RE: Backlog

=20

IAFS 2002 Scientific=20 Secretariat

SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE DE CONGRES ET SERVICES

337, rue de la Combe Caude

34090 MONTPELLIER - France

Phone : +33 (0)4 6= 7 63 53=20 40

Fax : +33 (0)4 67 41 94 27

E-mail : algcsi@mnet= .fr

IAFS 2002 Web site : www.iafs2002.com

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C169C6.3EFE9F80-- --part1_c5.1907e60c.291e9652_boundary-- From daemon Sat Nov 10 21:39:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAB2dut15343 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:39:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAB2dtF15338 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:39:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from Reinarz15@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id y.9c.160ea063 (4427) for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:39:49 -0500 (EST) From: Reinarz15@aol.com Message-ID: <9c.160ea063.291f3ef5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:39:49 EST Subject: Cinnamoylcocaine To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9c.160ea063.291f3ef5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10542 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 668 --part1_9c.160ea063.291f3ef5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey all: Is anyone aware of an extraction technique or other method for separating cinnamoylcocaine from cocaine? Brian R, Cal DOJ --part1_9c.160ea063.291f3ef5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey all: Is anyone aware of an extraction technique or other method for separating cinnamoylcocaine from cocaine? Brian R, Cal DOJ --part1_9c.160ea063.291f3ef5_boundary-- From daemon Sun Nov 11 22:08:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAC38Ul02089 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAC38TF02084 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from Alikatt@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id y.15c.3e3dd58 (4554) for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:08:22 -0500 (EST) From: Alikatt@aol.com Message-ID: <15c.3e3dd58.29209726@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:08:22 EST Subject: evidence collection question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15c.3e3dd58.29209726_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1010 --part1_15c.3e3dd58.29209726_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When collecting a soiled diaper (with feces) from the scene of a baby death, what is the proper procedure for packaging and storing? Should it be opened and dried? Does it need to be frozen or refrigerated? Can it be frozen without being dried? Should it be packaged in paper or plastic? Thanks! Alison --part1_15c.3e3dd58.29209726_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When collecting a soiled diaper (with feces) from the scene of a baby death, what is the proper procedure for packaging and storing? Should it be opened and dried? Does it need to be frozen or refrigerated? Can it be frozen without being dried? Should it be packaged in paper or plastic?

Thanks!
Alison --part1_15c.3e3dd58.29209726_boundary-- From daemon Mon Nov 12 10:28:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fACFSPm11311 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fACFSOF11306 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:28:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 163J0a-000496-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:28:24 -0800 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for pop06.earthlink.net [207.217.120.206]) with SMTP; 12 Nov 2001 15:27:31 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Nov 12 07:24:56 2001 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:28:24 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:27:43 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Alikatt@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: evidence collection question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1057 Alison, In answer to your question, it depends. If you are merely collecting it for evidence sake, it may be okay to dry it. If you are looking for evidence of sexual assault, it would be best to freeze it if there is going to be some time delay prior to a forensic examination. Evidence of this type should always be packaged in a paper sack, never in a plastic bag. The examinaer can always dry the diaper follwing examination., particularly if they will do a snip and cut of any suspicious stains. I hope this answers your question. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> 11/11 7:08 PM >>> When collecting a soiled diaper (with feces) from the scene of a baby death, what is the proper procedure for packaging and storing? Should it be opened and dried? Does it need to be frozen or refrigerated? Can it be frozen without being dried? Should it be packaged in paper or plastic? Thanks! Alison From daemon Tue Nov 13 08:45:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fADDj6t29167 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:45:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:45:06 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-Id: <200111131345.fADDj6t29167@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Content-Length: 781 (Please respond to the list forens@statgen.ncsu.edu) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:46:56 -0600 From: Ken Pfoser To: forens-owner@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Extracting DNA from a microscope slide I am a forensic DNA analyst gathering information for the best method of extracting DNA from a microscope slide. I am working on developing a procedure to use, but most of the information I have is methods passed down by "oral tradition" and I am looking for any references that I can list. I am specifically looking at extracting DNA from KPIC or "Christmas Tree" stained slides with Permount or immersion oil added. Thank you in advance. Ken Pfoser Forensic Scientist From daemon Tue Nov 13 09:27:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fADERK200440 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:27:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.133]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fADERJF00435 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:21:17 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439B37@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "Forens (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Extracting DNA from a microscope slide Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 08:21:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C16C4E.860A37B0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3305 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_01C16C4E.860A37B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Try the (US) Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, specifically the DNA Registry, maybe starting with the Deputy program director, Jim Canik, ph. 301-319-0250 to get pointed in the right direction. See http://www.afip.org/Departments/oafme/index.html Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:46:56 -0600 From: Ken Pfoser To: forens-owner@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Extracting DNA from a microscope slide I am a forensic DNA analyst gathering information for the best method of extracting DNA from a microscope slide. I am working on developing a procedure to use, but most of the information I have is methods passed down by "oral tradition" and I am looking for any references that I can list. I am specifically looking at extracting DNA from KPIC or "Christmas Tree" stained slides with Permount or immersion oil added. Thank you in advance. Ken Pfoser Forensic Scientist ------_=_NextPart_001_01C16C4E.860A37B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Extracting DNA from a microscope slide

Try the (US) Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, = specifically the DNA Registry, maybe starting with the Deputy program = director, Jim Canik, ph. 301-319-0250 to get pointed in the right = direction. See http://www.afip.org/Departments/oafme/index.html

Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO
David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:46:56 -0600
From: Ken Pfoser <kpfoser@home.com>
To: forens-owner@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Extracting DNA from a microscope = slide

I am a forensic DNA analyst gathering information for = the best method of
extracting DNA from a microscope slide. I am = working on developing a
procedure to use, but most of the information I have = is methods passed down
by "oral tradition" and I am looking for = any references that I can list. I
am specifically looking at extracting DNA from KPIC = or "Christmas Tree"
stained slides with Permount or immersion oil = added. Thank you in advance.

Ken Pfoser
Forensic Scientist

------_=_NextPart_001_01C16C4E.860A37B0-- From daemon Wed Nov 14 12:28:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAEHSPg24952 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:28:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f238.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.238]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEHSNF24947 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:28:23 -0800 Received: from 64.171.118.55 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:28:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.171.118.55] From: "Jamie Ballou" To: Alikatt@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Crime Scene Protocol Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:28:23 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 17:28:23.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[C32C25C0:01C16D31] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1264 What agency do you work for? Thanks, Jamie >From: Alikatt@aol.com >To: jta@rocketmail.com >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Crime Scene Protocol >Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 07:50:44 EST > >Hi Tom, > > > (1) An ID Tech with our agency also does the photography and evidence > > collection, so usually 2 will respond to a homicide scene. We don't have > > any criminalists. > > > > > > > (2b) All homicides get at least 1 ID Tech and 1 detective for the scene > > work. Most get 2 ID Techs and sometimes 2 detectives > > > > (3) About 10 hours. Egads! I was shocked when I read other people >were > > averaging 2 to 4 hours to process a scene. 10 hrs also includes usually > > waiting for the search warrant, so probably 7 to 8 hours of actual > > processing. But that includes all photography, latent print processing >of > > items at the scene, and evidence collection. This also includes >waiting > > for the detectives while they search and find more items to be > > photographed, processed, etc. > >Our longest scene was 9 days. This was 2 apartments, a car, and every >dumpster in the complex. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Wed Nov 14 12:37:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAEHbJK25209 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f130.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.130]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEHbIF25204 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:37:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:37:18 -0800 Received: from 64.171.118.55 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:37:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.171.118.55] From: "Jamie Ballou" To: forensic-science@eGroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:37:18 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2001 17:37:18.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[0221BE10:01C16D33] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 949 Does anyone know anything about the Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program? http://www.isp.state.il.us/Forensics/ISPHTML/Forensics.htm (then follow the link to "employment" then "forensic scientist trainee.") I have a B.S. in Animal Physiology and Neurosciences and I almost have my Master of Forensic Sciences, but I'm having a tough time getting a job as a Criminalist (I have my applications in at numerous agencies but I don't think I know enough chemistry and I don't have any experience). I would be willing to undergo training if I get paid (I have student loans, of course). But I definitely don't want to waste my time and I live in San Diego, so it would be a big commitment for me to move to Illinois. I trust all of your opinions and am looking for guidance. Sincerely, Jamie Ballou _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Wed Nov 14 18:02:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAEN2nn01019 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from bang.emi.com (emi.com [167.152.11.100]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAEN2mF01014 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from health.ongov.net (host35.onondaga.ny.us [216.1.64.35]) by bang.emi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19629 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:02:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from HEALTH_BOSS/SpoolDir by health.ongov.net (Mercury 1.48); 14 Nov 01 18:02:58 EST Received: from SpoolDir by HEALTH_BOSS (Mercury 1.48); 14 Nov 01 18:02:46 EST From: "Mark Mills" Organization: Onondaga County Health Dept To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:02:40 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program Message-ID: <3BF2B1B3.2213.256E482@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 978 If you are referring to the Illinois State Police training program, in my opinion, it is one of the best and most comprehensive training programs in the country. I was trained by and worked for the ISP as a latent print examiner for about 7 years and have worked for two forensic labs since leaving Illinois. I have yet to see a training program that compares to the one in place in Illinois. I suppose I'm biased, but I would highly recommend exploring them, and the training is paid. The ceiling for salary is pretty decent when compared to other crime labs. I'm sure Randy Robbins on this list can give you more detailed info. For what it's worth, Go for it, and feel free to contact me off the list if you want any other info. On 14 Nov 2001, at 9:37, Jamie Ballou wrote: > Does anyone know anything about the Illinois P.D. Forensic Training > Program? Mark Mills QA Coordinator Center for Forensic Sciences Syracuse, NY 13219 hlmmill@health.ongov.net From daemon Wed Nov 14 20:10:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAF1AsB02186 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:10:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.229]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAF1ArF02181 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:10:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id fAF1ArI20035 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id fAF1Ar320025 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:10:52 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by srv-gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:10:40 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 17:10:30 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: hlmmill@health.ongov.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 17EDC996137787-01-02 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 fAF1ArF02182 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1830 I would agree with everything Mark has said. It was very good (but far less formal than it became while I was there) when I was trained 27 years ago. They operate a separate training program to feed their several labs some specialties are about 6 month some 2 years or more. I left there about 12 years ago and on visits back have seen that the program(s) have gotten even better. There are also now some links to one of the universities ( U. of Ill., Chicago Circle, I think) Masters program as well. This allows some students to attend part of the ISP training program(s). Jim James L. Roberts Supervising Forensic Scientist Comparative Analysis Section Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA. 93009 (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "Mark Mills" 11/14/01 03:02PM >>> If you are referring to the Illinois State Police training program, in my opinion, it is one of the best and most comprehensive training programs in the country. I was trained by and worked for the ISP as a latent print examiner for about 7 years and have worked for two forensic labs since leaving Illinois. I have yet to see a training program that compares to the one in place in Illinois. I suppose I'm biased, but I would highly recommend exploring them, and the training is paid. The ceiling for salary is pretty decent when compared to other crime labs. I'm sure Randy Robbins on this list can give you more detailed info. For what it's worth, Go for it, and feel free to contact me off the list if you want any other info. On 14 Nov 2001, at 9:37, Jamie Ballou wrote: > Does anyone know anything about the Illinois P.D. Forensic Training > Program? Mark Mills QA Coordinator Center for Forensic Sciences Syracuse, NY 13219 hlmmill@health.ongov.net From daemon Thu Nov 15 08:10:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAFDApl09925 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:10:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFDAoW09920 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:10:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:10:50 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Aldridge, Michael" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 626 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Aldridge, Michael" To: "Forensic List E-Mail (E-mail)" Subject: sustanon/cyctahoh >>oil extractant Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:50:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) We have received this item and it is miscible in MeOH which is our usual solvent for extraction of steroids form oils. This oil is also miscible with: ethyl acetate, ether, pyridine, acetonitrile, n-propanol, MIBK, toluene, CS2. What methods do you use to extract steroids form oils / what solvent / what might work here???? From daemon Thu Nov 15 13:57:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAFIvnm15738 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:57:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.stn.net (mail.mis.stn.net [216.191.62.13]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFIvlF15733 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from cr525847-a.siperformance.com (nas3-ip-50.mis.stn.net [216.191.63.50]) by mail.stn.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAFIvL526901 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:57:21 -0500 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20011115120620.009dfae0@siperformance.com> X-Sender: siperf@siperformance.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:54:40 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Trottier Subject: DNA testing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 261 I was wondering what the process in Toronto is to determine parentage. Would genetic testing involve swabbing the inside of the mouth or drawing a blood sample? How long would it take to get the results back from a lab? Thank you kindly, Debbie Trottier From daemon Thu Nov 15 17:27:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAFMRrS20271 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFMRqF20266 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (pm4-98.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.98]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id fAFMRoU24805 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:27:51 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011115133242.00a9e780@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:52:56 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1950 Would anyone care to comment on the following?: At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments with test fires from the weapon are as follows: A. "Can not match" B. "Can not match" C. "No detail" D. "No detail" E. "Can not match" F. "Can not match" G. "No detail" The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: "Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." My questions: Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report? Is the report in any way misleading? What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report? Any other comments? Respond on-line or off-line. Peter Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Thu Nov 15 18:48:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAFNm5t21333 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from be-mail.hosting.bellsouth.net (be-mail.hosting.bellsouth.net [207.203.120.200]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAFNm4F21328 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:48:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from atslab.com ([216.79.108.58]) by be-mail.hosting.bellsouth.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-52534L100S0V35) with ESMTP id net; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:48:02 -0500 Received: by atslab.com from localhost (router,SLMail V3.2); Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:50:33 -0500 Received: from temp.atslab.com [192.168.0.38] by atslab.com [192.168.0.60] (SLmail 3.2.3113) with ESMTP id 95F450E2D93111D5BAB800105A613420 for plus 1 more; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:50:31 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011115183624.00a1b6e0@emailserver> X-Sender: estauffer@emailserver X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:50:26 -0500 To: pbarnett@FSALab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Eric Stauffer" Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011115133242.00a9e780@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_34289454==_.ALT" X-SLUIDL: 987494B3-D93111D5-BAB80010-5A613420 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8406 --=====================_34289454==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Peter, Besides the fact that .22 is a pain sometimes, these are my thoughts: Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? For bullets A, B, E and F, I do not agree. I think that in his notes, the examiner completely excluded the firearm as shooting at the origin of the bullets. For me, can not match, means negative, it does not mean not conclusive. Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report? not in the case of bullets A, B, E and F. Is the report in any way misleading? yes, the report does not exclude the fact that this firearm fires these bullets, while the notes do. In the first case, we are not necessarily looking at another firearm and in some circumstances, the case will be closed on that. In the second case, we know that we need to find another firearm and therefore, the case is not complete. What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report? A great deal of discussion of why and how in some cases rifling characteristics can appear or not. Some more detailed discussion about the lack of reproducibility. Any other comments? Tell the examiner to review how he/she is working and to have more complete notes and be consistent between what he/she observes, describes and reports. At 01:52 PM 11/15/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Would anyone care to comment on the following?: > >At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are recovered. A >weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's notes with >respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments with test >fires from the weapon are as follows: > >A. "Can not match" >B. "Can not match" >C. "No detail" >D. "No detail" >E. "Can not match" >F. "Can not match" >G. "No detail" > >The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: > >"Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively fired >test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been >fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of >reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. > >"The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets >conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. >"The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets >conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. >"The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. >"The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. >"The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets >conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. >"The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets >conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. >"The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." > >My questions: > >Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? > >Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in >the report? > >Is the report in any way misleading? > >What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report? > >Any other comments? > > >Respond on-line or off-line. > >Peter Barnett > > >Peter D. Barnett >Forensic Science Associates >Richmond CA >510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > >http://www.fsalab.com "Mind, like parachutes, work only when they are open" -------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Applied Technical Services, Inc. 1190 Atlanta Industrial Drive Marietta, GA 30189 voice (770) 218-2180 ext. 3053 toll-free 1-800-544-5117 ext. 3053 fax (770) 424-6415 Email estauffer@atslab.com --=====================_34289454==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Dear Peter,

Besides the fact that .22 is a pain sometimes, these are my thoughts:

Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate?

For bullets A, B, E and F, I do not agree. I think that in his notes, the examiner completely excluded the firearm as shooting at the origin of the bullets. For me, can not match, means negative, it does not mean not conclusive.

Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report?

not in the case of bullets A, B, E and F.

Is the report in any way misleading?

yes, the report does not exclude the fact that this firearm fires these bullets, while the notes do. In the first case, we are not necessarily looking at another firearm and in some circumstances, the case will be closed on that. In the second case, we know that we need to find another firearm and therefore, the case is not complete.

What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report?

A great deal of discussion of why and how in some cases rifling characteristics can appear or not.
Some more detailed discussion about the lack of reproducibility.

Any other comments?

Tell the examiner to review how he/she is working and to have more complete notes and be consistent between what he/she observes, describes and reports.

At 01:52 PM 11/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:

Would anyone care to comment on the following?:

At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments with test fires from the weapon are as follows:

A. "Can not match"
B. "Can not match"
C. "No detail"
D. "No detail"
E. "Can not match"
F. "Can not match"
G. "No detail"

The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows:

"Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets.

"The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail.
"The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail.
"The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail."

My questions:

Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate?

Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report?

Is the report in any way misleading?

What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report?

Any other comments?

Respond on-line or off-line.

Peter Barnett

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

http://www.fsalab.com

"Mind, like parachutes, work only when they are open"
--------------------------------------------

Eric Stauffer
Applied Technical Services, Inc.
1190 Atlanta Industrial Drive
Marietta, GA 30189

voice   (770) 218-2180 ext. 3053
toll-free 1-800-544-5117 ext. 3053
fax     (770) 424-6415
Email   estauffer@atslab.com --=====================_34289454==_.ALT-- From daemon Thu Nov 15 23:31:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAG4Vwg24934 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:31:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.jobe.net (mail.jobe.net [208.18.94.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAG4VvF24929 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:31:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from dwhause [208.34.191.119] by mail.jobe.net (SMTPD32-6.06) id A6EBE00224; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:32:43 -0600 Message-ID: <0b3701c16e57$4a96ee20$47bf22d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011115133242.00a9e780@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:29:16 -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 Content-Length: 3740 I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable features while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could have a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old discussion of using the term "match" in a report.) "...consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets." If the whole report consisted only of this paragraph, I would still call it incomplete, but withdraw "misleading." I think this statment needs to be supported by some further examinations/description of why the tested revolver doesn't leave enough marking to allow comparison of known consecutively fired bullets (leaded bore, rust, damaged muzzle, effects of different chambers in the cylinder, etc.) Next, I would expect a professional F&TM examiner to at least say something about the victim exhibits he got: weight, diameter, rifling, if any is apparent, twist, direction of twist, whether the victim exhibits could have been reasonably compared to each other (seven projectiles implies the possibility of up to seven different guns) and probably several other things I'm forgetting. Dave Hause, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO dwhause@jobe.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D. Barnett" To: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:52 PM Subject: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Would anyone care to comment on the following?: At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments with test fires from the weapon are as follows: A. "Can not match" B. "Can not match" C. "No detail" D. "No detail" E. "Can not match" F. "Can not match" G. "No detail" The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: "Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." My questions: Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report? Is the report in any way misleading? What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report? Any other comments? Respond on-line or off-line. Peter Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Nov 16 08:18:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGDIZj00199 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGDIXF00192 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18533; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Dave Hause cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? In-Reply-To: <0b3701c16e57$4a96ee20$47bf22d0@dwhause> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1414 On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > From: Dave Hause > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet fragment > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable features > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could have > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old discussion > of using the term "match" in a report.) Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. Your criticism boils down to: "Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances take his or her report at face value. The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. They answer the mandate. That's a good job. billo From daemon Fri Nov 16 09:04:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGE4l901246 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f110.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.110]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGE4lF01241 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:04:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 06:04:46 -0800 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:04:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: billo@Radix.Net, dwhause@jobe.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:04:45 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2001 14:04:46.0468 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5E13C40:01C16EA7] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1927 Its a sad day when we go around telling people how to write their notes "correctly". Dave Smith >From: Bill Oliver >To: Dave Hause >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) > > > >On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > > > From: Dave Hause > > > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet >fragment > > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually > > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable >features > > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could >have > > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old >discussion > > of using the term "match" in a report.) > > >Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. > >Your criticism boils down to: > >"Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what >the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to >willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then >there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." > >That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is >clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. > >Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner >is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances >take his or her report at face value. > >The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator >gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. >They answer the mandate. > >That's a good job. > > > >billo > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Fri Nov 16 09:59:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGExUY02037 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailer.fsu.edu (mailer.fsu.edu [128.186.6.122]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGExTF02032 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:59:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from remote4 (dhcp148233.hec.fsu.edu [128.186.148.233]) by mailer.fsu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.1) with SMTP id fAGEx7q08676; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:59:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004201c16eaf$647b0300$b1dbfea9@criminology.fsu.edu> From: "Dale Nute" To: "David Smith" , , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:58:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3066 I don't think it is necessarily a bad day, it is a fact of life that someone often needs to tell us. I once had an attorney question a report on which I had spent considerable time and effort to make understandable. As I was expostulating about his stupidity, I gave the report to my daughter to read. Her response was brutally honest as only a daughter can be -- "Rewrite it Daddy, it's confusing." I spent a day rewriting it and have made it a practice since then to get someone unassociated with forensic science to read my reports periodically. Our job is communication and if we are not doing the job, we need to know it. The fact that "we all know what he means" is only one part of the story. Do our clients know what we mean is the other, critical part. Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smith" To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, 16 November, 2001 9:04 AM Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? > > Its a sad day when we go around telling people how to write their notes > "correctly". > > Dave Smith > > >From: Bill Oliver > >To: Dave Hause > >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? > >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) > > > > > > > >On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > > > > > From: Dave Hause > > > > > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > > > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet > >fragment > > > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually > > > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable > >features > > > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could > >have > > > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old > >discussion > > > of using the term "match" in a report.) > > > > > >Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. > > > >Your criticism boils down to: > > > >"Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what > >the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to > >willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then > >there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." > > > >That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is > >clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. > > > >Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner > >is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances > >take his or her report at face value. > > > >The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator > >gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. > >They answer the mandate. > > > >That's a good job. > > > > > > > >billo > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > From daemon Fri Nov 16 10:20:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGFKNX02485 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGFKIF02480 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:20:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:57:48 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439B53@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:59:30 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2675 Agreed. But if they don't write them unambiguously in the first place... (I define "unambiguous" as meaning "as difficult as possible for a lawyer to misinterpret to a jury.") "Can not match" and "cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" don't say the same thing, especially if you don't also say something like "or from any other firearm of approximately .22 caliber." Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 8:05 AM To: billo@Radix.Net; dwhause@jobe.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Its a sad day when we go around telling people how to write their notes "correctly". Dave Smith >From: Bill Oliver >To: Dave Hause >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) > > > >On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > > > From: Dave Hause > > > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet >fragment > > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually > > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable >features > > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could >have > > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old >discussion > > of using the term "match" in a report.) > > >Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. > >Your criticism boils down to: > >"Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what >the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to >willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then >there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." > >That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is >clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. > >Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner >is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances >take his or her report at face value. > >The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator >gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. >They answer the mandate. > >That's a good job. > > > >billo > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Fri Nov 16 10:41:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGFf7l03023 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f63.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.63]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGFf6F03018 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:41:06 -0800 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:41:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: hdnute@mailer.fsu.edu, billo@Radix.Net, dwhause@jobe.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:41:06 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2001 15:41:06.0600 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B1B6280:01C16EB5] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3755 I agree totally with having reports written correctly - I was lamenting the emergence of the note police. Dave Smith >From: "Dale Nute" >To: "David Smith" , , > >CC: >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:58:28 -0500 > >I don't think it is necessarily a bad day, it is a fact of life that >someone >often needs to tell us. I once had an attorney question a report on which >I >had spent considerable time and effort to make understandable. As I was >expostulating about his stupidity, I gave the report to my daughter to >read. >Her response was brutally honest as only a daughter can be -- "Rewrite it >Daddy, it's confusing." I spent a day rewriting it and have made it a >practice since then to get someone unassociated with forensic science to >read my reports periodically. >Our job is communication and if we are not doing the job, we need to know >it. The fact that "we all know what he means" is only one part of the >story. Do our clients know what we mean is the other, critical part. >Dale >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Smith" >To: ; >Cc: >Sent: Friday, 16 November, 2001 9:04 AM >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? > > > > > > Its a sad day when we go around telling people how to write their notes > > "correctly". > > > > Dave Smith > > > > >From: Bill Oliver > > >To: Dave Hause > > >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? > > >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > > > > > > > From: Dave Hause > > > > > > > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > > > > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet > > >fragment > > > > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are >mutually > > > > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable > > >features > > > > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items >could > > >have > > > > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old > > >discussion > > > > of using the term "match" in a report.) > > > > > > > > >Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. > > > > > >Your criticism boils down to: > > > > > >"Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what > > >the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to > > >willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then > > >there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." > > > > > >That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is > > >clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. > > > > > >Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner > > >is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances > > >take his or her report at face value. > > > > > >The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator > > >gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. > > >They answer the mandate. > > > > > >That's a good job. > > > > > > > > > > > >billo > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Fri Nov 16 10:50:10 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGFoAQ03271 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:50:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from usacil2.army.mil (usacil2.forscom.army.mil [160.136.216.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGFo9F03266 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:50:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by usacil2.forscom.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:53:59 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Henson, Lynn" To: "'David Smith'" , billo@Radix.Net, dwhause@jobe.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:53:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2704 I'm not a Firearms examiner but.... I agree the notes do not support the conclusion. It is a sad day when we have to tell people the judicious use of terms like "a general correspondence of class characteristics however an absence of corresponding individual characteristics" would go a long way towards writing notes that support the conclusions stated. Lynn Henson US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 Comm. - 404-469-7265, DSN 797-7265 email - hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:05 AM To: billo@Radix.Net; dwhause@jobe.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Its a sad day when we go around telling people how to write their notes "correctly". Dave Smith >From: Bill Oliver >To: Dave Hause >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:18:20 -0500 (EST) > > > >On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > > > From: Dave Hause > > > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet >fragment > > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually > > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable >features > > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could >have > > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old >discussion > > of using the term "match" in a report.) > > >Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. > >Your criticism boils down to: > >"Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what >the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to >willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then >there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." > >That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is >clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. > >Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner >is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances >take his or her report at face value. > >The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator >gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. >They answer the mandate. > >That's a good job. > > > >billo > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Fri Nov 16 11:10:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGGAFZ03671 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:10:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-relay2.treas.gov (mx-relay2.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGGAEF03666 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from tias4.treas.gov (tias-gw4.treas.gov [199.196.144.14]) by mx-relay2.treas.gov (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id fAGG9Nl00524 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from no.name.available by tias4.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay2.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 16:10:15 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub-1.net.treas.gov (8.9.2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21568 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:10:12 -0500 (EST) From: BEGILBERTSON@sfdi.atf.treas.gov Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:09:24 -0500 Message-ID: <7297AB44AE95D411A13C006008D06AB1017ECBC6@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:09:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2773 I certainly am NOT a firearms examiner, but I think the crux of this problem boils down to the vagueness of using "can not match" in the notes. When I first read the scenario posed by Pete, I was interpreting the notes the same way Dave Hause was - can not match and could not be matched are mutually exclusive, based on interpreting can not match as "no way could these be possibly from the same weapon". When Bill posed his reply, I could then see how "can not match" could possibly be interpreted as "could not be matched", which does give an entirely different slant to the meaning. This discrepancy is EXACTLY why we need the "notes police" out there serving us. The closer we can get to expressing our thoughts unambiguously, the less chance there is of interpreting the meaning incorrectly. Barbara E. Gilbertson Forensic Chemist; ATF Laboratory - San Francisco 355 North Wiget Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 general phone: (925) 280-3600 direct line: (925) 280-3611 fax: (925) 280-3601 e-mail: BEGilbertson@sfdi.atf.treas.gov > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Oliver [SMTP:billo@Radix.Net] > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:18 AM > To: Dave Hause > Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? > > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dave Hause wrote: > > > From: Dave Hause > > > > I'd characterize the report as both incomplete and misleading: > > A. (and B, E, & F) The statements "Can not match" and "The bullet > fragment > > marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver" are mutually > > inconsistent. The first part implies complete lack of comparable > features > > while the second suggests that the examiner thinks the two items could > have > > a common origin but he just isn't sure. (Not to mention our old > discussion > > of using the term "match" in a report.) > > > Oh, please, Dave. You are straining at gnats. > > Your criticism boils down to: > > "Well, we all know what this means. Any idiot child knows what > the examiner is saying. However, if you really want to > willfully misinterpret the meaning to something stupid, then > there's nothing here that will physically restrain you." > > That is not the measure of an adequate report. The meaning is > clear in the report, and the explanation is also clear. > > Frankly, I am pretty tired of the concept that the examiner > is a stupid lying bastard, and you cannot under any circumstances > take his or her report at face value. > > The investigator reported his or her conclusions. The investigator > gave the basic reasons for those conclusions. They are clear. > They answer the mandate. > > That's a good job. > > > > billo From daemon Fri Nov 16 11:45:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGGjOG04274 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGGjNF04269 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 164m7I-0001z6-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:45:24 -0800 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for pop03.earthlink.net [207.217.121.203]) with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 16:44:08 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Nov 16 08:41:55 2001 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:45:23 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:44:38 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: pbarnett@fsalab.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3571 Pete, Is that all to the notes? Just 7 lines? No diagrams? No description of the fragments? No weights, No L&G measurements? If that is truly the case, then yes, the notes are incomplete. The report on the otherhand seemingly states the obvious with this these exceptions, some description regarding class characteristics and the preponderance of "matching stria" i.e. subclass or individual are lacking. If the examiner is visualizing skips and skids on the test fired bullets and evidence bullets, they should have been delineated in his notes. The term cannot match would seem to lead a reviewr that he is excluding the firearm, but maybe we are playing with semantics. I'v always thought that reports should attempt to follow the KISS guideline with alternative explanations as part of an appendix. Perhaps the report is too simple or the firearms examiner was frustrated after spending a great deal of time in an effort where he could not reach a an identification or an exclusion. He probably threw up his hands and got on to the next case. Can we criticize his work product? Yes! I don't see him as being willfully dishonest or blatantly misleading with regard to this case. Besides I only have your redacted vesion of his case notes and report. Perhaps, a sit down with the examiner with the examiner would resolve some issues. It is possible if he is a CAC member. 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" 11/15 1:52 PM >>> Would anyone care to comment on the following?: At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments with test fires from the weapon are as follows: A. "Can not match" B. "Can not match" C. "No detail" D. "No detail" E. "Can not match" F. "Can not match" G. "No detail" The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: "Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." My questions: Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report? Is the report in any way misleading? What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report? Any other comments? Respond on-line or off-line. Peter Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Nov 16 15:21:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGKLp508042 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGKLpC08037 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:21:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:21:51 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Walsh, Kevan" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6789 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Walsh, Kevan" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:40:16 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Peter & Eric In my opinion the notes appear to reflect a shorthand approach to notetaking that does not adequately describe (to someone reading the notes who is unfamiliar with that laboratory's practice) the true findings in relation to the case. I personally would not interpret the findings as pedantically as Eric. "Reading between the lines" (ie. in conjunction with the report), I interpret the notes to mean; 1. "Cannot match": There was a correspondence of rifling class characteristics. There were no significant differences observed between the rifling marks. There was insufficient correspondence of rifling marks to draw any conclusion of definitive association. [There may or may not have been some degree of association of rifling marks that fell below the criteria to conclude a 'match'. The lack of correspondence shown between test vs test comparisons, is significant in assessing this evidence ] 2. "No detail"; There were no class or other rifling marks to compare. 3. Somewhere else in the notes I would expect to find the conclusion relating to test vs test, where "consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets." [However the latter aspect may mean that even the rifling class characteristics could not be determined (?), which could make the results even less encompassing??] The convention of the range of reporting results or conclusions for this type of identification work typically comprises "exclude", "can't exclude" and "identify" (or such-like). In this instance, the results appear to fall within the "can't exclude" range. This can often overstate or understate the evidence, without further elaboration of the findings. (and in case any of you think I may be waning in my support for what some might term Bayesian reporting styles.... I don't subscribe to the above range of conclusions). I don't want to be drawn into commenting on the brevity of notes and their relationship (or not) to the conclusions, as its difficult to judge fairly when only an extract from the file is reported (no criticism intended, Peter). I merely felt a need to present an alternative interpretation to Eric's Regards Kevan Walsh ESR Private Bag 92021 Auckland NEW ZEALAND Ph #64-9-8153903 Fax #64-9- 8496046 email: kevan.walsh@esr.cri.nz > ---------- > From: Eric Stauffer[SMTP:estauffer@atslab.com] > Sent: Friday, 16 November 2001 12:50 p.m. > To: pbarnett@FSALab.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? > > Dear Peter, > Besides the fact that .22 is a pain sometimes, these are my thoughts: > Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? > For bullets A, B, E and F, I do not agree. I think that in his notes, the > examiner completely excluded the firearm as shooting at the origin of the > bullets. For me, can not match, means negative, it does not mean not > conclusive. > Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in > the report? > not in the case of bullets A, B, E and F. > Is the report in any way misleading? > yes, the report does not exclude the fact that this firearm fires these > bullets, while the notes do. In the first case, we are not necessarily > looking at another firearm and in some circumstances, the case will be > closed on that. In the second case, we know that we need to find another > firearm and therefore, the case is not complete. > What additional information, if any, should have been included in the > report? > A great deal of discussion of why and how in some cases rifling > characteristics can appear or not. > Some more detailed discussion about the lack of reproducibility. > Any other comments? > Tell the examiner to review how he/she is working and to have more > complete notes and be consistent between what he/she observes, describes > and reports. > > At 01:52 PM 11/15/2001 -0800, you wrote: > Would anyone care to comment on the following?: > At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are > recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's > notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments > with test fires from the weapon are as follows: > A. "Can not match" > B. "Can not match" > C. "No detail" > D. "No detail" > E. "Can not match" > F. "Can not match" > G. "No detail" > The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: > "Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively > fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having > been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of > reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. > "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > "The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > "The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. > "The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. > "The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > "The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > "The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." > My questions: > Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison > adequate? > Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated > in the report? > Is the report in any way misleading? > What additional information, if any, should have been included in > the report? > Any other comments? > Respond on-line or off-line. > Peter Barnett > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > > > > > > "Mind, like parachutes, work only when they are open" > -------------------------------------------- > > Eric Stauffer > Applied Technical Services, Inc. > 1190 Atlanta Industrial Drive > Marietta, GA 30189 > > voice (770) 218-2180 ext. 3053 > toll-free 1-800-544-5117 ext. 3053 > fax (770) 424-6415 > Email estauffer@atslab.com > From daemon Fri Nov 16 18:38:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAGNcsK10695 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:38:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAGNcqF10690 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (pm4-97.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.97]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id fAGNcpU27305 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:38:51 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011116144638.00a8f460@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:13:27 -0800 To: From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 4494 My thanks to all of you who took the time to comment on the firearms examination report I posted yesterday. Some people have assumed that my redacted version of the notes and report have left out some data that might be useful. I did leave out a little bit which I thought made no difference, but I will add that in case it does. For purposes of confidentiality I am going to redact the [victim's name], and [item number]. Everything else is verbatim from the section of the notes dealing with the bullets and bullet comparisons. The new information is inserted in front of the original excerpts from the notes. I have reprinted the whole excerpts from the notes and report for ease of reading. Please take my word for the fact that no relevant or even potentially marginally useful information is not included. I will compile all of the answers (except ones received privately which the writer requests to be kept privately, but so far that has not occurred - thank you all who are will to "go public" with your opinions). I will send the compilation to the lists with my own comments. Thank you again, everyone, for reading and commenting. I actually think this is what forens-l should be about. What I wrote before: > > Would anyone care to comment on the following?: > > At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are > > recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's > > notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments > > with test fires from the weapon are as follows: And the handwritten notes not originally included are: "A. [item no] [victim] R. occipetal lobe brain lead irreg 2.3 gm (35) "B. [item no] [victim] occipetal lobe lead 5.5 mm 2.2 gm (34) "C. [item no] [victim] L Maxillary area lead flake 0.3 gm (4.6) "D. [item no] [victim] Rt. maxilla lead flake 0.4 gm (6.2) "E. [item no] [victim] 'atlanto-occipetal joint' Bullet + flaske 2.1 gm 5.5 mm (32) "F. [item no] [victim] L. cheek 3 flakes 2.2 gm 5.5 cm (34) "G. [item no] [victim] L styloid [illegible word] lead flake 0.4 gm 6.2" [some identifying information is redacted here, and the hadnwriten notes continue]: Revolver - Gerstenberger cal. .22 rf short" [some notations about the condition of the weapon are redacted here and the handwritten notes continue]; > > A. "Can not match" > > B. "Can not match" > > C. "No detail" > > D. "No detail" > > E. "Can not match" > > F. "Can not match" > > G. "No detail" > > The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: > > "Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively > > fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having > > been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of > > reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. > > "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > > "The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > > "The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. > > "The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. > > "The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > > "The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets > > conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. > > "The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." > > My questions: > > Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison > > adequate? > > Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated > > in the report? > > Is the report in any way misleading? > > What additional information, if any, should have been included in > > the report? > > Any other comments? > > Respond on-line or off-line. > > Peter Barnett > > Peter D. Barnett > > Forensic Science Associates > > Richmond CA > > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com > > > > Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Fri Nov 16 19:03:45 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAH03jZ10975 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAH03iF10970 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 17 Nov 2001 00:03:45 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:02:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@yahoogroups.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [forensic-science] Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:02:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C16EFB.167641A0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 8620 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_01C16EFB.167641A0 Content-Type: text/plain Jaime, All crime labs have their own internal training programs. They are designed to teach a competently educated, degreed scientist all he/she needs to know to perform the duties of a forensic scientist in that laboratory or laboratory system. Trainee scientists are salaried employees, usually getting an automatic pay raise once they successfully complete training and begin actual casework. I don't have any personal experience with the Illinois State Police crime lab system, but I can tell you that they have a good reputation. They are one of the oldest and largest forensic lab systems in the country and were one of the first to be accredited by ASCLD-LAB (actually, I believe they were THE first state-wide lab system accredited). I have several acquaintances among their staff, and all of them are well respected in the field. If you're interested in them, there's a wealth of information on their web site, and contacts are listed if you have questions you would like answered. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Ballou [mailto:jamieballou@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:37 To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [forensic-science] Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program Does anyone know anything about the Illinois P.D. Forensic Training Program? http://www.isp.state.il.us/Forensics/ISPHTML/Forensics.htm (then follow the link to "employment" then "forensic scientist trainee.") I have a B.S. in Animal Physiology and Neurosciences and I almost have my Master of Forensic Sciences, but I'm having a tough time getting a job as a Criminalist (I have my applications in at numerous agencies but I don't think I know enough chemistry and I don't have any experience). I would be willing to undergo training if I get paid (I have student loans, of course). But I definitely don't want to waste my time and I live in San Diego, so it would be a big commitment for me to move to Illinois. I trust all of your opinions and am looking for guidance. Sincerely, Jamie Ballou _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95 Refill any ink cartridge for less! Includes black and color ink. http://us.click.yahoo.com/bAmslD/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/M4xqlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe send a blank e-mail to: forensic-science-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science >From the home page you can search the list archives. It also includes links to forensic science sites and allows you to modify your account settings. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C16EFB.167641A0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [forensic-science] Illinois P.D. Forensic Training = Program

Jaime,

All crime labs have their own internal training = programs. They are designed to teach a competently educated, = degreed scientist all he/she needs to know to perform the duties of a = forensic scientist in that laboratory or laboratory system. = Trainee scientists are salaried employees, usually getting an automatic = pay raise once they successfully complete training and begin actual = casework. I don't have any personal experience with the Illinois = State Police crime lab system, but I can tell you that they have a good = reputation. They are one of the oldest and largest forensic lab = systems in the country and were one of the first to be accredited by = ASCLD-LAB (actually, I believe they were THE first state-wide lab = system accredited). I have several acquaintances among their = staff, and all of them are well respected in the field. If you're = interested in them, there's a wealth of information on their web site, = and contacts are listed if you have questions you would like = answered.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Ballou [mailto:jamieballou@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:37
To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu;
ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [forensic-science] Illinois P.D. Forensic = Training Program

Does anyone know anything about the Illinois P.D. = Forensic Training Program?

http://www.isp.state.il.us/Forensics/ISPHTML/Forensics= .htm
(then follow the link to "employment" then = "forensic scientist trainee.")

I have a B.S. in Animal Physiology and Neurosciences = and I almost have my
Master of Forensic Sciences, but I'm having a tough = time getting a job as a
Criminalist (I have my applications in at numerous = agencies but I don't
think I know enough chemistry and I don't have any = experience). I would be
willing to undergo training if I get paid (I have = student loans, of course).
But I definitely don't want to waste my time and I = live in San Diego, so it
would be a big commitment for me to move to = Illinois.

I trust all of your opinions and am looking for = guidance.

Sincerely,
Jamie Ballou

_______________________________________________________________= __
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor = ---------------------~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/bAmslD/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/M4xqlB/= TM
---------------------------------------------------------------= ------~->

To subscribe send a blank e-mail to: = forensic-science-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to: = forensic-science-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science =
From the home page you can search the list = archives. It also includes links to forensic science sites and = allows you to modify your account settings.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------_=_NextPart_001_01C16EFB.167641A0-- From daemon Fri Nov 16 19:06:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAH06tR11128 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAH06sF11123 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 17 Nov 2001 00:06:55 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:05:24 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:05:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C16EFB.8D002C50" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 12443 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_01C16EFB.8D002C50 Content-Type: text/plain The terminology used in both notes and report could be better phrased. In the notes, the apparent intent of "can not match" would be much clearer if a phrase like "can neither include nor exclude," or "inconclusive due to insufficient detail" were substituted. That's a minimum for the conclusions in the notes, but there should be much more supporting documentation like photos, drawings, or a written physical description, plus measurements (size, weight, etc.) For the report, the inconclusive result for the comparisons of A, B, E, and F again could be clearer. I would prefer something like "the bullet fragment could neither be associated nor disassociated with the firearm due to a lack of sufficient detail in rifling marks," or "...neither be identified nor eliminated as having come from the firearm due to insufficient surface detail," or "... due to lack of useful rifling characteristics," or something like that. This would be sufficient, but could be expounded on in the remarks section of the report, explaining that test firings did not produce sufficient characteristics for useful comparison and perhaps a short explanation of why (unrifled barrel, rust, damage, whatever). For C, D, and G, I would add something like "..., therefore no useful comparisons were possible." Just as important as determining the scientific facts is our responsibility to clearly explain them and so make them useful to the lay reader; not just what we found, but why it was that way, and what it means or infers. Without offering an easy to understand, unambiguous interpretation of the facts we uncover, the value of those facts to the investigation and the cause of justice is greatly diminished. This is why the remarks section is often the most important part of a report. Like the general public, crime lab analysts have varying degrees of skill in English composition, and honest efforts don't always produce easily comprehensible documents (a large vocabulary is no guarantee of skill in using it). I've seen people working in the field who do competent analysis but can barely write a coherent sentence, and don't even get me started on the communications skills of some of the police officers I deal with (good cops, but very poor users of the English language). It seems to me that excellent compositional skills are absolutely essential in our line of work, and indeed for all jobs in the criminal justice system. Both note-taking and report writing should be part of our training programs for that reason, but frequently are not it seems. That needs to change. 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: Thursday, November 15, 2001 16:53 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Is this an adequate firearms examination report? Would anyone care to comment on the following?: At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet fragments are recovered. A weapon is submitted for comparison. The firearms examiner's notes with respect to to the comparison of each of these seven fragments with test fires from the weapon are as follows: A. "Can not match" B. "Can not match" C. "No detail" D. "No detail" E. "Can not match" F. "Can not match" G. "No detail" The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) as follows: "Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen that consecutively fired test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each other as having been fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is due to the lack of reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test bullets. "The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no rifling detail. "The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be matched to test bullets conclusively, but could have come from the tested revolver. "The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no rifling detail." My questions: Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet comparison adequate? Does the data in the examiner's notes support the conclusions stated in the report? Is the report in any way misleading? What additional information, if any, should have been included in the report? Any other comments? Respond on-line or off-line. Peter 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_01C16EFB.8D002C50 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Is this an adequate firearms examination report?

The terminology used in both notes and report could = be better phrased. In the notes, the apparent intent of "can = not match" would be much clearer if a phrase like "can = neither include nor exclude," or "inconclusive due to = insufficient detail" were substituted. That's a minimum for = the conclusions in the notes, but there should be much more supporting = documentation like photos, drawings, or a written physical description, = plus measurements (size, weight, etc.)

For the report, the inconclusive result for the = comparisons of A, B, E, and F again could be clearer. I would = prefer something like "the bullet fragment could neither be = associated nor disassociated with the firearm due to a lack of = sufficient detail in rifling marks," or "...neither be = identified nor eliminated as having come from the firearm due to = insufficient surface detail," or "... due to lack of useful = rifling characteristics," or something like that. This would = be sufficient, but could be expounded on in the remarks section of the = report, explaining that test firings did not produce sufficient = characteristics for useful comparison and perhaps a short explanation = of why (unrifled barrel, rust, damage, whatever). For C, D, and = G, I would add something like "..., therefore no useful = comparisons were possible."

Just as important as determining the scientific facts = is our responsibility to clearly explain them and so make them useful = to the lay reader; not just what we found, but why it was that way, and = what it means or infers. Without offering an easy to understand, = unambiguous interpretation of the facts we uncover, the value of those = facts to the investigation and the cause of justice is greatly = diminished. This is why the remarks section is often the most = important part of a report.

Like the general public, crime lab analysts have = varying degrees of skill in English composition, and honest efforts = don't always produce easily comprehensible documents (a large = vocabulary is no guarantee of skill in using it). I've seen = people working in the field who do competent analysis but can barely = write a coherent sentence, and don't even get me started on the = communications skills of some of the police officers I deal with (good = cops, but very poor users of the English language). It seems to = me that excellent compositional skills are absolutely essential in our = line of work, and indeed for all jobs in the criminal justice = system. Both note-taking and report writing should be part of our = training programs for that reason, but frequently are not it = seems. That needs to change.

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: Thursday, November 15, 2001 16:53
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Is this an adequate firearms examination = report?

Would anyone care to comment on the = following?:

At autopsy, seven apparent .22 cal lead bullet = fragments are recovered. A
weapon is submitted for comparison. The = firearms examiner's notes with
respect to to the comparison of each of these seven = fragments with test
fires from the weapon are as follows:

A. "Can not match"
B. "Can not match"
C. "No detail"
D. "No detail"
E. "Can not match"
F. "Can not match"
G. "No detail"

The report that was issued reads (in relevant detail) = as follows:

"Using the comparison microscope, it can be seen = that consecutively fired
test bullets cannot be conclusively matched to each = other as having been
fired from [the submitted] revolver. This is = due to the lack of
reproducible and regular rifling impressions on test = bullets.

"The bullet fragment marked (A) cannot be = matched to test bullets
conclusively, but could have come from the tested = revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (B) cannot be = matched to test bullets
conclusively, but could have come from the tested = revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (C) bears no = rifling detail.
"The bullet fragment marked (D) bears no = rifling detail.
"The bullet fragment marked (E) cannot be = matched to test bullets
conclusively, but could have come from the tested = revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (F) cannot be = matched to test bullets
conclusively, but could have come from the tested = revolver.
"The bullet fragment marked (G) bears no = rifling detail."

My questions:

Are the examiner's notes with respect to the bullet = comparison adequate?

Does the data in the examiner's notes support the = conclusions stated in the
report?

Is the report in any way misleading?

What additional information, if any, should have been = included in the report?

Any other comments?

Respond on-line or off-line.

Peter 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_01C16EFB.8D002C50-- From daemon Fri Nov 16 19:18:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAH0IoD11341 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:18:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f106.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.106]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAH0InF11336 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:18:49 -0800 Received: from 199.172.230.193 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 00:18:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [199.172.230.193] From: "Vaughan Caines" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fwd: Re: Info on Fingerprint Protocols or SOP's Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:18:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2001 00:18:49.0507 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E0AD730:01C16EFD] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 765 My name is Vaughan Caines, and I am presently pursuing a PhD in Law specifically in Evidence. I am contrasting the differences in the US and the UK Law as it relates to forensic science experts, admissibility etc. I am looking for any protocol, SOP's or any documentation (articles, cases, reviews, guidelines), on the method that fingerprint experts use to relate what they consider a match. Is there any governing body or specific guidelines that stipulate the criteria for being considered an expert, the training needed to become an expert etc. I thank you in advance for your consideration. Vaughan Caines _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From daemon Fri Nov 16 22:42:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAH3g3Z13610 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:42:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from email.state.ut.us (email.state.ut.us [168.180.96.41]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAH3g2F13605 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:42:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from STATE-GATE-Message_Server by email.state.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:41:50 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 X-GWFix: Yes Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:41:44 -0700 From: "J. Gabriel Bier" To: Subject: Employment opportunity 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 fAH3g3F13606 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 498 Greetings, The Utah Department of Public Safety is looking for qualified applicants to fill the positions of Criminalist I / II. (DNA Analyst - 1 position) (Chemist - 1 position) Please go to http://www.cl.state.ut.us/crim.html for the complete posting J. Gabriel Bier Criminalist / Utah CODIS Administrator Utah DPS Bureau of Forensic Svcs. 4501 South 2700 West Box 148285 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-8285 jbier@dps.state.ut.us 801-957-8544 voice 801-241-1518 pager 801-964-4544 fax From daemon Sun Nov 18 12:16:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAIHGiL06374 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:16:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from postal2.lbl.gov (postal2.lbl.gov [131.243.248.26]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAIHGdF06369 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:16:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from SpamWall.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postal2.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fAIHGbr07111 for ; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 09:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from c217013a (c217013-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [65.0.131.101]) by SpamWall.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id fAIHGZP07095; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 09:16:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006701c17054$a74eaf00$65830041@pinol1.sfba.home.com> From: "T. J. Wilkinson" To: , , Subject: U of Central Oklahoma Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 09:15:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0064_01C17011.9869A5A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1019 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C17011.9869A5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi. I would like to locate someone or multiple someones who are forensic science majors at the University of Central Oklahoma, or recent graduates. I am transferring there soon and have a few questions I would rather get answered by students. Thanks!! T. J. Wilkinson -- T. J. Wilkinson, Erulf Research Fellow Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory U. S. Department of Energy 1 Cyclotron Road MS 70A-3317 Berkeley, CA 94720 tjwilkinson@lbl.gov (510) 486-6509 ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C17011.9869A5A0 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="teejer@teejer.com.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="teejer@teejer.com.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:;teejer@teejer.com FN:teejer@teejer.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:teejer@teejer.com REV:20011118T171541Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C17011.9869A5A0-- From daemon Mon Nov 19 22:28:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAK3S2102985 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:28:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.rad.net.id (smtp2.rad.net.id [202.154.2.24]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAK3Rrc02979 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from forenserver (dyn4034a.dialin.rad.net.id [202.154.9.34]) by smtp2.rad.net.id (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id fAK3Rho86881 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:27:45 +0700 (JAVT) Message-ID: <002501c17175$c66b2ef0$6401010a@forenserver> From: "Forensik UI" To: Subject: our mailing list Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:45:16 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01C171B0.70FF8020" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1162 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C171B0.70FF8020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable dear sir, it was since 8 of November 2001 that my computer did not receive any = posting to the forens-L, do i miss something about pur mailing list = (forens_L) lucas ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C171B0.70FF8020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

dear sir,

it was since 8 of November 2001 that my = computer=20 did not receive any posting to the forens-L, do i miss something about = pur=20 mailing list (forens_L)

lucas

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C171B0.70FF8020-- From daemon Tue Nov 20 23:07:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAL47Pd23621 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:07:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAIL.netspeed.com.au (mail.netspeed.com.au [203.31.48.12]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAL47Mc23616 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:07:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [203.31.48.205] by MAIL.netspeed.com.au (NTMail 5.06.0016/NU0474.00.d45cc3bb) with ESMTP id jwdhzaaa for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:07:36 +1100 Message-ID: <003b01c17242$00efad40$cd301fcb@dad> From: "Chris LENNARD" To: References: Subject: 16th International Symposium on the Forensic Sciences - Canberra, Australia - May 2002 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:07:11 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 383 For the information of list members... The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society (ACT Branch) is hosting the 16th International Symposium on the Forensic Sciences in Canberra, Australia. The dates are 13-17 May, 2002. For further information, visit the web site at www.nifs.com.au/ANZFSS/Symposium2002.html Chris Lennard Forensic Services Australian Federal Police From daemon Sat Nov 24 10:58:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAOFwaG15230 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:58:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from tebenet.nl (p9051.net.upc.nl [212.142.9.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAOFwUc15225 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 10:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from fam ([213.46.142.83]) by tebenet.nl; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:49:01 +0100 Message-ID: <002601c17500$b9af2e80$0ff2fea9@arnhem.chello.nl> From: "Bert Lesger" To: "Forensic Science" Subject: Dustprint on Gel-lifter Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:57:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0023_01C17509.196B4360" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 6202 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C17509.196B4360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear list members, I would like to hear your opinions on a shoeprint topic. Black gelatine = lifters are used to secure shoeprints that are made of dust. Also greasy = shoeprints can be collected with the same gelatine lifter. The lifted = print should be photographed at the office with oblique lighting for the = dust prints and with more frontal lighting for the greasy prints. So far = so good. But in the time between securing and photographing the lifter = should be transported. I know two methods that are used.=20 1. Replace the top sheet carefully with no air bulbs, transport the = lifter and before photographing remove the top sheet.=20 2. Not to replace the top sheet and place the lifter in a safe dust free = packaging and transport the lifter. Some colleagues say it is a choice between to evils. When you replace = the top sheet, it's far more easier to transport the lifter. But the = dust can be pushed into the gelatine and the shoeprint could loose = detail. On the other hand when you don't replace the top sheet, it is = more difficult to transport the lifter. And dust from the air can set on = the gelatine layer and de gelatine layer is not protected. This can = course a less quality or even damage of the dust print. But the = dustprint is not demaged by the pressure from the replaced top sheet. My personal experience is, if you replace the top sheet gently and = photograph the lifter within a few days, the quality is the same as the = lifter that is transported without the top sheet. Transport is much more = comfortable with the replaced top sheet. For the more greasy prints my experience is that it is better to replace = the top sheet. When placing the top sheet back for the second time = (after photographing) you have to clean the inner side of the top sheet. = Often a mirror-image of the print is tranfered on this inner side and = could cause a second "print" on the lifter when replacing it for the = second time. My questions are: * Do you think the dustprint wil be demaged by replacing the top sheet?=20 * Have you any theoretical arguments for choosing one of the methods? * Is there an other (maybe better) way for the transport of the gelatine = lifter?=20 * Which method is generaly the best? * Is any research done (published or not) on these (or other) methods? Bert Lesger Trainer Institute for Criminal Investigations and Crime Science Scene of crime department Zutphen, The Netherlands ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C17509.196B4360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear list = members,

I would like=20 to hear your opinions on a shoeprint topic. Black gelatine lifters are = used to=20 secure shoeprints that are made of dust. Also greasy shoeprints can be = collected=20 with the same gelatine lifter. The lifted print should be photographed = at the=20 office with oblique lighting for the dust prints and with more frontal = lighting=20 for the greasy prints. So far so good. But in the time between securing = and=20 photographing the lifter should be transported. I know two methods = that are=20 used.

1. Replace the=20 top sheet carefully with no air bulbs, transport the lifter and before=20 photographing remove the top sheet.
2. Not to = replace=20 the top sheet and place the lifter in a safe dust free packaging and = transport=20 the lifter.

Some = colleagues say=20 it is a choice between to evils. When you replace the top sheet, = it's far=20 more easier to transport the lifter. But the dust can be pushed = into the=20 gelatine and the shoeprint could loose detail. On the other hand when = you don't=20 replace the top sheet, it is more difficult to transport the lifter. And = dust=20 from the air can set on the gelatine layer and de gelatine layer is not=20 protected. This can course a less quality or even damage of the dust = print. But=20 the dustprint is not demaged by the pressure from the replaced top=20 sheet.

My personal experience is, if you replace the top sheet gently = and=20 photograph the lifter within a few days, the quality is the same as the = lifter=20 that is transported without the top sheet. Transport is much=20 more comfortable with the replaced top sheet.
For the more = greasy prints=20 my experience is that it is better to replace the top sheet. When = placing the=20 top sheet back for the second time (after photographing) you have to = clean the=20 inner side of the top sheet. Often a mirror-image of the print is=20 tranfered on this inner side and could cause a second "print" on = the lifter=20 when replacing it for the second time.

My questions = are:

* Do=20 you think the dustprint wil be demaged by replacing the top = sheet?

* Have you any theoretical arguments for choosing one of the = methods?
*=20 Is there an other (maybe better) way for the transport of the gelatine = lifter?=20

* Which method is generaly the best?
* Is any research done = (published=20 or not) on these (or other) methods?

Bert=20 Lesger

Trainer
Institute for Criminal Investigations and Crime = Science
Scene of crime department
Zutphen, The=20 Netherlands

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C17509.196B4360-- From daemon Sun Nov 25 14:59:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAPJxHs22739 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAPJxGc22734 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:59:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-vcaul04.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.84.4] helo=forensicdna.com) by hall.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1685Qo-0000z8-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:59:14 -0500 Message-ID: <3C014D93.6FA5405E@forensicdna.com> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 11:59:15 -0800 From: Norah Rudin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens-L Subject: An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis, 2nd edition Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 648 Dear friends and colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of the 2nd edition of "An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis". For those who teach, an updated, expanded, and higher quality PowerPoint presentation now containing 93 figures is also available. For details about what is new in the 2nd edition of the book, and for order information, please go to A happy and safe holiday season to all. Forensically yours, Norah and Keith -- Norah Rudin, Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html From daemon Mon Nov 26 11:04:52 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAQG4qr06288 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:04:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net (sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.182]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQG4oc06283 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by sire.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA24964 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for pop00.onemain.com [207.217.121.116]) with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 16:02:42 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Nov 26 08:01:03 2001 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:04:30 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:03:48 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, lesger@tebenet.nl Subject: Re: Dustprint on Gel-lifter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3630 Bert, Based on personal experience and preference, I would always opt to replace the transparent cover on the gel lifter for transport and storage. first, the cover will protect the print from having additional particles or packaging material make contact with the gel. Second, the gel will eventually dry out causing shrinkage and distortion of the print. Thus, it is our responsibility to maintain the evidence in the best condition possible. It would be in your best interest to photograph the print as soon as possible so that you have some type of record in case covering the lifted print does result in some alteraton. If you decide that damage will occur by covering the print, then you must make certain that the lifter is inside a container that will prevent erosion of the detail and will keep the lift secure for transport to the laboratory. I would also record my reasons for deviating from standard practice. After all, you are the person who will testify to the efficacy of the 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 >>> "Bert Lesger" 11/24 7:57 AM >>> Dear list members, I would like to hear your opinions on a shoeprint topic. Black gelatine lifters are used to secure shoeprints that are made of dust. Also greasy shoeprints can be collected with the same gelatine lifter. The lifted print should be photographed at the office with oblique lighting for the dust prints and with more frontal lighting for the greasy prints. So far so good. But in the time between securing and photographing the lifter should be transported. I know two methods that are used. 1. Replace the top sheet carefully with no air bulbs, transport the lifter and before photographing remove the top sheet. 2. Not to replace the top sheet and place the lifter in a safe dust free packaging and transport the lifter. Some colleagues say it is a choice between to evils. When you replace the top sheet, it's far more easier to transport the lifter. But the dust can be pushed into the gelatine and the shoeprint could loose detail. On the other hand when you don't replace the top sheet, it is more difficult to transport the lifter. And dust from the air can set on the gelatine layer and de gelatine layer is not protected. This can course a less quality or even damage of the dust print. But the dustprint is not demaged by the pressure from the replaced top sheet. My personal experience is, if you replace the top sheet gently and photograph the lifter within a few days, the quality is the same as the lifter that is transported without the top sheet. Transport is much more comfortable with the replaced top sheet. For the more greasy prints my experience is that it is better to replace the top sheet. When placing the top sheet back for the second time (after photographing) you have to clean the inner side of the top sheet. Often a mirror-image of the print is tranfered on this inner side and could cause a second "print" on the lifter when replacing it for the second time. My questions are: * Do you think the dustprint wil be demaged by replacing the top sheet? * Have you any theoretical arguments for choosing one of the methods? * Is there an other (maybe better) way for the transport of the gelatine lifter? * Which method is generaly the best? * Is any research done (published or not) on these (or other) methods? Bert Lesger Trainer Institute for Criminal Investigations and Crime Science Scene of crime department Zutphen, The Netherlands From daemon Mon Nov 26 11:08:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAQG8wA06463 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:08:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from usacil2.army.mil (usacil2.forscom.army.mil [160.136.216.9]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQG8vc06458 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by usacil2.forscom.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:12:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Henson, Lynn" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: "'kpomeroy@guilford.edu'" Subject: College level investigation class Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:12:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 828 I haven't kept any of the messages on courses/course planning for teachers. Can someone else help this lady out? Thanks, Lynn Henson US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory 4553 N 2ND Street Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 Comm. - 404-469-7265, DSN 797-7265 email - hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: kpomeroy@guilford.edu [mailto:kpomeroy@guilford.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:56 AM To: hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil Subject: Hi! I am currently trying to plan and organize a criminal investigation class at a college sophomore level. I am hoping that you may have some suggestions for places to contact or materials to include. Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help. Best Wishes, Katy Pomeroy From daemon Mon Nov 26 11:50:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAQGoXb07200 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:50:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAQGoWc07195 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.235]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20011126165031.MJUC15547.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:50:31 +0000 Message-ID: <3C027350.9F67952E@worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:52:47 -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: "Henson, Lynn" CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, "'kpomeroy@guilford.edu'" Subject: Re: College level investigation class References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1095 You might have a look at "Crime Lab: a guide for nonscientists," by John Houde, Calico press 1999.and "Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases' by Moenssens and Inbau, Foundation Press, EJ Wagner "Henson, Lynn" wrote: > > I haven't kept any of the messages on courses/course planning for teachers. > Can someone else help this lady out? > > Thanks, > Lynn Henson > US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory > 4553 N 2ND Street > Forest Park, GA 30297-5122 > Comm. - 404-469-7265, DSN 797-7265 > email - hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil > > -----Original Message----- > From: kpomeroy@guilford.edu [mailto:kpomeroy@guilford.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:56 AM > To: hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil > Subject: > > Hi! I am currently trying to plan and organize a criminal investigation > class at a college sophomore level. I am hoping that you may have some > suggestions for places to contact or materials to include. Any advice would > be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help. > > Best Wishes, > Katy Pomeroy From daemon Mon Nov 26 19:57:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAR0vVJ15459 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAR0vUc15454 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-2ini8e7.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.33.199] helo=cp) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 168WZ0-0004WL-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:57:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.20011126165458.01e23b50@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: john%calicopress.com@pop.business.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 16:56:41 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: College level investigation class In-Reply-To: <3C027350.9F67952E@worldnet.att.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 636 Thanks for the plug, E.J. Incidentally, we are nearing completion on a laboratory manual to accompany the text. I am seriously considering releasing it on CD rather than in print. Any thoughts from the multitudes? John Houde =--------------------------- >You might have a look at "Crime Lab: a guide for nonscientists," by >John Houde, Calico press 1999.and "Scientific Evidence in Criminal >Cases' by Moenssens and Inbau, Foundation Press, > >EJ Wagner > >"Henson, Lynn" wrote: >> >> I haven't kept any of the messages on courses/course planning for teachers. >> Can someone else help this lady out? >> >> Thanks, >> Lynn Henson From daemon Tue Nov 27 10:25:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fARFPN426076 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:25:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.46]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fARFPMc26071 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:25:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.68]) by mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20011127152521.KQLU5540.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:25:21 +0000 Message-ID: <3C03B0DB.CF6BBCD4@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:27:35 -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: College level investigation class References: <4.1.20011126165458.01e23b50@popd.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 930 I think the print version should be available , even if you release a CD, There are impoverished schools all over our country, which have limited access to computers. An inexpensive paperback might mean all the difference to them EJ John Houde wrote: > > Thanks for the plug, E.J. > Incidentally, we are nearing completion on a laboratory manual to accompany > the text. I am seriously considering releasing it on CD rather than in > print. Any thoughts from the multitudes? > John Houde > =--------------------------- > > >You might have a look at "Crime Lab: a guide for nonscientists," by > >John Houde, Calico press 1999.and "Scientific Evidence in Criminal > >Cases' by Moenssens and Inbau, Foundation Press, > > > >EJ Wagner > > > >"Henson, Lynn" wrote: > >> > >> I haven't kept any of the messages on courses/course planning for teachers. > >> Can someone else help this lady out? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Lynn Henson From daemon Wed Nov 28 00:47:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAS5lgX09953 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:47:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail3.mx.voyager.net (mail3.mx.voyager.net [216.93.66.202]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAS5lfc09948 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:47:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mac ([209.81.166.58]) by mail3.mx.voyager.net (8.11.6/8.10.2) with SMTP id fAS5lcv73369 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:47:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001101c177d0$274327e0$3aa651d1@mac> From: "E Catherine" To: Subject: DNA Testing Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:47:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C177A6.3C7EBD60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1712 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C177A6.3C7EBD60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List, -I am seeking information on DNA Testing. I am leaving the country in = the next couple of months. I will be looking for my birthmother, and to = be sure it is her, how do I go about DNA testing?? How much is it? = Would I have to bring blood back to the US? -- is that even legal??? = :-o I will be in a communist country. Any info would be helpful. =20 Thanks =20 e catherine ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C177A6.3C7EBD60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

List,

-I am seeking information on DNA Testing. I am = leaving=20 the country in the next couple of months. I will be looking for my = birthmother, and to be sure it is her, how do I go about DNA = testing?? How=20 much is it? Would I have to bring blood back to the US? -- is that = even=20 legal??? :-o I will be in a communist = country. Any=20 info would be helpful.

Thanks

e catherine

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C177A6.3C7EBD60-- From daemon Wed Nov 28 06:26:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASBQm914866 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:26:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.142]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASBQlc14861 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:26:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from home.com ([65.1.194.131]) by femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20011128112647.CBGC27772.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:26:47 -0800 Message-ID: <3C04CA72.1F8EC905@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:28:51 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: DNA Testing References: <001101c177d0$274327e0$3aa651d1@mac> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 478 I hope you will consider the emotional side of the search for your mother. Showing up at her door with a demand for DNA testing may render your quest a waste of time. Sheila Berry ____________________ Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: martinberry@home.com Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein From daemon Wed Nov 28 08:52:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASDqaH18385 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from arwshkhn45 (arwshkhn45.amedd.army.mil [204.208.124.45]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fASDqZc18380 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:52:35 -0500 (EST) Received: FROM dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil BY arwshkhn45 ; Wed Nov 28 07:43:15 2001 -0600 Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:50:19 -0600 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439B6F@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DNA Testing Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:51:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C17813.C856FBA0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2455 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_01C17813.C856FBA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I agree with Sheila. Unless you've already discussed this with a known candidate who agrees she isn't sure that you are a child she gave up/lost/etc and she shares your desire to confirm parentage, I would strongly recommend NOT doing this. But as far as price goes, my guess on ballpark figures would be around $500-1000. Do a Web search for paternity testing for specifics. Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: Sheila Berry [mailto:martinberry@home.com] I hope you will consider the emotional side of the search for your mother. Showing up at her door with a demand for DNA testing may render your quest a waste of time. Sheila Berry ------_=_NextPart_001_01C17813.C856FBA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: DNA Testing

I agree with Sheila. Unless you've already = discussed this with a known candidate who agrees she isn't sure that = you are a child she gave up/lost/etc and she shares your desire to = confirm parentage, I would strongly recommend NOT doing this. But = as far as price goes, my guess on ballpark figures would be around = $500-1000. Do a Web search for paternity testing for = specifics.

Dave Hause, Pathologist, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO
David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheila Berry [mailto:martinberry@home.com]

I hope you will consider the emotional side of the = search for your
mother. Showing up at her door with a demand = for DNA testing may render
your quest a waste of time.

Sheila Berry

------_=_NextPart_001_01C17813.C856FBA0-- From daemon Wed Nov 28 09:49:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASEnUe19333 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:49:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASEnTf19328 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:49:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:49:29 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Mike Potts" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2575 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:41:29 -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 Potts" ] >From forens-owner Tue Nov 27 14:41:29 2001 Received: from mail.doj.ca.gov (mail.doj.ca.gov [167.10.5.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fARJfSc00792 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:41:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from sahdcgwia.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GNH5GL00.9NV for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:43:33 -0800 Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-Message_Server by sahdcgwia.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:41:05 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:40:57 -0800 From: "Mike Potts" To: Subject: Cotton fibers from blue jeans. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_FAA7C841.86E7807B" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_FAA7C841.86E7807B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm interested in any studies (chemical and microscopic examinations) that = have compared the cotton fibers from various blue jean manufacturers? Mike Potts CA Dept. of Justice Santa Rosa Lab. email mike.potts@doj.ca.gov --=_FAA7C841.86E7807B Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML

I'm interested in any studies (chemical and microscopic examinations) = that=20 have compared the cotton fibers from various blue jean manufacturers?

Mike Potts

CA Dept. of Justice

Santa Rosa Lab.

email mike.potts@doj.ca.gov

--=_FAA7C841.86E7807B-- From daemon Wed Nov 28 10:46:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASFkEQ20483 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:46:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASFkDc20470 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:46:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1696ua-0007lj-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:46:12 -0800 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for pop07.earthlink.net [207.217.120.207]) with SMTP; 28 Nov 2001 15:43:54 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed Nov 28 07:42:44 2001 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:46:11 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:45:43 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, cbasten@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["MikePotts" ] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 3213 Mike, I suggest that you contact Wayne Morehead at the Orange County Sherif's Department Crime Lab. I believe he or someone in his lab did a study of dye components in blude denim jeans when designer jeans were all the craze. that means the late 70s or early 80s, if I don't date myself too much. I also believe they presented a paper at the CAC around that time frame. Good luck in your search. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 >>> Basten 11/28 6:49 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:41:29 -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 Potts" ] >From forens-owner Tue Nov 27 14:41:29 2001 Received: from mail.doj.ca.gov (mail.doj.ca.gov [167.10.5.240]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fARJfSc00792 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:41:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from sahdcgwia.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.doj.ca.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GNH5GL00.9NV for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:43:33 -0800 Received: from DOM_GATEWAY-Message_Server by sahdcgwia.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:41:05 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:40:57 -0800 From: "Mike Potts" To: Subject: Cotton fibers from blue jeans. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_FAA7C841.86E7807B" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=_FAA7C841.86E7807B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm interested in any studies (chemical and microscopic examinations) that = have compared the cotton fibers from various blue jean manufacturers? Mike Potts CA Dept. of Justice Santa Rosa Lab. email mike.potts@doj.ca.gov --=_FAA7C841.86E7807B Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML

I'm interested in any studies (chemical and microscopic examinations) = that=20 have compared the cotton fibers from various blue jean manufacturers?

Mike Potts

CA Dept. of Justice

Santa Rosa Lab.

email mike.potts@doj.ca.gov

--=_FAA7C841.86E7807B-- From daemon Wed Nov 28 11:35:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASGZvx21498 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:35:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.uri.edu (RockyPoint.URI.EDU [131.128.1.58]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASGZuc21493 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:35:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from terms.uri.edu (TERMS.URI.EDU [131.128.1.132]) by pete.uri.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fASGZUH03991 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:35:30 -0500 Received: from RISCLTRACE ([131.128.32.111]) by terms.uri.edu (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id fASGY0212910 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:34:00 -0500 From: "Amy Duhaime" To: Subject: Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:36:49 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 270 Dear list members, I am posting this message on behalf of my boss. He is writing a job description for a firearms trainee position. He is looking for job descriptions and salary ranges from other labs. Please respond directly to him at dch@uri.edu. Thank you---Amy From daemon Wed Nov 28 14:06:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASJ68L24865 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASJ67c24860 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:06:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id y.60.179305a4 (4246) for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:06:00 -0500 (EST) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Message-ID: <60.179305a4.29368f97@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:05:59 EST Subject: Re: DNA Testing To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 913 Aside from what's been said of the emotional factors, the technical side is pretty simple. A DNA sample can come from almost anything, but check with the paternity lab you'll use first (or, perhaps in this case, maternity lab). They may have a preference over what the sample is (i.e., blood or saliva) and even how the samples arrive at their laboratory. In the simplest case, you can mail them saliva samples, while in the worst case, all parties have to show up in person and have their blood drawn by their staff. Certainly, this should play into your selection process, besides fee schedules. I do not know if you are also in search of your biological father, but be sure to establish this variable with your selected lab as well; some may not accept your case or issue a conclusion without that reference sample. Hope that helps, and good luck regardless! Arthur Young Forensic DNA Examiner From daemon Wed Nov 28 14:08:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASJ8OY25019 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASJ8Nc25014 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:08:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ArtWYoung@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id y.119.872d928 (4246) for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: ArtWYoung@aol.com Message-ID: <119.872d928.29369022@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:08:18 EST Subject: Re: DNA Testing To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1269 Aside from what's been said of the emotional factors, the technical side is pretty simple. A DNA sample can come from almost anything, but check with the paternity lab you'll use first (or, perhaps in this case, maternity lab). They may have a preference over what the sample is (i.e., blood or saliva) and even how the samples arrive at their laboratory. In the simplest case, you can mail them saliva samples, while in the worst case, all parties have to show up in person and have their blood drawn by their staff. Certainly, this should play into your selection process, besides fee schedules. I do not know if you are also in search of your biological father, but be sure to establish this variable with your selected lab as well; some may not accept your case or issue a conclusion without that reference sample. On the legality aspect, you'd have to check with the regulations of the countries you'll be travelling to and through. Special licensing or permits may be needed for carrying what most will consider biohazardous material, perhaps especially so in these times. For this reason, I suggest using a laboratory that will accept a saliva sample. Hope that helps, and good luck regardless! Arthur Young Forensic DNA Examiner From daemon Wed Nov 28 16:23:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASLNai28411 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:23:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from web13302.mail.yahoo.com (web13302.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.38]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fASLNZc28406 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:23:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20011128212334.74956.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web13302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:23:34 PST Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:23:34 -0800 (PST) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Video Image Recovery To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 638 I don't know if it was the camera or the tape, but an important tape is hard to see. When I run it on fast forward, I can see some of the images, but it won't play on "play." Does anyone know of a video technician capable of retrieving the information? ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 From daemon Wed Nov 28 18:16:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASNGb700116 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:16:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net ([207.167.84.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fASNGac00111 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:16:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from pete.fsalab.com (pm4-88.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.88]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id fASNGWw13311 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:16:33 -0800 (PST) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@fsalab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011128141635.00aa32b0@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:21:10 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Video Image Recovery In-Reply-To: <20011128212334.74956.qmail@web13302.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 856 At 01:23 PM 11/28/01 -0800, John Lentini wrote: >I don't know if it was the camera or the tape, >but an important tape is hard to see. When I run >it on fast forward, I can see some of the images, >but it won't play on "play." I don't have a solution for you, John, but the same thing happened to me the other day: I recorded a TV program using an old tape, and when I tried to play it, it would not "play", and actually showed better images on fast forward. The machine is functioning properly in subsequent usage with new tapes, so I suspect it was simply a defective tape or cassette. I think the lesson is to always use a brand new tape for recording anything you really NEED to look at again. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From daemon Thu Nov 29 12:31:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fATHV0d12897 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:31:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id fATHUxc12892 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 17:30:59 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:28:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'johnlentini@yahoo.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Video Image Recovery Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:28:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C178FB.4CF14810" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 7033 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_01C178FB.4CF14810 Content-Type: text/plain John, I've run into this problem a couple of times at home with tapes made on one machine not playing on another, giving a blank screen at normal speed but displaying images when fast scanning on forward or reverse. It's a tracking problem with either the machine which made the tape or the one playing it having it's default tracking setting so far off from the norm that the picture won't display at all in play mode unless the playing machine can adjust it's own tracking over a wide enough range. It can also be a problem with the playing VCR's loading mechanism not loading the tape over the playing heads exactly on center. If the latter, this can be an intermittent problem. It may only happen with certain tapes made on other machines whose tracking setting was enough different from your VCR that the tape will not play when imperfectly loaded on your machine, or it may happen with any tape on occasion as sometimes the tape loads properly and sometimes not. Try ejecting, reloading, and replaying the tape. If it doesn't work the first time, try this cycle several times. If still no luck, try playing the tape on two or three other VCRs. If the tape plays OK on another machine, take your problem VCR to any factory-authorized service center and they'll fix the tracking and/or loading mechanism. If it won't play on any machine, the problem was probably with the recording VCR. You'll need a professional model VCR that can adjust tracking to a greater extent than consumer models in order to see the images at normal speed, then you can transfer them to a new tape with normal tracking settings. Any professional video production or copying firm should be able to do this. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John Lentini [mailto:johnlentini@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 16:24 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Video Image Recovery I don't know if it was the camera or the tape, but an important tape is hard to see. When I run it on fast forward, I can see some of the images, but it won't play on "play." Does anyone know of a video technician capable of retrieving the information? ===== Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C178FB.4CF14810 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Video Image Recovery

John,

I've run into this problem a couple of times at home = with tapes made on one machine not playing on another, giving a blank = screen at normal speed but displaying images when fast scanning on = forward or reverse. It's a tracking problem with either the = machine which made the tape or the one playing it having it's default = tracking setting so far off from the norm that the picture won't = display at all in play mode unless the playing machine can adjust it's = own tracking over a wide enough range. It can also be a problem = with the playing VCR's loading mechanism not loading the tape over the = playing heads exactly on center. If the latter, this can be an = intermittent problem. It may only happen with certain tapes made = on other machines whose tracking setting was enough different from your = VCR that the tape will not play when imperfectly loaded on your = machine, or it may happen with any tape on occasion as sometimes the = tape loads properly and sometimes not.

Try ejecting, reloading, and replaying the = tape. If it doesn't work the first time, try this cycle several = times. If still no luck, try playing the tape on two or three = other VCRs. If the tape plays OK on another machine, take your = problem VCR to any factory-authorized service center and they'll fix = the tracking and/or loading mechanism. If it won't play on any = machine, the problem was probably with the recording VCR. You'll = need a professional model VCR that can adjust tracking to a greater = extent than consumer models in order to see the images at normal speed, = then you can transfer them to a new tape with normal tracking = settings. Any professional video production or copying firm = should be able to do this.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lentini [mailto:johnlentini@yahoo.com]<= /FONT>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 16:24
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Video Image Recovery

I don't know if it was the camera or the tape,
but an important tape is hard to see. When I = run
it on fast forward, I can see some of the = images,
but it won't play on "play."

Does anyone know of a video technician capable = of
retrieving the information?

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it = happen.
John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com
Certified Fire Investigator
Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics
http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, = just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

------_=_NextPart_001_01C178FB.4CF14810-- From daemon Thu Nov 29 16:03:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fATL3nU16888 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:03:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.lakecountyohio.org (mail.lakecountyohio.org [198.87.224.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fATL3mc16883 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:03:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from lcpo.dsl.oh.verio.net ([198.87.224.3] helo=DNA2) by www.lakecountyohio.org with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 169YLT-000LIV-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:03:47 -0500 From: "Stephen G. Labonne" To: Subject: Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:04:20 -0500 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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 361 Hello- if anyone knows of DNA laboratories that have adopted, or are considering, the FBI "unique source attribution" policy, I would be interested in hearing from or about such labs. Thank you. Steve LaBonne Ph.D. F-ABC DNA Analyst Lake County Regional Forensic Laboratory 235 Fairgrounds Road Painesville, OH 44077 tel. (440) 350-2129 FAX (440) 350-2731 From daemon Fri Nov 30 08:15:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAUDFpj28229 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:15:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtvwca1-smrly1.gtei.net (mtvwca1-smrly1.gtei.net [128.11.176.196]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUDFoc28224 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from wellington-cp.wellmanage.com (wellington-bh.wellmanage.com [206.34.112.66]) by mtvwca1-smrly1.gtei.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 21CB0CC4C; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:15:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from 134.42.150.37 by srv_scan.wellmanage.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:15:56 -0500 Received: by srv_exchg9.wellmanage.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) id ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:15:55 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Roe, Betsy L." To: "'johnlentini@yahoo.com'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Video Image Recovery Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:15:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1290 I spoke with a video specialist I know and they recommended transferring the VHS tape to mini-DV (digital video) and then you can slow the images down to a normal speed on the computer. She was speculating that there may have been a higher shutter speed or tape speed set on the camera when recording. As Mr. Parsons suggested a local video production facility may be able to provide this service. Good luck. Betsy Roe > ---------- > From: John Lentini > Reply To: johnlentini@yahoo.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 4:23 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Video Image Recovery > > I don't know if it was the camera or the tape, > but an important tape is hard to see. When I run > it on fast forward, I can see some of the images, > but it won't play on "play." > > Does anyone know of a video technician capable of > retrieving the information? > > > ===== > Nothing worthwhile happens until somebody makes it happen. > John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com > Certified Fire Investigator > Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics > http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. > http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 > > From daemon Fri Nov 30 10:42:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAUFgmC01887 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:42:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ccprodapp1.campuscruiser.com ([216.35.68.45]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUFglc01882 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:42:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ccprodapp1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccprodapp1.campuscruiser.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15795; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:42:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4402069.1007134943409.JavaMail.can52691@Mywitcc.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:42:23 -0500 (EST) From: Theodore Mozer Reply-To: tmozer@occ.mailcruiser.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Digital Images of Hair Cc: lpptungt@gw.njsp.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_10942_5930234.1007134943407" X-Mailer: CC Mailer IIIb Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 659 ------=_Part_10942_5930234.1007134943407 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Our lab's request for a digital imaging system for taking macro and microscopic images of evidence has gone un-fullfilled. Does anyone on the list have some nice digital images of hair evidence, both animal and human, that I could use in a powerpoint presentation? If so, please attach to an email to: lppmozet@gw.njsp.org, or, if too large, give me an address to send a blank cd-r/w or zip disk to...... Ted Mozer Principal Forensic Scientist NJSP East Regional Lab Sea Girt, NJ 08750 732-449-0303 ext. 5274 ------=_Part_10942_5930234.1007134943407-- From daemon Fri Nov 30 11:09:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fAUG9t902764 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUG9sJ02759 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["French, Tim" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 5006 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:00:35 -0500 (EST) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["French, Tim" ] >From forens-owner Fri Nov 30 11:00:34 2001 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 (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAUG0Yc02579 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:00:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:00:33 -0500 Message-ID: <26EFEADEDCAED41181990008C7D21C4DC5C5B1@h3-exch2.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us> From: "French, Tim" To: "'tmozer@occ.mailcruiser.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: lpptungt@gw.njsp.org Subject: RE: Digital Images of Hair Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:00:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C179B8.2288F970" 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_01C179B8.2288F970 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C179B8.2288F970" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C179B8.2288F970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" RL Lee Group, Inc has a Forensic Animal Hair atlas on cd-rom. A good searchable database for animal hair images, but wont help for the human hair images you need. The e-mail address for them is: forensic@rjlg.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C179B8.2288F970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Digital Images of Hair

RL Lee Group, Inc has a Forensic Animal Hair atlas on = cd-rom. A good searchable database for animal hair images, but wont = help for the human hair images you need.

The e-mail address for them is:
forensic@rjlg.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C179B8.2288F970-- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C179B8.2288F970 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Description: Digital Images of Hair Message-ID: <4402069.1007134943409.JavaMail.can52691@Mywitcc.com> From: Theodore Mozer Reply-To: tmozer@occ.mailcruiser.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: lpptungt@gw.njsp.org Subject: Digital Images of Hair Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:42:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_003_01C179B8.2288F970" ------_=_NextPart_003_01C179B8.2288F970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Our lab's request for a digital imaging system for taking macro and microscopic images of evidence has gone un-fullfilled. Does anyone on the list have some nice digital images of hair evidence, both animal and human, that I could use in a powerpoint presentation? If so, please attach to an email to: lppmozet@gw.njsp.org, or, if too large, give me an address to send a blank cd-r/w or zip disk to...... Ted Mozer Principal Forensic Scientist NJSP East Regional Lab Sea Girt, NJ 08750 732-449-0303 ext. 5274 ------_=_NextPart_003_01C179B8.2288F970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Digital Images of Hair

Our lab's request for a digital imaging system for = taking macro and microscopic images of evidence has gone = un-fullfilled.

Does anyone on the list have some nice digital images = of hair evidence, both animal and human, that I could use in a = powerpoint presentation?

If so, please attach to an email to:
lppmozet@gw.njsp.org, or, if too large, give me an = address to send a blank cd-r/w or zip disk to......

Ted Mozer
Principal Forensic Scientist
NJSP East Regional Lab
Sea Girt, NJ 08750
732-449-0303 ext. 5274

------_=_NextPart_003_01C179B8.2288F970-- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C179B8.2288F970--