" 11/29 7:08 AM >>> We are trying to make a presentation to our department heads regarding some of the unnecessary examinations that we are requested to perform from time to time. Examinations such as a dye comparison of fibers or analyzing tape construction after a physical match is found between the known and unknown samples. Non-probative exams such as analysis of found property (drugs, weapons), "examine the tape lift/vacuumings and see what is in there" when there is no known fiber or hair samples for comparison or simply analyzing everything in the case simply because it is there and the prosecutor doesn't want to face "why didn't the prosecution test..." in court. My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management. We realize that a lot of these can be avoided by proper training of officers and investigators who are submitting the requests, but that still does not avoid ones that are being sent merely as a CYA situation. We also are aware that there may be situations where a case comes up in which these exams might prove to be fruitful. We don't want to write a policy that is so restrictive that we don't have the ability to do the exam should this situation arise. We are merely soliciting ideas for how this is handled outside our lab. Thank you for your time, Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 11:40:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29708 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29703 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:40:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:25:15 -0600 Message-ID: <4E0277823564D411905E00A0C9EA331845C6C8@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Superfluous examinations Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:35:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Unbiased from no crime lab involvement, but, starting from a clinical lab perspective: What do your lab SOPs say about particular examinations? Is the particular analyst expected to use judgement or is there mere rote following of a recipe? Forensic scientists or machine-feeders? Some thoughts on the specific examples: tape analysis with a physically matching tear - 'colors were visually identical under fluorescent lighting' and 'questioned and known specimens had the same apparent thread count/weave on preliminary examination' followed by 'detailed examination of dyes and fabric not performed due to physical match'. 'Tape lift on low power microscopic examination reveals blonde human body hairs, no reference materials available.' But of investigative interest might be 'Vacuumings contain blonde human body hairs and pollen from oak, pine, and cypress trees' if the source is indoors distant from forest. If the found drugs are of unusual purity or diluting material, I could see this as valuable intelligence for the LEA. For the found weapon, do reference bullets and cases match anything in the FBI or ATF's computerized system? This sounds to me like possibly management needs to set some priorities, based on expected value of the results. Everybody would like to have unlimited time and resources, but nobody does. How our clinical lab handles such apparently excessive/irrelevant test requests is typically, one of the supervisors or lab techs comes to me, the other pathologist, or the lab manager and says 'this specimen doesn't meet our criteria for doing this test' and we cancel the test request or 'this set of requests suggests the doctor has no idea what he wants, can you find out and help him figure a more limited group?' and I get on the phone. Some times, we surrender and run things as asked, but I always take confusing lab requests as a veiled plea for consultation, even if the doc didn't realize it. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:08 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: Superfluous examinations We are trying to make a presentation to our department heads regarding some of the unnecessary examinations that we are requested to perform from time to time. Examinations such as a dye comparison of fibers or analyzing tape construction after a physical match is found between the known and unknown samples. Non-probative exams such as analysis of found property (drugs, weapons), "examine the tape lift/vacuumings and see what is in there" when there is no known fiber or hair samples for comparison or simply analyzing everything in the case simply because it is there and the prosecutor doesn't want to face "why didn't the prosecution test..." in court. My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management. We realize that a lot of these can be avoided by proper training of officers and investigators who are submitting the requests, but that still does not avoid ones that are being sent merely as a CYA situation. We also are aware that there may be situations where a case comes up in which these exams might prove to be fruitful. We don't want to write a policy that is so restrictive that we don't have the ability to do the exam should this situation arise. We are merely soliciting ideas for how this is handled outside our lab. Thank you for your time, Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 12:18:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00295 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:18:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00290 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-78.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.78]) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id eATHIA428023 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:18:10 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001129085346.00a87610@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:17:11 -0800 To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Superfluous examinations In-Reply-To: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4DC5C12E@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.ch arlotte.nc.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 10:08 AM 11/29/00 -0500, French, Tim wrote: >My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to >help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have >some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what >should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the >analyst, how well supported is the decision by management. In my case I can simply say "Do you really want to pay me $175 an hour to do that examination? It might take N number of hours." There is no better way to determine if a task really has value to someone else than to see if they are willing to pay for it. On the other hand, if I can see no chance that the examination will develop any useful information, then I have an ethical, and probably legal, obligation not to do the examination. I suspect that some publicly supported laboratories who have taken to charging for their services might find that they are willing to work on cases that someone is willing to pay for, but less willing to work on cases where money is not available. This unfortunate situation results in wealthier jurisdictions having greater access to publicly supported lab services than less wealthy jurisdictions. But when there are no costs involved, things are a little different. I would simply have a policy that states "Requested examinations are not conducted if the [SCIENTIST charged with the responsibility of making the decision] decides that the examination is not an efficient use of laboratory resources." I know some labs who turn the case back to the requestor and say, "I can do what you've asked, but then I won't be able to do what you, or your colleague, asked yesterday." I don't like this solution because it more or less causes the scientist to abdicate the responsibility for making a decision. No one other than the scientist SHOULD be in a better position to make the decision. Dave Hause wrote: >Is >the particular analyst expected to use judgement or is there mere rote >following of a recipe? Forensic scientists or machine-feeders? If the laboratory is not in a position to have the ultimate say in the utilization of the laboratory resources I suggest there is more or a problem than doing superfluous examinations. Greg Laskowski is correct when he states that a superfluous examination is unethical - it is specifically unethical under, for example, the CAC Code of Ethics, but it is impliedly unethical because it may put the scientist doing the examination in the position of assisting the advocates who are most often the ones requesting the superfluous examinations. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 16:30:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03808 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:30:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03803 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:30:29 -0500 (EST) From: tiernan@talk21.com Received: from n7x5g2 ([213.1.202.174]) by t21mta00-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20001129212844.OVIO10093.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@n7x5g2> for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:28:44 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:30:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Presumptive tests for seminal fluid X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Message-Id: <20001129212844.OVIO10093.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@n7x5g2> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO To the list: Has anyone found out why nonoxynol-9 gives a false positive for this type test and has anyone found any other sources of false positives? We are currently considering using these tests in casework. Regards Tiernan On 24 Nov 00, at 7:33, Donnelly, Andrew (FORENSIC) wrote: > Hi Timothy, > > the following papers dealing with prostate specific antigen have > info re lubricant gels: > > 1) Science & Justice Vol 38 pages 157-164, 1998. > > 2) Journal od Forensic Sciences Vol 38 pages 250-258, 1993. > > 3) Journal of Forensic Sciences Vol 23 pages 106-115, 1977. > > Cheers, > > Andrew Donnelly > Forensic Science Centre > Adelaide, South Australia ------- End of forwarded message ------- From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 20:13:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06480 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:13:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz (gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz [203.97.15.33]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06475 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:13:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011300113.UAA06475@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.esr.cri.nz (202.50.148.6 [202.50.148.6]) by kscxchg2.esr.cri.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id W684ZJND; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:19:06 +1300 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:11:00 +1200 From: "Ashton, Jason" Subject: Seeking Electrical fire seminars, worksh To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Worldtalk (NetConnex V4.00a)/MIME Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am looking for workshops, seminars, courses etc specifically on *Electrical Fires*. Anywhere in the world... 2001... Anyone have suggestions? Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason M Ashton Information and Research Services ESR: Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd Private Bag 92021, Hampstead Rd, Mt Albert Auckland, New Zealand From forens-owner Thu Nov 30 12:51:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA16331 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16326 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:35 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Charles H. Brenner" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:24:38 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Charles H. Brenner" ] >From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 13:24:37 2000 Received: from dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net [129.250.36.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01346 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:24:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [129.250.38.63] (helo=dfw-mmp3.email.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net with esmtp id 141BuF-00046X-00; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:24:35 +0000 Received: from [168.191.206.81] (helo=roo.dna-view.com) by dfw-mmp3.email.verio.net with esmtp id 141BuC-0006vY-00; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:24:33 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001129101155.00c4ce40@pop.ncal.verio.com> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:25:43 -0800 To: Flora Kan From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: RE: PI for both parents Cc: "'Jason Lun'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_6124208==_.ALT" --=====================_6124208==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Jason Lun wrote >Would you give me some published papers for calculating paternity index for >both parents. In the words, I want to assess the chance of alleged parents >of a child against the chance of a random couple being the natural parents >of the child. I understand the question to be the missing person problem C, M, and F are typed; distinguish between the two possibilities: Ho: C is the child of M and F. H1: C is unrelated to M and unrelated to F. I see a missing person problem in Weir & Evett, "Interpreting DNA evidence", but more a more complicated one. I don't know a published reference that specifically answers the above question. However, it is quite easy for autosomal co-dominant systems. (a) Suppose first the typical case, the child is PQ, and each parent is heterozygous and shares one allele with the child. Then the likelihood ratio is 1/(8pq) or 1/4g where g=genotype frequency of the child=2pq. (b) If the child is PP and the parents each have only one P, the 1/4g formula is still correct, although of course now g=pp. (c) If either (or both) parents are homozygous, the above formulas are increased by a factor of 2 (or 4), so 1/2g (or 1/g). (d) If all three are PQ, the formula is 1/2g. and at 08:21 AM 11/29/00 -0500, Flora Kan wrote: > reference ic: Inclusion Probabilities in Parentage Testing, >AABB 1983 IBSN # 0-914404-81-4 I don't find it. >The second way would be to calculate each of these probabilities seperately >as one-parent tests X = PU x PK, Y = PU x PR, Paternity index = X/Y; where >PU equals genotype frequency of non-matching allele in child, PK equals >probability of finding Parental Obligate Allele in provided parent, PR = >Childs phenotype frequency in population database (of a given race). The >original reference for thsi equation is Brenner C H, Transfusion >1993;33:51-4 I couldn't follow this until I thought carefully about the above reference to my "motherless" paper, and at first I didn't believe it. However, it's true: Compute the paternity index PI (assuming that M is the mother). Then compute the fatherless maternity index MI, ignoring the genotype information for F. The missing person likelihood ratio is PI x MI. Thanks for the mention of my paper Flora, and also for a new insight. Charles Brenner forensic mathematics --=====================_6124208==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Jason Lun wrote
Would you give me some published papers for calculating paternity index for
both parents. In the words, I want to assess the chance of alleged parents
of a child against the chance of a random couple being the natural parents
of the child.

I understand the question to be the missing person problem C, M, and F are typed; distinguish between the two possibilities:

Ho:  C is the child of M and F.
H1:  C is unrelated to M and unrelated to F.

I see a missing person problem in Weir & Evett, "Interpreting DNA evidence", but more a more complicated one. I don't know a published reference that specifically answers the above question.

However, it is quite easy for autosomal co-dominant systems.

(a) Suppose first the typical case, the child is PQ, and each parent is heterozygous and shares one allele with the child.
Then the likelihood ratio is 1/(8pq) or 1/4g where g=genotype frequency of the child=2pq.

(b) If the child is PP and the parents each have only one P, the 1/4g formula is still correct, although of course now g=pp.

(c) If either (or both) parents are homozygous, the above formulas are increased by a factor of 2 (or 4), so 1/2g (or 1/g).

(d) If all three are PQ, the formula is 1/2g.

and at 08:21 AM 11/29/00 -0500, Flora Kan wrote:

 reference ic: Inclusion Probabilities in Parentage Testing,
AABB 1983 IBSN # 0-914404-81-4

I don't find it.

The second way would be to calculate each of these probabilities seperately
as one-parent tests X = PU x PK, Y = PU x PR, Paternity index = X/Y; where
PU equals genotype frequency of non-matching allele in child, PK equals
probability of finding Parental Obligate Allele in provided parent, PR =
Childs phenotype frequency in population database (of a given race). The
original reference for thsi equation is Brenner C H, Transfusion
1993;33:51-4

I couldn't follow this until I thought carefully about the above reference to my "motherless" paper, and at first I didn't believe it. However, it's true: Compute the paternity index PI (assuming that M is the mother). Then compute the fatherless maternity index MI, ignoring the genotype information for F. The missing person likelihood ratio is PI x MI. Thanks for the mention of my paper Flora, and also for a new insight.

Charles Brenner
forensic mathematics --=====================_6124208==_.ALT-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 30 12:52:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA16359 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16354 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:52:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:52:02 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike & Donna Eyring ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:02:13 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Mike & Donna Eyring ] >From forens-owner Wed Nov 29 22:02:12 2000 Received: from sd.amug.org (sd.fastq.com [204.62.193.89]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA07403 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:02:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from [204.181.19.162] (d33-ts07.fastq.com [204.181.19.162]) by sd.amug.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id TAA29171; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:56:13 -0700 (MST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:11:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Superfluous examinations From: Mike & Donna Eyring To: "French, Tim" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4DC5C12E@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="MS_Mac_OE_3058373506_150348_MIME_Part" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --MS_Mac_OE_3058373506_150348_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit on 11/29/2000 8:08 AM, French, Tim at tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us wrote: My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management. Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 Dear Tim. We call and talk a lot. We ask the investigator for a synopsis of the case and a commentary on the origin and possible significance of the evidence items. Many cases are redirected to other units of the lab, some are dropped and some remain in the trace analysis unit. It takes a hands on approach. Good luck, Mike E. --MS_Mac_OE_3058373506_150348_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: Superfluous examinations on 11/29/2000 8:08 AM, French, Tim at tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us wrote= :


My question to the list is this: what if = anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests?= Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who mak= es the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or manage= ment? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management= .

Tim French=
Criminalist II
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Po= lice Department
Crime Laboratory<= /FONT>
704-336-7750


Dear Tim.

We call and talk a lot.  We ask the investigator for a synopsis of the= case and a commentary on the origin and possible significance of the eviden= ce items.  Many cases are redirected to other units of the lab, some ar= e dropped and some remain in the trace analysis unit.  It takes a hands= on approach.

Good luck,
Mike E.



--MS_Mac_OE_3058373506_150348_MIME_Part-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 30 16:19:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19658 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:19:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19653 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:19:25 -0500 (EST) From: SkipnCar@aol.com Received: from SkipnCar@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id y.70.5678c19 (602); Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:18:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <70.5678c19.27581e35@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:18:45 EST Subject: Assistance To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, ascld@lab.fws.gov MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_70.5678c19.27581e35_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_70.5678c19.27581e35_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The list of forensic societies, associations and certification boards is being updated. If you have the contact information for president and president-elect, please send them to me so that the list may be current. Thank you, Carla Noziglia A smile is God's way of making us look younger! --part1_70.5678c19.27581e35_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The list of forensic societies, associations and certification boards is
being updated.  If you have the contact information for president and
president-elect, please send them to me so that the list may be current.

Thank you,

Carla Noziglia


A smile is God's way of making us look younger! --part1_70.5678c19.27581e35_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 30 17:13:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20612 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA20607 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:13:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 22:13:21 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:11:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Superfluous examinations Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:11:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C05B1A.8A666EA0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C05B1A.8A666EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Tim, In our case, management are all analysts also, so we're in the same boat. :) We handle it on a case by case basis, and the analyst makes the call with the full support of management. We always take great pains to explain why some tests are useful and others are not, and find that avoids most problems with agency/attorney attitudes and reactions. All they really want is to know their needs are considered important and not ignored. If the agency/attorney and the analyst cannot agree, then it's brought to management for a final decision. In the very rare event of a true impasse, our Director will call the head of the agency or law office and work something out. We've never yet failed to find a resolution that everyone could live with. We do have some broad guidelines for accepting evidence, though. Evidence items not packaged properly, not accompanied by the information needed to make the exam useful or practical, requesting analyses we don't offer, etc., are rejected outright. Many labs due to caseload constraints have policies limiting the number of exhibits or exams that will be done in a routine case, absent extraordinary need demonstrated to do otherwise. E.g., some labs will analyze a maximum of two drug exhibits per case or defendant (I've even heard some will do only one), and the agency must decide which one(s) they need the most. If they don't decide, the lab will decide for them and let the chips fall where they may. We don't have that kind of policy, but our drug analysts will consider the exhibits, defendants, and charges, and then do the minimum number of exhibits needed to prove or disprove the charges for each defendant. We frequently receive multiple exhibits in cases where any one exhibit will satisfy the charge and all the exhibits together don't amount to any greater charge, so we only do what is legally necessary so that we can conserve resources and get more cases done. In drug cases, for example, if the charge is possession under 20g of marijuana (a misdemeanor here) and there are 5 bags weighing 1g each, we'll only analyze one or two bags. If the charge is possession over 20g (felony) and there are 45 bags weighing 1g each, we'll analyze 21 bags. If the charge is possession with intent to distribute, and there are 15 bags weighing 1g each (the total weight does not exceed 20g), then we might analyze five bags to demonstrate that there were more bags of MJ than is reasonable for one person to be carrying around all at once just for personal use (plus we'll take a brief look at the rest to see if they at least LOOK like MJ, in case we're asked that). Juries are savvy enough to draw their own conclusions based on those kinds of results. On the other hand, if all the bags analyzed so far have been negative, then we keep going until we can establish whether or not any charge is justified at all. E.g., if we have to analyze all 45 bags to demonstrate that the subject is NOT guilty of actual possession, then that's what we do (but given Florida's look-alike law, that doesn't necessarily get the suspect off the hook if the charge is sale and delivery). Our other sections make the same kind of effort/value ratio judgments in deciding what evidence to analyze in their own specialties. If there are multiple defendants, then the decisions are trickier, because you have to make sure you analyze the right items to address the charges against each individual defendant. Unfortunately, additional defendants aren't always identified on the submittal forms, and all items aren't always attributed to specific defendants. We're all experienced enough to make the right decisions 99% of the time, but we obviously can't consider things we don't know about so occasionally there may be a need for a "rush" analysis just before trial of some item previously left out. To make the right decisions requires having enough information to make properly informed decisions, and that is sometimes a problem (cops hate filling out more forms, so they often provide minimal info in their submission documents). We do the best we can with what we're provided, and if we have any serious questions about how to best proceed, we call the agency or attorney and consult with them about it. The aim is to provide the best service possible, meeting the needs of each case as much as practical and in a reasonably timely manner. Caseload and resource constraints are such that we can't do everything requested, considering the broad requests we often get. Prioritization of work is an absolute necessity. Consider it a "triage" process for analysis requests. We of course not only get the kinds of requests that ask for unnecessary "overkill" in analysis, but also the kinds of impossible requests that evoke a first reaction of "Oh, sure, just as soon as I get my magic wand and crystal ball back from the technomage repair facility. Give me another week and I'll be able to tell you the last four digits of the perpetrator's social security number, too." Lawyers and investigators (not to mention jurors) get all kinds of crazy ideas about forensics by watching cop shows, movies, and less-than-accurate documentaries (sometimes I think "reality TV" does more harm than good). There is also a fair amount of urban legends about forensics they pass around to each other via the grape vine. You hit the key when you mentioned educating the client. We have to reeducate them of what forensics can and can't do for them. The more we help them learn what is important from a forensic standpoint, the less junk we'll see submitted and the less silly requests we'll receive. We'll also help improve the quality and completeness of the significant evidence we DO receive. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:08 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: Superfluous examinations We are trying to make a presentation to our department heads regarding some of the unnecessary examinations that we are requested to perform from time to time. Examinations such as a dye comparison of fibers or analyzing tape construction after a physical match is found between the known and unknown samples. Non-probative exams such as analysis of found property (drugs, weapons), "examine the tape lift/vacuumings and see what is in there" when there is no known fiber or hair samples for comparison or simply analyzing everything in the case simply because it is there and the prosecutor doesn't want to face "why didn't the prosecution test..." in court. My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management. We realize that a lot of these can be avoided by proper training of officers and investigators who are submitting the requests, but that still does not avoid ones that are being sent merely as a CYA situation. We also are aware that there may be situations where a case comes up in which these exams might prove to be fruitful. We don't want to write a policy that is so restrictive that we don't have the ability to do the exam should this situation arise. We are merely soliciting ideas for how this is handled outside our lab. Thank you for your time, Tim French Criminalist II Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory 704-336-7750 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C05B1A.8A666EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Superfluous examinations
Tim,
 
In our case, management are all analysts also, so we're in the same boat. :)
 
We handle it on a case by case basis, and the analyst makes the call with the full support of management.  We always take great pains to explain why some tests are useful and others are not, and find that avoids most problems with agency/attorney attitudes and reactions.  All they really want is to know their needs are considered important and not ignored.  If the agency/attorney and the analyst cannot agree, then it's brought to management for a final decision.  In the very rare event of a true impasse, our Director will call the head of the agency or law office and work something out.  We've never yet failed to find a resolution that everyone could live with.
 
We do have some broad guidelines for accepting evidence, though.  Evidence items not packaged properly, not accompanied by the information needed to make the exam useful or practical, requesting analyses we don't offer, etc., are rejected outright.  Many labs due to caseload constraints have policies limiting the number of exhibits or exams that will be done in a routine case, absent extraordinary need demonstrated to do otherwise.  E.g., some labs will analyze a maximum of two drug exhibits per case or defendant (I've even heard some will do only one), and the agency must decide which one(s) they need the most.  If they don't decide, the lab will decide for them and let the chips fall where they may.
 
We don't have that kind of policy, but our drug analysts will consider the exhibits, defendants, and charges, and then do the minimum number of exhibits needed to prove or disprove the charges for each defendant.  We frequently receive multiple exhibits in cases where any one exhibit will satisfy the charge and all the exhibits together don't amount to any greater charge, so we only do what is legally necessary so that we can conserve resources and get more cases done.  In drug cases, for example, if the charge is possession under 20g of marijuana (a misdemeanor here) and there are 5 bags weighing 1g each, we'll only analyze one or two bags.  If the charge is possession over 20g (felony) and there are 45 bags weighing 1g each, we'll analyze 21 bags.  If the charge is possession with intent to distribute, and there are 15 bags weighing 1g each (the total weight does not exceed 20g), then we might analyze five bags to demonstrate that there were more bags of MJ than is reasonable for one person to be carrying around all at once just for personal use (plus we'll take a brief look at the rest to see if they at least LOOK like MJ, in case we're asked that).  Juries are savvy enough to draw their own conclusions based on those kinds of results.  On the other hand, if all the bags analyzed so far have been negative, then we keep going until we can establish whether or not any charge is justified at all.  E.g., if we have to analyze all 45 bags to demonstrate that the subject is NOT guilty of actual possession, then that's what we do (but given Florida's look-alike law, that doesn't necessarily get the suspect off the hook if the charge is sale and delivery).
 
Our other sections make the same kind of effort/value ratio judgments in deciding what evidence to analyze in their own specialties.  If there are multiple defendants, then the decisions are trickier, because you have to make sure you analyze the right items to address the charges against each individual defendant.  Unfortunately, additional defendants aren't always identified on the submittal forms, and all items aren't always attributed to specific defendants.  We're all experienced enough to make the right decisions 99% of the time, but we obviously can't consider things we don't know about so occasionally there may be a need for a "rush" analysis just before trial of some item previously left out.  To make the right decisions requires having enough information to make properly informed decisions, and that is sometimes a problem (cops hate filling out more forms, so they often provide minimal info in their submission documents).  We do the best we can with what we're provided, and if we have any serious questions about how to best proceed, we call the agency or attorney and consult with them about it. 
 
The aim is to provide the best service possible, meeting the needs of each case as much as practical and in a reasonably timely manner.  Caseload and resource constraints are such that we can't do everything requested, considering the broad requests we often get.  Prioritization of work is an absolute necessity.  Consider it a "triage" process for analysis requests. We of course not only get the kinds of requests that ask for unnecessary "overkill" in analysis, but also the kinds of impossible requests that evoke a first reaction of "Oh, sure, just as soon as I get my magic wand and crystal ball back from the technomage repair facility.  Give me another week and I'll be able to tell you the last four digits of the perpetrator's social security number, too."   Lawyers and investigators (not to mention jurors) get all kinds of crazy ideas about forensics by watching cop shows, movies, and less-than-accurate documentaries (sometimes I think "reality TV" does more harm than good).  There is also a fair amount of urban legends about forensics they pass around to each other via the grape vine. 
 
You hit the key when you mentioned educating the client.  We have to reeducate them of what forensics can and can't do for them.  The more we help them learn what is important from a forensic standpoint, the less junk we'll see submitted and the less silly requests we'll receive.  We'll also help improve the quality and completeness of the significant evidence we DO receive.
 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: French, Tim [mailto:tfrench@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:08 AM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: Superfluous examinations

We are trying to make a presentation to our department heads regarding some of the unnecessary examinations that we are requested to perform from time to time. Examinations such as a dye comparison of fibers or analyzing tape construction after a physical match is found between the known and unknown samples. Non-probative exams such as analysis of found property (drugs, weapons), "examine the tape lift/vacuumings and see what is in there" when there is no known fiber or hair samples for comparison or simply analyzing everything in the case simply because it is there and the prosecutor doesn't want to face "why didn't the prosecution test..." in court.

My question to the list is this: what if anything does your lab use to help avoid or minimize these type of requests? Of those of you who do have some type of procedure to handle these, who makes the decisions on what should or should not be done, the analyst or management? If it is the analyst, how well supported is the decision by management.

We realize that a lot of these can be avoided by proper training of officers and investigators who are submitting the requests, but that still does not avoid ones that are being sent merely as a CYA situation. We also are aware that there may be situations where a case comes up in which these exams might prove to be fruitful. We don't want to write a policy that is so restrictive that we don't have the ability to do the exam should this situation arise. We are merely soliciting ideas for how this is handled outside our lab.


Thank you for your time,

Tim French
Criminalist II
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Crime Laboratory
704-336-7750



------_=_NextPart_001_01C05B1A.8A666EA0-- From forens-owner Thu Nov 30 20:14:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA22284 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:14:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA22279 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:14:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.1.64]) by mail.i2020.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:13:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3A26F836.A8A1D039@i2020.net> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:00:39 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forensics list Subject: DNA & demonstrative evidence Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Here's an inquiry from off list. Any references will be appreciated. I think other listmembers may be interested in this subject, so please share with all and I'll forward responses to this gentleman. Thanks. Sheila Berry Subject: DNA and demonstrative evidence Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:59:03 -0500 From: "Feigenson, Neal Prof." Dear folks: Could you recommend books/articles/websites that illustrate how DNA evidence is actually presented in court -- i.e., that contain (a range of) photos of actual demonstrative evidentiary exhibits? Thanks. Neal Feigenson Quinnipiac University School of Law -- Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: dberry@i2020.net Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein From forens-owner Thu Nov 30 21:59:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23304 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:59:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1610.mail.yahoo.com (web1610.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.164]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA23299 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:59:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13326 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Dec 2000 03:00:19 -0000 Message-ID: <20001201030019.13325.qmail@web1610.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [198.180.26.150] by web1610.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:00:19 PST Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:00:19 -0800 (PST) From: Patricia Lough Subject: FST Studies on EtOH Free Subjects To: CAT Forum , forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Two published articles have recently been quoted in court. Does anyone know about them and have a full cite? 1. 21 ethanol free subjects were found to be under the influence based on officer evaluations. Apparently the FSTs were not the standardized tests and the officers could only view a video. 2. Journal of Forensic Sciences article stating 36% of DUI arrests were found to be alcohol free. Thanks for your help, Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/