From forens-owner Sat Oct 1 13:25:10 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j91HP98T012010 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j91HP9Qf012009 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:25:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20051001092945.048e9280@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:25:02 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Re: How far should fingerprints be trusted? Cc: In-Reply-To: <000e01c5c61e$4b1b3540$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050929165607.03204380@calmail.berkeley.edu> <000e01c5c61e$4b1b3540$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 05:23 PM 9/30/2005, Robert Parsons wrote: >Charles, > >I didn't propose an experiment. You don't like "propose"? Would you accept "describe an experiment" -- which by lucky chance is what I actually wrote? >[snip] You make an excellent point about the duplications in the database due >to aliases, mistyped names, etc. How DO examiners resolve these? I don't >know the answer to that question. Thanks for the admission. I hope then, that one year hence you will not claim that cross-matching in the AFIS database provides scientific evidence of fingerprint uniqueness and that anyone with contrary view is tiresomely revisiting a settled question. > I would HOPE they investigate and confirm the duplication (as Chris > Breyer indicated was routinely done where he >worked), not merely make assumptions. At most maybe they all attempt to confirm, which is not nearly the same as "confirm." By the way, let me be clear. I'm not trying to make an argument that exemplar fingerprint impressions are not distinguishable among individuals. I am only saying that logically, if a person were doubtful, there is nothing about the AFIS searching experience that should change the person's mind. And of course I'm having fun with your habit of claiming that an issue is long settled, merely because you argued for it last year. Best regards, Charles >At 04:52 PM 9/27/2005, Robert Parsons wrote: > >consider this: automated search systems have been > >in use for decades now. Those systems literally DO compare each print > >searched to all the many millions of other prints in the database ... [to which my reply began] >I am extremely skeptical that the experiment you describe has ever been >performed. ... --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Mon Oct 3 10:00:55 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j93E0t8T007393 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j93E0tVG007392 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:00:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RE: [forens] Error Rates: Benjamin Franklin's view: Any thoughts? Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:00:08 -0400 Message-ID: <6834EDC78F56C4439EF5D9B530B7F78501CE2E29@ATF-HQ-EXMB01.ad.msnet.atf.gov> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] Error Rates: Benjamin Franklin's view: Any thoughts? Thread-Index: AcXDCx5Nx+Y1+MF2Ty22bYK0/jVODgFF0xGA From: "Thompson, Robert M." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2005 14:00:09.0090 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3E47620:01C5C822] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j93E0s8T007387 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I guess that guilty number (2 to 10) was in 1780's "guilty man equivalents"! Due to "justice inflation" we are up to 100! Robert M. Thompson ATF Forensic Science Laboratory 6000 Ammendale Road Ammendale, MD 20705 Desk: 240-264-3846 FAX: 240-264-1491 Robert.Thompson@atf.gov -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Keister Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:22 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Error Rates: Benjamin Franklin's view: Any thoughts? Tim, I have come to believe that despite the claim that our legal system is a search for the truth, it really is more concerned with a search for justice. Justice trumps Truth. And Justice does not always equal Truth The principle in the quotes you gave stand for that. IMHO rob keister On Sep 25, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Tim Webster wrote: > > That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one > innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and > generally approved. > > > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.-The > Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 > (1906). > > > He was echoing Voltaire, "that generous Maxim, that 'tis much more > Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho' actually guilty, than to pass > Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.- > Zadig, chapter 6, p. 53 (1749, reprinted 1974). > > Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, > 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), says, > "For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons > escape, than that one innocent suffer." > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! for Good > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by Tim Webster ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- "I'm gonna be a happy idiot and struggle for the legal tender." -- Jackson Browne [EndPost by Rob Keister ] [EndPost by "Thompson, Robert M." ] From forens-owner Mon Oct 3 16:59:15 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j93KxF8T025381 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j93KxF7U025380 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:59:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20051003165929.015aaf00@postoffice.uri.edu> X-Sender: dhi0251u@postoffice.uri.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:59:29 -0400 To: NEAFS2005@pete.uri.edu From: Dennis Hilliard Subject: [forens] NEAFS 2005 Annual Meeting Announcement Cc: , URIFORENSICS@pete.uri.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Good Day Everyone, There are 321 e-mail addresses subscribed to the NEAFS2005 listserv. There are 328 e-mail addresses subscribed to the URIFORENSICS listserv. NEAFS 2005 Meeting: Neport, RI - November 8 - 12, 2005. The first week of October and the registrations for the Newport 2005 Meeting are beginning to come in. The Fall Newsletter was recently mailed and it contains meeting information. Remember: there are some 550 members of NEAFS, so at least 230 members have not provided e-mail addresses and do not get this e-mail. Please feel free to forward this meesage to your co-workers and students. I am sending this to the URI Forensics Listserv and to Foerens-l, so please forgive any duplicate messages. Deadlines to keep in Mind: Titles of presentations: All sessions are filled Pre-Registration for the Workshops: no later than October 4th. Keep in mind that you do not have to be registered for the Meeting to attend a workshop. Hotel reservations: no later than October 8th. Pre-Registration for the Meeting only: no later than October 21st. If you haven't yet registered for the meeting, please take a moment to view the NEAFS website. http://www.neafs.org/annualmeeting/annmeeting.htm Fill out and send in your a registration form, book your accomodations and read about what Newport has to offer. When you book your rooms at the Newport Hyatt, remember there are a limited number of rooms available each night at the conference rate. If you are attending a workshop and find that there are no rooms available for those nights (Monday or Tuesday), please let me know and I will work with the Hotel to open up more rooms. Thank you for your interest in the NEAFS Annual meeting! Dennis C. Hilliard President-Elect Program Chair [EndPost by Dennis Hilliard ] From forens-owner Mon Oct 3 18:26:39 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j93MQd8T027498 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j93MQd2M027497 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:26:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:25:56 -0700 From: "Mary Likins" Subject: [forens] an unusal question To: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j93MQc8T027492 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Listmates, I am looking for any studies that may support an allegation that a person with a lisp may be more likely to expel saliva when speaking than a person without a lisp. I know this sounds odd, but we have a case where the perpetrator had a lisp, wore a mask during the crime and spoke while wearing it, the DNA testing on the mask shows several different donors none of which are this person. We are attempting to counter the argument that just because this person's DNA is not on the mask does not mean he did not wear it. Any thoughts on this specific issue, or the issue in general, are much appreciated. Thanks, Mary Mary Likins, RN, LNC Forensic Nurse/Case Manager Northern California Innocence Project Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 (408) 554-5239 mlikins@scu.edu Mary Likins, RN, LNC Forensic Nurse/Case Manager Northern California Innocence Project Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 (408) 554-5239 mlikins@scu.edu This message scanned for viruses and SPAM by GWGuardian at SCU (MGW1) [EndPost by "Mary Likins" ] From forens-owner Mon Oct 3 18:44:49 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j93Min8T028162 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j93MinCt028161 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:44:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:44:49 -0800 From: Christine Hanson Subject: Re: [forens] an unusal question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <011401c5c86c$0f7e0f30$c6b3e589@Hanson> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu According to our linguistic anthropologist, an English-speaking lisper would neither be more nor less likely expel saliva when speaking than a nonlisper. However, he cannot cite studies to support or refute this and has never come across it in all his study. He is basing his opinion on a quick experiment (n=2) and background in linguistics. He thanks you for the interesting question. Just 2 cents from a lurker. ************************************************* Christine L Hanson, PhD Professor Department of Anthropology and Geography University of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage, AK 99508 Tel: 907-786-6839 Fax: 907-786-6850 Email: afclh@uaa.alaska.edu ************************************************* ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Likins" To: Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:25 PM Subject: [forens] an unusal question > Listmates, > > I am looking for any studies that may support an allegation that a person with a lisp may be more likely to expel saliva when speaking than a person without a lisp. I know this sounds odd, but we have a case where the perpetrator had a lisp, wore a mask during the crime and spoke while wearing it, the DNA testing on the mask shows several different donors none of which are this person. We are attempting to counter the argument that just because this person's DNA is not on the mask does not mean he did not wear it. Any thoughts on this specific issue, or the issue in general, are much appreciated. > Thanks, > Mary > > Mary Likins, RN, LNC > Forensic Nurse/Case Manager > Northern California Innocence Project > Santa Clara University School of Law > 500 El Camino Real > Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 > (408) 554-5239 > mlikins@scu.edu > > Mary Likins, RN, LNC > Forensic Nurse/Case Manager > Northern California Innocence Project > Santa Clara University School of Law > 500 El Camino Real > Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 > (408) 554-5239 > mlikins@scu.edu > > > This message scanned for viruses and SPAM by GWGuardian at SCU (MGW1) > > [EndPost by "Mary Likins" ] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Christine Hanson ] From forens-owner Mon Oct 3 19:29:09 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j93NT98T029589 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j93NT9cc029588 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:29:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Wayne Petherick" To: Subject: RE: [forens] an unusal question Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 09:28:54 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 thread-index: AcXIaebYfCmnIDA9QrG71Yw5K6JYywACBXEw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2005 23:28:56.0951 (UTC) FILETIME=[39AEC870:01C5C872] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Hi Mary, my opinion would be that it would depend on the severity of the lisp, any other problems with dentition and a host of other factors. I know someone who frequently spits when they talk without having a lisp, while another friend has quite a bad lisp and doesn't spit at all. Pardon the pun, but you may be spitting into the wind with this one. Cheers, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Mary Likins Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 8:26 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] an unusal question Listmates, I am looking for any studies that may support an allegation that a person with a lisp may be more likely to expel saliva when speaking than a person without a lisp. I know this sounds odd, but we have a case where the perpetrator had a lisp, wore a mask during the crime and spoke while wearing it, the DNA testing on the mask shows several different donors none of which are this person. We are attempting to counter the argument that just because this person's DNA is not on the mask does not mean he did not wear it. Any thoughts on this specific issue, or the issue in general, are much appreciated. Thanks, Mary Mary Likins, RN, LNC Forensic Nurse/Case Manager Northern California Innocence Project Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 (408) 554-5239 mlikins@scu.edu Mary Likins, RN, LNC Forensic Nurse/Case Manager Northern California Innocence Project Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 (408) 554-5239 mlikins@scu.edu This message scanned for viruses and SPAM by GWGuardian at SCU (MGW1) [EndPost by "Mary Likins" ] [EndPost by "Wayne Petherick" ] From forens-owner Mon Oct 3 23:19:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j943J08T008041 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j943J0Mp008040 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:19:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <198c01c5c892$144d0720$215f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: [forens] an unusal question Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:59:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There is no evidence that X did Y. That's all you can say. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Which doesn't stop hopeful (or maybe it is hopeless) lawyers from arguing this way. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Likins" We are attempting to counter the argument that just because this person's DNA is not on the mask does not mean he did not wear it. [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Tue Oct 4 10:48:01 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j94Em18T022004 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j94Em12N022003 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:48:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Message-Id: <5C8673AA-5FB4-48D7-ACFD-7DB8351803B2@statgen.ncsu.edu> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: basten Subject: [forens] forens list Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:48:29 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To all, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be starting a new job in November and will not be able to maintain this list. We have some time to transition to a new system. There is a forens group on yahoo that was created shortly after forens migrated to statgen.ncsu.edu, so that is an option. alternatively, someone could set up their own majordomo system and I could send them the list addresses. This is something that we may want to discuss for a few days before making a decision. I am managing another list on this server (devoted to Sumo wrestling): Some people on that list are against yahoo for various reasons. One is that some companies ban yahoo messages on their systems. The statgen server will keep running after I leave NCSU, but there is no money to maintain it or the sysadmin who manages it. I would guess that the whole thing will come down in about a year, but that is just a guess. It is probably best to migrate during this month. I've enjoyed managing the list these past five years. Chris ------------------- Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 Bioinformatics Res. Center Fax: (919)515-7315 N. C. State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu Raleigh, NC 27695-7566 Location: 1523 Partners II Building URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/~basten [EndPost by basten ] From forens-owner Tue Oct 4 10:53:11 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j94ErB8T022607 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j94ErB2e022606 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:53:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RE: [forens] forens list Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:53:04 +0200 Message-ID: <672D3491DC68D3478BB72E1A1C4A0DCC719DE6@jason.holmes.nl> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] forens list Thread-Index: AcXI8wbexLwxtZf+RwCA/faHDOqqywAABjgA From: "Zeno Geradts (DT)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned for virii by watson.holmes.nl X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j94ErA8T022601 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Chris, Thank you for your email and your effort for this list. There is a possibility for the forensic.to-domain to host this list for free. I could work on that if you send me the list addresses. Best regards, Zeno Geradts -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of basten Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:48 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forens list To all, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be starting a new job in November and will not be able to maintain this list. We have some time to transition to a new system. There is a forens group on yahoo that was created shortly after forens migrated to statgen.ncsu.edu, so that is an option. alternatively, someone could set up their own majordomo system and I could send them the list addresses. This is something that we may want to discuss for a few days before making a decision. I am managing another list on this server (devoted to Sumo wrestling): Some people on that list are against yahoo for various reasons. One is that some companies ban yahoo messages on their systems. The statgen server will keep running after I leave NCSU, but there is no money to maintain it or the sysadmin who manages it. I would guess that the whole thing will come down in about a year, but that is just a guess. It is probably best to migrate during this month. I've enjoyed managing the list these past five years. Chris ------------------- Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 Bioinformatics Res. Center Fax: (919)515-7315 N. C. State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu Raleigh, NC 27695-7566 Location: 1523 Partners II Building URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/~basten [EndPost by basten ] [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] From forens-owner Tue Oct 4 11:01:33 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j94F1W8T023809 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:01:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j94F1WqV023808 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:01:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: RE: [forens] forens list Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 17:01:26 +0200 Message-ID: <672D3491DC68D3478BB72E1A1C4A0DCC719DE7@jason.holmes.nl> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [forens] forens list Thread-Index: AcXI8wbexLwxtZf+RwCA/faHDOqqywAABjgAAABI9xA= From: "Zeno Geradts (DT)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: Scanned for virii by watson.holmes.nl X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j94F1W8T023803 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Oh, I just forgot to tell. The forensic.to-domain runs majordomo, and there will not be any advertisements on the page or in the emails. Best regards, Zeno -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Zeno Geradts (DT) Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:53 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] forens list Dear Chris, Thank you for your email and your effort for this list. There is a possibility for the forensic.to-domain to host this list for free. I could work on that if you send me the list addresses. Best regards, Zeno Geradts -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of basten Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:48 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forens list To all, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be starting a new job in November and will not be able to maintain this list. We have some time to transition to a new system. There is a forens group on yahoo that was created shortly after forens migrated to statgen.ncsu.edu, so that is an option. alternatively, someone could set up their own majordomo system and I could send them the list addresses. This is something that we may want to discuss for a few days before making a decision. I am managing another list on this server (devoted to Sumo wrestling): Some people on that list are against yahoo for various reasons. One is that some companies ban yahoo messages on their systems. The statgen server will keep running after I leave NCSU, but there is no money to maintain it or the sysadmin who manages it. I would guess that the whole thing will come down in about a year, but that is just a guess. It is probably best to migrate during this month. I've enjoyed managing the list these past five years. Chris ------------------- Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 Bioinformatics Res. Center Fax: (919)515-7315 N. C. State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu Raleigh, NC 27695-7566 Location: 1523 Partners II Building URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/~basten [EndPost by basten ] [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] From forens-owner Tue Oct 4 11:30:45 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j94FUj8T027493 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j94FUjtb027492 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:30:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) In-Reply-To: <672D3491DC68D3478BB72E1A1C4A0DCC719DE7@jason.holmes.nl> References: <672D3491DC68D3478BB72E1A1C4A0DCC719DE7@jason.holmes.nl> Message-Id: <77405C29-B8E0-4DEF-8B94-F861475B97C6@mac.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= Subject: Re: [forens] forens list Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:30:34 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I think Forens-L is a very valuable list, not polluted with much of the junk that is on the forensic yahoo list. I think we owe that to the great level of responsibility of the members of Forens-L. I am glad that Zeno stepped up and propose to host the list on his domain. I think we should jump on this occasion and take that great opportunity. Thanks Zeno, Eric On Oct 4, 2005, at 11:01, Zeno Geradts (DT) wrote: > Oh, I just forgot to tell. The forensic.to-domain runs majordomo, and > there will not be any advertisements on the page or in the emails. > > Best regards, > > > Zeno > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Zeno Geradts (DT) > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:53 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] forens list > > > Dear Chris, > > Thank you for your email and your effort for this list. There is a > possibility for the forensic.to-domain to host this list for free. I > could work on that if you send me the list addresses. > > Best regards, > > Zeno Geradts > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of basten > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:48 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] forens list > > > To all, > > I just wanted to let you know that I'll be starting a new job in > November and > will not be able to maintain this list. We have some time to > transition to a new > system. There is a forens group on yahoo that was created shortly > after > forens migrated to statgen.ncsu.edu, so that is an option. > alternatively, someone > could set up their own majordomo system and I could send them the list > addresses. > > This is something that we may want to discuss for a few > days before making a decision. I am managing another list on this > server (devoted to Sumo wrestling): Some people on that list are > against > yahoo for various reasons. One is that some companies ban yahoo > messages > on their systems. > > The statgen server will keep running after I leave NCSU, but there > is no > money to maintain it or the sysadmin who manages it. I would guess > that > the whole thing will come down in about a year, but that is just a > guess. It is probably > best to migrate during this month. > > > I've enjoyed managing the list these past five years. > > Chris > > > ------------------- > Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 > Bioinformatics Res. Center Fax: (919)515-7315 > N. C. State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu > Raleigh, NC 27695-7566 Location: 1523 Partners II Building > URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/~basten > > > > [EndPost by basten ] > > [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] > > [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] > [EndPost by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= ] From forens-owner Wed Oct 5 15:16:16 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j95JGG8T005327 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j95JGGCe005326 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:16:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: [forens] Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:12:28 -0500 Message-ID: <89E328C861ED02438DD3D3B86641163CEC8F6D@lugosi.ascl.state.ar.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's Thread-Index: AcXJ4LoZat6hdOetT6ubP+0AyR0DBg== From: "Ray, Stephen" To: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j95JGG8T005328 I have been noticing that several of the samples tested from burn victim's clothing contain products such us acetone, ethanol, benzene, toluene. Some samples may have all four, some ma have a combination of 2 or 3 of these compounds. My question is would these compounds be from the body or clothes burning or do the indicate the possibility that an ignitable liquid is present. And how do other labs would report these findings from a burn victim? Thanks in advance. Stephen P. Ray Criminalist II - Trace Evidence Section Arkansas State Crime Laboratory 3 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Office: 501-683-6180 Fax: 501-227-0713 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. This message and the content there-in do not necessarily reflect the official statement, position, or policy of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and should not be interpreted as such. The material should be regarded as solely the personal opinion of the person sending said message. The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Ray, Stephen" ] From forens-owner Wed Oct 5 21:57:42 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j961vg8T012181 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j961vgDG012180 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:57:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Brent Turvey" To: "Forensic-Science@Yahoogroups. Com" Cc: "FORENS-L" Subject: [forens] Error Rates & proficiencies Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:08:26 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Gents; I've been out of town working on a case since Thursday but am now back. I've read the emails that have passed in my absence with interest, and with some disappointment. Error rates and proficiencies are not something that are going away, and any suggestion otherwise is mistaken. I have said it before and I'll say it again - when actual scientists and statisticians put forensic scientists to shame for lack of science and ignorance of the scientific method, it is earned. The article below is not the first nor will it be the last exposing these issues in an applied context. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Bad ballistics: Hundreds of people have gone to prison on the word of Boston ’s untrained, unqualified, unskilled firearms examiners BY DAVID S. BERNSTEIN David S. Bernstein can be reached at dbernstein@phx.com Issue Date: October 7 - 13, 2005 http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/050 16166.asp The smoking gun. It is the icon of investigative perfection, of irrefutable evidence connecting criminal to crime. Yet it is more than mere symbol: the reports and testimony of the Boston Police Department’s (BPD) ballistics unit have been critical to putting hundreds of people in prison since the lab opened 40 years ago, and dozens more every year. But the Phoenix has discovered that these firearms examiners — the officers who analyze bullets and cartridge casings to determine whether a particular gun was used for a particular crime — are ill-trained and inept. Compared with their counterparts in big cities like New York, smaller cities like Pittsburgh, or states like Illinois, Boston’s firearms examiners are amateurs, who would not qualify to work in those other jurisdictions. The BPD’s firearms examiners were not selected based on any particular science background or skill with firearms. They have been given no special training or sent to any classes on ballistics identification. They are given no particular oversight. They have had a recurring problem with misplaced evidence, as BPD firearms examiner Martin Lydon has conceded during testimony. And when these ballisticians, as they’re called, have failed basic proficiency exams (as one recently admitted and then retracted on the stand), their supervisors’ response has been to do nothing about it. Furthermore, some of these BPD personnel appear to have deliberately misled juries. In cases where they only have evidence that could match a bullet or cartridge to a particular brand of gun, they have been willing to report, and testify, that it matches a specific gun. While DNA experts display their findings with numerical precision, and fingerprint experts demonstrate specific "points of correspondence" against industry standards, the field of bullet- and cartridge-matching has barely advanced, experts say, since it was used in the Sacco and Vanzetti trial in the 1920s. The recent trend across the country is to prove expertise in ballistics through accreditation by a national standard-setting body. Driven by a desire to gain such legitimacy, the BPD claims to be heading towards that goal. But two years into the process it appears that the BPD’s ballistics lab hasn’t made a dent in fixing its systemic flaws. And in their typical fashion, the department will not concede that anything was wrong to begin with, and they are not hiring anyone with expertise in the field. Instead, they transferred Lieutenant Catherine Doherty to command the unit. Before joining the lab last December, Doherty conducted background investigations on the department’s new recruits and had never conducted a firearm examination. The department did send her to a training class at the California Criminalistics Institute — more than they’ve done with any other member of the unit. In many labs, this training would have been the first step, qualifying her to begin a one- or two-year apprenticeship. But at the ballistics unit of the BPD, Doherty has been made the boss, reviewing other ballisticians’ work and testifying at trials. Meanwhile, the other firearms examiners at the BPD have no external training in their craft. (They do occasionally attend classes, sponsored by gun sellers, about the manufacture of their firearm models.) They were all trained solely through apprenticeships — tagging along for a year with a senior ballistician who learned the same way from someone else who learned the same way. If any bad habits or low standards got into the mix, nothing prevented them from being passed down for 40 years. "A lot of problems are very easy to fall into with the apprentice system," says James Gannola, an independent forensic consultant in Brooklyn, New York, who moved the New York City ballistics unit away from that kind of training 10 years ago. Earlier this year he submitted a business proposal to do the same for the BPD, but he never heard back from them. MISPLACED FAITH Firearm examiners, more than most other forensics technicians, ask the jury to rely strictly on the results of their expertise. To reach their conclusions, examiners test-fire a suspect gun to create a bullet or cartridge casing, and then compare those to the bullets or casings found at a crime scene. They are looking for "sufficient" corresponding microscopic markings to declare them a match — to say that they must have been fired by the same gun. Explaining to a jury how they arrive at a given conclusion is nearly impossible; it would be similar, some say, to explaining which lines and markings you used to recognize a person’s face. That doesn’t necessarily mean that firearm matching is less valid; but it does mean that juries — and detectives, prosecutors, and defendants — must take the examiners’ conclusions on faith. Their ability to do the work well is, therefore, of critical importance, which is why most forensics labs employ a quality-assurance manager — although not the BPD, even though the accreditation they want requires one. And an increasing number of labs periodically administer proficiency exams to their ballisticians. Until two weeks ago, nobody outside the BPD seems to have known whether the department even tested its firearms examiners. Then, on the stand during a pre-trial hearing in Suffolk Superior Court, Detective Tyrone Camper surprised the prosecutor and defense attorneys by saying that in his eight years in the unit, he had been given "four or five" proficiency tests by the unit’s previous commander, Mark Vickers, the most recent being perhaps a year and a half ago. In each, he had been given several shell casings and told to determine which of them did and which did not come from the gun provided. Camper could not recall all of his results, but he knew that he failed some, and he believed that he may have passed some. A week later, on the stand again, Camper recanted. "I have come to learn that I have not failed any" proficiency tests, he said. "I have come to learn that I have passed them." In a city and state where the public is obsessed with MCAS results, this sort of happy-go-lucky attitude about expertise and testimony that could send people to prison, in some instances for life, is strange indeed. It’s not clear which tests Camper was referring to; the BPD has not provided test results to either the lawyers in that case or to the Phoenix. As part of the new push for accreditation, the BPD began using Comparative Testing Systems (CTS) of Roanoke, Virginia, sometime in the past two years. CTS is a leading provider of independent tests to forensics labs, and failing its firearms proficiency exam is a rarity. Over the past four years, CTS has compiled results of 1079 firearm-identification tests of that type, including many given to trainees, and only 36 contained any mis-identifications. The BPD would not answer questions or provide any interviews in response to requests from the Phoenix. Doherty and Camper both declined direct requests for interviews. A public-information request for proficiency-exam results submitted two weeks ago was not fulfilled. In other labs, failure of any proficiency exam would cause near-panic. At the least, the examiner would be immediately placed in remedial training, and the lab would probably conduct a thorough review of his or her recent work, say supervisors of ballistics labs in other states. "It’s an unforgiving field," says Michelle Kuehner, associate crime-lab director for the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, coroner’s office, where she supervises the county’s ballistics lab. Her four firearms examiners all take two proficiency exams each year, and none have failed yet. "The lab does not want a person who has made a mistake to continue working in the lab." In New York City, where the 40 ballisticians take annual proficiency tests, the few who fail are immediately taken off case work, says Gannalo, who helped create and oversee that city’s ballistics training and testing program, first as a member of the unit and later as an independent forensic consultant. The ballistician is placed in corrective action, usually including remedial training. The department reviews all of his or her paperwork, and pulls 25 cases at random to review. Only after the department is satisfied with the work, and the ballistician passes at least one new test, does it return him or her to duty. Not so in Boston. Whether Camper or any of his colleagues failed remains an open question. The BPD has yet to release evidence of anyone on its ballistics staff having passed a proficiency test, nor have any of them mentioned doing so in court. (Their failure to discuss the matter makes it difficult to determine whether such test results exist.) What we do know is that, if there have been any failures, they have not led to additional training for Camper or anyone else. According to prosecutors in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office, Camper never bothered to inform anyone there that he, their "expert witness," believed he had flunked a test of his abilities. Camper, who joined the department in 1986 and transferred to ballistics in 1997 after stints as a patrolman, in the drug-control unit, and on the homicide squad, has testified more than 30 times. So has Martin Lydon, who joined the ballistics unit in 2000 after 13 years performing other duties in the department. James O’Shea, a ballistics supervisor since 1998, has testified "hundreds of times," according to his responses in court. All of them were trained solely by the apprentice system. Many, many people have gone to prison, for many years or for life, based in large part on the claims of Camper, Lydon, and O’Shea, and two others who recently left the ballistics unit. Carl Washington retired earlier this year, and George Foley was transferred out of the unit, for reasons not made available by the BPD. Both men also had testified in hundreds of cases. In one of those cases, Washington testified against Michael Prochilo in federal court. Prochilo was convicted in 1997 of gun-possession charges and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The conviction was later reversed, and in the retrial Prochilo was acquitted after forensic scientist David Lamagna, of American Forensic Technologies in Andover, rebutted Washington’s claims. In addition to how unreliable their testimony is at trial, Boston’s ballisticians are clearly not providing much help tracking down shooters, either. Of the 248 BPD investigations into shooting murders since 1998, two-thirds remain officially unsolved. SEEING WHAT THEY WANT TO In much, if not most, of the US, firearms matching is conducted by civilian scientists rather than sworn officers — very often in labs completely independent of any law-enforcement department. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, which covers much of western Pennsylvania including Pittsburgh and McKeesport, the lab is part of the coroner’s office. In Virginia, four labs operated by the state Department of Public Safety and staffed with civilians conduct all the firearm examinations. Illinois’s examiners are civilians, even though the lab itself is part of the state police department. Even New York City, whose police force can be as territorial and stubborn as Boston’s, is beginning to move toward civilian ballisticians, says Gannalo. One advantage of going civilian is that it vastly increases the quality of the applicant pool. When Kuehner recently hired a new firearm examiner for her Allegheny County lab, she had an embarrassment of qualified candidates to choose from. "There are so many forensics programs around, there’s no shortage of applicants," she says. She hired a graduate of a firearms-examination masters program at Virginia Commonwealth University. Camper, by contrast, has testified that he joined the BPD’s ballistics unit simply by asking to, even though he had no previous interest in or special knowledge of science or forensics. Another reason why civilian examiners are better equipped to do this work is that they are removed from the pressure, spoken or implied, to give fellow officers the answer they want to hear. In the forensics field, this falls under the term "confirmation bias," which refers to the tendency, often subconscious, to find a result that you know would be helpful. But at the BPD, confirmation bias is the modus operandi. Take Camper, who transferred from homicide to ballistics, where his former squad mates and supervisors now bring him evidence they hope will be interpreted in a way that will help build their cases. In a 1999 murder case, in which the murder weapon was never found, the lead detective gave Camper a cartridge casing found at suspect Roger Dew’s house, to match to the ones found at the crime scene. Camper could not find markings that showed that the casing from Dew’s house was a match, but he testified that it was "consistent with being fired from the same firearm" as the casings found at the crime scene — even though in fact it would also be consistent with having been fired from any of hundreds, if not thousands, of guns in Boston. (The trial transcript also shows Camper claimed that the casing from Dew’s house was "consistent with the spent .380-caliber bullet which was removed [from the victim’s body] at the medical examiner’s office," an impossible claim to support, since a bullet and casing cannot be compared.) The prosecutor emphasized Camper’s findings in his closing arguments, and Dew was found guilty of first-degree murder. In fact, in two cases the Phoenix knows of, homicide detectives asked the ballistics lab to examine evidence for a match even after their digital-imaging identification system — used to narrow down likely matches — had rejected them. And in both cases, the BPD ballisticians declared that the evidence did match. If the ballisticians are susceptible to confirmation bias, their new commander appears not even to understand it. In the same murder-trial hearing two weeks ago, Doherty said that the prosecutor approached her on Saturday night, less than 48 hours before trial, to ask her to review the cartridge casings that Camper had previously examined, and be prepared to testify about her findings. Asked by the defense attorney whether this was an instance where confirmation bias might be a concern, Doherty repeatedly insisted that she had no idea that finding a match might be helpful to the prosecutor’s case. Her answer makes one wonder if she knew what she was talking about. CROSSING THE LINE A Phoenix review of six trial transcripts and testimony at an ongoing trial suggests that BPD ballisticians often seem eager to help the prosecution and stymie the defense. At times they even seem to declare a match on evidence that they know does not justify the claim. That is, when only the "class characteristics" match, but not the "individual characteristics." To better understand the distinction, envision an assembly machine making thousands of 9mm Ruger handguns. Each gun’s barrel is drilled out by the same steel machine, which adds the same spiral grooves on the inside of each barrel, which spin the bullet similar to the way a quarterback throws a spiral pass. Every one of those 9mm Rugers coming off that assembly line will have exactly the same grooves, which will mark every bullet shot through them the same way. Similarly, parts of the gun that strike the cartridge casing can leave tell-tale markings. Those are class characteristics, in ballistics parlance, and they can help determine that two bullets, or two casings, could or could not have been fired by guns of the same make — that is, guns whose grooves were made by the same machines. But inevitably, each barrel coming off that assembly line will contain random, minute imperfections, such as a microscopic bump of steel. Those imperfections will be quite different from those left on another gun coming through the same assembly line, and will leave a unique microscopic mark — "individual characteristics" — on each bullet that passes through. Individual characteristics indicate that the bullet could only have passed through that particular Ruger; again, similar markings can be found on the cartridge casing that gets ejected from the gun. To declare a "match" based on class characteristics alone would be wildly irresponsible — like declaring a vehicle the getaway car because it is a Ford Taurus. Yet in a federal trial this March, Camper testified that there was no doubt in his mind that four recovered cartridge casings were fired from the specific Astra pistol in evidence, "because they all shared the same similarities, class characteristics." And Carl Washington, in a hearing before the Prochilo retrial in 2000, declared that he would, as a rule, declare a match if all he had was a particular class characteristic which he knew not to be sufficient for an individual match. "If that was all that I had, yes, I would call that a match," he said. That transcript has recently surfaced as part of an attempt, in federal court, to get ballistics evidence in one case ruled inadmissible. Washington’s remarks and Camper’s testimony about the Astra baffle other ballistics experts. "If true, that would break all the rules of being an honest examiner," says Gannalo. "If he tries to make a result sound like more than what it is, that’s an injustice." "I like most of the people I work with in the Boston Police Department, and they mean very well," says Lamagna. "But if you don’t understand the underlying science behind forensics, it’s much easier to make statements overstating the evidence." Defense attorneys deserve equal blame, says Lamagna, for not learning enough, or hiring experts, to help them catch and challenge these and other questionable claims. Timothy Perkins, an attorney in Ipswich who is also officially recognized by the state’s public-counsel office as a firearms expert, agrees. "Are they lying? I don’t know. But I know there are some inadvertent errors" in BPD ballistics experts’ testimony, Perkins says. "A lot of it has to do with DAs and judges and defense attorneys not knowing very much about ballistics, and glossing over what seems to be a point that really ought to be more strenuously pushed." That appears to be changing. Local defense attorneys are planning to challenge ballistics experts in several other upcoming cases, both in state and federal court. Time will tell whether juries will grow skeptical, now that defense attorneys have begun exposing the ballisticians’ lack of expertise and credentials. The testimony Camper gave this week is critical to whether a man accused of murder goes to prison for life or goes free. Camper says that a cartridge casing found at the murder scene was fired by a gun found in the suspect’s hand two weeks later; it is the only physical evidence linking the defendant to the scene. The jury will decide next week whether they believe him. Brent E. Turvey, MS Forensic Solutions, LLC bturvey@forensic-science.com http://www.corpus-delicti.com http://www.forensic-science.com Author of: Turvey, B. (2002) Criminal Profiling, 2nd Ed., Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/cp/cp_index.html Savino J. & Turvey B. (2004) Rape Investigation Handbook, Elsevier Science http://www.corpus-delicti.com/fs_bookstore/rih/rih_index.html [EndPost by "Brent Turvey" ] From forens-owner Wed Oct 5 22:09:59 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9629x8T012745 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9629x2h012744 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:09:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cS8mlMefm5LOpj5ofqKRJzqRzn8quSAOo2soXy+cLr0Uw7wPNyBs+baWpxIffdvFZLOCIOHruzYVrPHqCsjyhRyYPzrEEa+Okzxjf29xKrBLHwQClnKGiE/KocAh9GGSAEgyE16PZDz1YYrXNNN5urdifclh5ccvY6fzaGQeJQc= ; Message-ID: <20051006010953.42823.qmail@web34804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:09:53 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <89E328C861ED02438DD3D3B86641163CEC8F6D@lugosi.ascl.state.ar.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You are seeing decomposition products. Almost nobody sells anything with benzene. Acetone is from burning fat. ASTM E 1387 and E 1618 advise not to consider any single compound that is not at least an order of magnitude greater than background to be insignificant. If you cannot match your residue to a known ignitable liquid product, or at the very least, be able to imagine a product with those components, your best course is to report that you found NOTHING. I have seen labs too eager to please clients report findings of toluene "a flammable liquid" or styrene, God help us. If you think it might be background, ask for a comparison sample, and if one is unavailable, report that you found nothing, because you did, in fact, find nothing significant; certainly nothing that you can say is foreign. "Ray, Stephen" wrote: I have been noticing that several of the samples tested from burn victim's clothing contain products such us acetone, ethanol, benzene, toluene. Some samples may have all four, some ma have a combination of 2 or 3 of these compounds. My question is would these compounds be from the body or clothes burning or do the indicate the possibility that an ignitable liquid is present. And how do other labs would report these findings from a burn victim? Thanks in advance. Stephen P. Ray Criminalist II - Trace Evidence Section Arkansas State Crime Laboratory 3 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Office: 501-683-6180 Fax: 501-227-0713 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. This message and the content there-in do not necessarily reflect the official statement, position, or policy of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and should not be interpreted as such. The material should be regarded as solely the personal opinion of the person sending said message. The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Ray, Stephen" ] 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 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 6 03:17:52 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j967Hq8T016745 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:17:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j967HqZ1016744 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 03:17:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.17 (webedge20-101-1107-20041027) From: To: Subject: Re: Re: [forens] Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 8:17:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20051006071744.KPUG3160.aamta12-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu How much time would be required after burning for the decomposition products that you mention to be detected? Thank you in advance. Best Wishes Satish > > From: John Lentini > Date: 2005/10/06 Thu AM 02:09:53 BST > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: [forens] Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's > > You are seeing decomposition products. Almost nobody sells anything with benzene. Acetone is from burning fat. ASTM E 1387 and E 1618 advise not to consider any single compound that is not at least an order of magnitude greater than background to be insignificant. > > If you cannot match your residue to a known ignitable liquid product, or at the very least, be able to imagine a product with those components, your best course is to report that you found NOTHING. > > I have seen labs too eager to please clients report findings of toluene "a flammable liquid" or styrene, God help us. If you think it might be background, ask for a comparison sample, and if one is unavailable, report that you found nothing, because you did, in fact, find nothing significant; certainly nothing that you can say is foreign. > > "Ray, Stephen" wrote: > I have been noticing that several of the samples tested from burn > victim's clothing contain products such us acetone, ethanol, benzene, > toluene. Some samples may have all four, some ma have a combination of > 2 or 3 of these compounds. My question is would these compounds be from > the body or clothes burning or do the indicate the possibility that an > ignitable liquid is present. And how do other labs would report these > findings from a burn victim? > > Thanks in advance. > > Stephen P. Ray > Criminalist II - Trace Evidence Section > Arkansas State Crime Laboratory > 3 Natural Resources Drive > Little Rock, AR 72205 > Office: 501-683-6180 > Fax: 501-227-0713 > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies of the original message. > This message and the content there-in do not necessarily reflect the > official statement, position, or policy of the Arkansas State Crime > Laboratory and should not be interpreted as such. > The material should be regarded as solely the personal opinion of the > person sending said message. > > The information contained in this communication is > confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient > named above, and may be legally privileged. > If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly > prohibited. > If you have received this communication in error, > please re-send this communication to the sender and > delete the original message or any copy of it from your > computer system. Thank You. > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Ray, Stephen" ] > > > > 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 > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by John Lentini ] > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information [EndPost by ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 6 09:57:54 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j96Dvs8T022085 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j96DvsAi022084 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:57:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <6E62F001D7D3D611B70500C09F0CF8327E5E35@DUIISVR1> From: Flora Kan To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: [forens] University of North Texas - John Plantz Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:01:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Greetings!! Here comes challenge about imaging. John Plantz is the assistant DNA Lab Director at the University of North Texas that I visited last Friday. John Plantz told that your agency uses JusticeTrax to OCR the examination request form and wanted Starfruit to do the same. I agreed. Are you familiar with John Plantz? He seemed impressed with JusticeTrax. Was he used to Georgia lab staff? How can we find out what OCR hardware and software that Georgia is using? By the way, we already got this University's PO. I assumed that University would pay for John's request to implement OCR the way he described how your crime lab used. Regards, Flora Kan Data Unlimited International, Inc. www.duii.com USA 1-240-631-7933 -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] LIMS issues While I missed the original thread, I think that the discussion by this poster needs some clarification. Robert Parsons wrote: > JusticeTrax has allowed the GBI system to go entirely paperless, > with the LIMS storing all worksheets, photos, instrumental output, > and other traditional file contents (I'm told they don't maintain > paper case files at all, and print only what they need when court > testimony is required, then destroy the paper records again > afterwards). Supported agencies fill out their analysis requests > on-line, and receive their lab reports the same way, all in a > secure, distributed environment. The system can also log and > manage all kinds of lab and personnel activity data (user > customizable), and includes both chemical inventory and evidence > inventory reconciliation utilities as add-on options. Please note that my comments are my personal opinion and do not reflect that of my agency, entity, or any affiliated organization. I have not been all that happy with JusticeTrax. JusticeTrax has proven to be pretty inflexible when it comes to Medical Examiner reports and efforts. In particular: 1) The document tracking software is inappropriate for long text documents such as ME reports (as opposed to short, template-based documents such as toxicology reports). The process for amending reports if a typo is discovered late (and this is common when you have tens of pages of free text in a report) is unwieldy. 2) The conversion software from Word to the archive format (PDF) instroduces errors into the archived documents. In particular, many Unicode characters (such as math symbols and such) are not correctly translated, nor are many of the Word formatting calls. Thus, for instance, outlines and bullets are not correctly transcribed. 3) The "paperless" office idea may work well for final reports, but does not work well for systems that have a large amount of external documentation that must be retained. For instance, there is no mechanism for retaining medical records, external laboratory results such as genetic screening in SIDS, etc. This leads to an interesting problem -- as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping and reviewing them. 4) The system for handling evidence and such is inflexible. Not all the world is amenable to barcodes. The bottom line is that JusticeTrax may be wonderful for a tox lab or DNA lab. I don't know. But as far as ME work goes, it attempts to shoehorn everything into the same paradigm -- and it's not appropriate to pound round objects into square holes just because you like square holes. Fundamentally, a software system should facilitate practice, and not dictate it. And it certainly should not *introduce* errors into documents that have been already proofread. I have suggested to my superiors that JusticeTrax is not the best choice for the ME activity here, but again, that is just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect that of anybody else. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by Flora Kan ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 09:23:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97DNv8T019283 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j97DNujH019282 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:23:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:23:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Sincerbeaux, Dave" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:22:45 -0600 From: "Sincerbeaux, Dave" As a old environmental chemist who has seen more fuels than I want to remember, gasoline is about 20% BTEX with those components in about equal distribution i.e. 3-5% benzene. -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of John Lentini Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:10 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] Low boiling point and/or oxygenated compounds in burn victim's You are seeing decomposition products. Almost nobody sells anything with benzene. Acetone is from burning fat. ASTM E 1387 and E 1618 advise not to consider any single compound that is not at least an order of magnitude greater than background to be insignificant. If you cannot match your residue to a known ignitable liquid product, or at the very least, be able to imagine a product with those components, your best course is to report that you found NOTHING. I have seen labs too eager to please clients report findings of toluene "a flammable liquid" or styrene, God help us. If you think it might be background, ask for a comparison sample, and if one is unavailable, report that you found nothing, because you did, in fact, find nothing significant; certainly nothing that you can say is foreign. "Ray, Stephen" wrote: I have been noticing that several of the samples tested from burn victim's clothing contain products such us acetone, ethanol, benzene, toluene. Some samples may have all four, some ma have a combination of 2 or 3 of these compounds. My question is would these compounds be from the body or clothes burning or do the indicate the possibility that an ignitable liquid is present. And how do other labs would report these findings from a burn victim? Thanks in advance. Stephen P. Ray Criminalist II - Trace Evidence Section Arkansas State Crime Laboratory 3 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Office: 501-683-6180 Fax: 501-227-0713 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. This message and the content there-in do not necessarily reflect the official statement, position, or policy of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory and should not be interpreted as such. The material should be regarded as solely the personal opinion of the person sending said message. The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Ray, Stephen" ] 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 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by John Lentini ] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 14:49:39 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97Indei002005 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j97Ind7K002004 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:49:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] an unusal question Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:57:11 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000601c5cb70$ecc05310$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2005 18:50:19.0727 (UTC) FILETIME=[F717D5F0:01C5CB6F] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j97Incei001999 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mary, Unfortunately, it is difficult to counter a valid argument, and their argument is valid. As Dave House pointed out, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Just because you don't _find_ a connection between a suspect and the crime is not proof that there is no connection, as there may be many reasons why the connection can not be detected. That the suspect's DNA was not found on the mask can not prove that he didn't wear it. It certainly doesn't support the state's case (and certainly may justifiably cast some doubt on it), but neither does it necessarily refute it. It is very difficult to prove that something does not exist; the best that can usually be said is that there is no evidence of its existence. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL "The forensic scientist's goal is the evenhanded use of all available information to determine the facts and, subsequently, the truth." American Academy of Forensic Sciences web site, Choosing a Career page "If the law has made you a witness, remain a man of science. You have no victim to avenge, no guilty or innocent person to convict or save -- you must bear testimony within the limits of science." Dr. P.C.H. Brouardel, 19th Century French Medico-legalist -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Mary Likins Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 6:26 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] an unusal question Listmates, I am looking for any studies that may support an allegation that a person with a lisp may be more likely to expel saliva when speaking than a person without a lisp. I know this sounds odd, but we have a case where the perpetrator had a lisp, wore a mask during the crime and spoke while wearing it, the DNA testing on the mask shows several different donors none of which are this person. We are attempting to counter the argument that just because this person's DNA is not on the mask does not mean he did not wear it. Any thoughts on this specific issue, or the issue in general, are much appreciated. Thanks, Mary Mary Likins, RN, LNC Forensic Nurse/Case Manager Northern California Innocence Project Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 (408) 554-5239 mlikins@scu.edu Mary Likins, RN, LNC Forensic Nurse/Case Manager Northern California Innocence Project Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053-0422 (408) 554-5239 mlikins@scu.edu This message scanned for viruses and SPAM by GWGuardian at SCU (MGW1) [EndPost by "Mary Likins" ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 14:54:04 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97Is4ei002455 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:54:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j97Is4Qh002454 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:54:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] Re: How far should fingerprints be trusted? Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:01:36 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000701c5cb71$8ac77e80$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051001092945.048e9280@calmail.berkeley.edu> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2005 18:54:44.0853 (UTC) FILETIME=[951EDA50:01C5CB70] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j97Is3ei002449 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Have it your way, Charles. I didn't "describe" an "experiment," either. I made reference to an enormous existing body of empirical data, increasing daily, consisting of many millions (perhaps billions) of comparisons already completed without any duplication of a single print from two different fingers ever being demonstrated. That's pretty substantial evidence (albeit indirect) in support of the principle of fingerprint uniqueness, although I agree such evidence cannot be conclusive. I've said that in the past, I say it now, and if the issue arises again a year from now, I will probably say it again. It might be interesting to calculate the odds of two indistinguishable prints from different fingers being in the database yet remaining unrevealed, given all the many comparisons run against the database over the years (why would a "match" to one of those fingers not also produce a "match" to the other, if they are in fact indistinguishable?). I wouldn't know how to do such a calculation even if I had the necessary figures available to me, but I'm reasonably sure you would (assuming such a calculation is possible). However, the greater, definitive evidence of fingerprint uniqueness (as I have repeatedly said, say now, and will say again if necessary), is in the understanding of the complex biological processes that produce friction ridges - processes that logically make it effectively impossible for two different fingers to coincidentally develop the exact same ridge pattern. In my opinion, and I believe in the honest evaluation of any scientist who understands those processes, the only logical conclusion from any practical perspective is that it IS a settled matter. I don't know of any forensic or biological scientist, including you (thank you for that admission), who seriously suggests that fingerprints are NOT unique. We all accept that they are unique because we all understand those processes. Only those ignorant of those processes, and blind to the vast empirical evidence of past comparisons, can candidly claim otherwise. That is what I find "tiresome" - arguments that ignore the data and the biological realities involved and continue to insist that fingerprints have not been "proven" to be unique (under whatever capricious standard the debater chooses to unilaterally and illegitimately establish, such as nonavers' ignorant and ridiculous pronouncements of what "defines" science in his shockingly imperfect understanding of the term). Their nonsensical insistence in the face of all logical argument, biological knowledge, and empirical evidence is simply irrational. Since it is impossible to compare every finger of every person who has ever lived to every other finger, the principle will never be "proven" to the satisfaction of those seeking such "proof" from experimental or mathematical data (and who apparently fail to understand that experiments and statistical calculations can only support, not prove, a principle). The best "proof" in those terms that can be offered is a logical, mathematical exercise such as the one Thornton brilliantly used to demonstrate (conclusively, in my opinion) that no two snowflakes can be alike in his classic letter to the JFS. An educated, thinking, rational, and unbiased mind would have to concede the fact of fingerprint uniqueness in the light of all this, as Brent has in fact repeatedly done. Yet still we hear "Well, yes, I accept that fingerprints are unique for all the reasons you've given - but you haven't PROVEN it!" >From an absolute point of view, this is perhaps correct (since one cannot prove the unprovable), but from a practical stance the argument is belaboring the point to no useful end. So, I continue to wonder: why are we debating this? All the rational and knowledgeable among us acknowledge that fingerprint ridge patterns are unique to each digit, because there is no reasonably conceivable way they can NOT be. Philosophical arguments about whether the fact has been "proven" experimentally merely distract us from the truly important (and only relevant) issue: fingerprint examiner proficiency and standards, particularly with regard to partial or degraded prints - how reliable are they now, and how do we improve them? It seems to me that this is where our time and energy would be better spent and so should be focused. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL "The forensic scientist's goal is the evenhanded use of all available information to determine the facts and, subsequently, the truth." American Academy of Forensic Sciences web site, Choosing a Career page "If the law has made you a witness, remain a man of science. You have no victim to avenge, no guilty or innocent person to convict or save -- you must bear testimony within the limits of science." Dr. P.C.H. Brouardel, 19th Century French Medico-legalist -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Brenner Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 1:25 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forens] Re: How far should fingerprints be trusted? At 05:23 PM 9/30/2005, Robert Parsons wrote: >Charles, > >I didn't propose an experiment. You don't like "propose"? Would you accept "describe an experiment" -- which by lucky chance is what I actually wrote? >[snip] You make an excellent point about the duplications in the database due >to aliases, mistyped names, etc. How DO examiners resolve these? I don't >know the answer to that question. Thanks for the admission. I hope then, that one year hence you will not claim that cross-matching in the AFIS database provides scientific evidence of fingerprint uniqueness and that anyone with contrary view is tiresomely revisiting a settled question. > I would HOPE they investigate and confirm the duplication (as Chris > Breyer indicated was routinely done where he >worked), not merely make assumptions. At most maybe they all attempt to confirm, which is not nearly the same as "confirm." By the way, let me be clear. I'm not trying to make an argument that exemplar fingerprint impressions are not distinguishable among individuals. I am only saying that logically, if a person were doubtful, there is nothing about the AFIS searching experience that should change the person's mind. And of course I'm having fun with your habit of claiming that an issue is long settled, merely because you argued for it last year. Best regards, Charles >At 04:52 PM 9/27/2005, Robert Parsons wrote: > >consider this: automated search systems have been > >in use for decades now. Those systems literally DO compare each print > >searched to all the many millions of other prints in the database ... [to which my reply began] >I am extremely skeptical that the experiment you describe has ever been >performed. ... [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 14:54:23 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97IsNei002552 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j97IsNhN002551 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:54:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] forens list Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:01:52 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000801c5cb71$9455a170$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <77405C29-B8E0-4DEF-8B94-F861475B97C6@mac.com> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2005 18:55:00.0885 (UTC) FILETIME=[9EAD2450:01C5CB70] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j97IsLei002530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I agree. This list is too useful to allow to die. Thanks to Zeno for offering to take on the responsibility of maintaining it, and BIG thanks to Chris for maintaining it all these years. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL "The forensic scientist's goal is the evenhanded use of all available information to determine the facts and, subsequently, the truth." American Academy of Forensic Sciences web site, Choosing a Career page "If the law has made you a witness, remain a man of science. You have no victim to avenge, no guilty or innocent person to convict or save —— you must bear testimony within the limits of science." Dr. P.C.H. Brouardel, 19th Century French Medico-legalist -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Éric Stauffer Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:31 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] forens list I think Forens-L is a very valuable list, not polluted with much of the junk that is on the forensic yahoo list. I think we owe that to the great level of responsibility of the members of Forens-L. I am glad that Zeno stepped up and propose to host the list on his domain. I think we should jump on this occasion and take that great opportunity. Thanks Zeno, Eric On Oct 4, 2005, at 11:01, Zeno Geradts (DT) wrote: > Oh, I just forgot to tell. The forensic.to-domain runs majordomo, and > there will not be any advertisements on the page or in the emails. > > Best regards, > > > Zeno > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Zeno Geradts (DT) > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:53 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: [forens] forens list > > > Dear Chris, > > Thank you for your email and your effort for this list. There is a > possibility for the forensic.to-domain to host this list for free. I > could work on that if you send me the list addresses. > > Best regards, > > Zeno Geradts > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of basten > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:48 PM > To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: [forens] forens list > > > To all, > > I just wanted to let you know that I'll be starting a new job in > November and > will not be able to maintain this list. We have some time to > transition to a new > system. There is a forens group on yahoo that was created shortly > after > forens migrated to statgen.ncsu.edu, so that is an option. > alternatively, someone > could set up their own majordomo system and I could send them the list > addresses. > > This is something that we may want to discuss for a few > days before making a decision. I am managing another list on this > server (devoted to Sumo wrestling): Some people on that list are > against > yahoo for various reasons. One is that some companies ban yahoo > messages > on their systems. > > The statgen server will keep running after I leave NCSU, but there > is no > money to maintain it or the sysadmin who manages it. I would guess > that > the whole thing will come down in about a year, but that is just a > guess. It is probably > best to migrate during this month. > > > I've enjoyed managing the list these past five years. > > Chris > > > ------------------- > Christopher J. Basten Phone: (919)515-1934 > Bioinformatics Res. Center Fax: (919)515-7315 > N. C. State University Email: basten@statgen.ncsu.edu > Raleigh, NC 27695-7566 Location: 1523 Partners II Building > URL: http://statgen.ncsu.edu/~basten > > > > [EndPost by basten ] > > [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] > > [EndPost by "Zeno Geradts (DT)" ] > [EndPost by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C9ric_Stauffer?= ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 15:01:10 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97J1Aei003552 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:01:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j97J1AJo003551 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:01:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Robert Parsons" To: Subject: RE: [forens] University of North Texas - John Plantz Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 15:08:42 -0400 Keywords: Discussion lists Organization: Indian River Crime Laboratory Message-ID: <000901c5cb72$886d1e50$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <6E62F001D7D3D611B70500C09F0CF8327E5E35@DUIISVR1> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2005 19:01:50.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[92C4A130:01C5CB71] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j97J19ei003546 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu There is a much simpler way to archive external documents for record-keeping purposes than using OCR. OCR is only needed if you want to be able to use a word processor to later alter/edit/update the documents you are scanning. If all you want to do is archive the document for viewing without allowing alterations, then the better alternative is to scan the document as an image/graphic file (rather than as a text/document file), and save the image to your LIMS database. That way, you don't need OCR and the scanned digital image will look exactly like the original document, with no OCR errors introduced, no reformatting needed, and no chance of the digital record varying in any way from the printed original. This is very easy to do in JusticeTrax LIMS-Plus. Anything you scan can be attached digitally to a case as an image, where it will be safely stored for future viewing and reprinting. In fact, LIMS-Plus doesn't limit you to image files per se. You can also add text documents, spreadsheets, sound files or any other digital file you can think of, to the LIMS case file simply by importing it into the "case images" directory. The system will store any and all files you wish to put there, permanently associated with the case (unless you remove them), regardless of whether they are actual images or some other type of file. This might be the solution for ME's using LIMS-Plus with regard to their other documentation - all the medical records, external lab reports, etc., can be scanned as image files and simply attached to the digital case file - no conversions of any type needed, and no artifacts to deal with afterwards. As for errors being introduced into existing text documents that need to remain as text documents, there's an easy way around that, too. Errors are introduced because Microsoft Word does a lousy job of converting its files to PDF (WordPerfect, in my experience, does this flawlessly - but JusticeTrax's products don't support WordPerfect). The solution is to not use Word as your report generator. Instead, we use the built-in Crystal Reports utility to generate our reports. Once they have been tech and admin reviewed and are released for publication, instead of converting them to PDF, they are stored as Crystal Reports Static Documents (i.e., unalterable permanent Crystal documents). The drawback is that you can only view Crystal static documents using LIMS-Plus itself, or using a separate copy of the full Crystal Reports software. So if you want to distribute reports electronically as PDFs, you may be stuck with the inadequacies of Word's conversion abilities as I'm not sure if there is a way to convert Crystal documents to PDF. To generate reports using Crystal, you have to create a Crystal template, and if none of LIMS-Plus's built-in crystal templates suit your needs, you'll have to either modify one of them or design your own - and to do that, you have to buy a copy of the full Crystal Reports software. Using Crystal, you can design your report template to include as many free-text fields (or other kinds of fields) as you want, so it can potentially be used for any application, but the learning curve for designing Crystal Reports yourself is fairly steep. JusticeTrax has some Crystal experts who will design and debug a custom Crystal report template for you, for a fee. They'll also help you with minor modifications to existing templates for free, as part of your normal support contract. Using Crystal to generate your final reports isn't as flexible as using Word, but in my opinion it solves more problems than it creates. Of course, JusticeTrax's LIMS-Plus product (like other products used by crime labs, such as B.E.A.S.T., StarFruit LIMS, etc.) were designed with Crime Labs or other types of labs in mind. They weren't intended for use by medical examiners. I think a better option for MEOs would be to use a product specifically designed for their needs, such as JusticeTrax's PathAssist product. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Indian River Crime Laboratory Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Flora Kan Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:01 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: [forens] University of North Texas - John Plantz Greetings!! Here comes challenge about imaging. John Plantz is the assistant DNA Lab Director at the University of North Texas that I visited last Friday. John Plantz told that your agency uses JusticeTrax to OCR the examination request form and wanted Starfruit to do the same. I agreed. Are you familiar with John Plantz? He seemed impressed with JusticeTrax. Was he used to Georgia lab staff? How can we find out what OCR hardware and software that Georgia is using? By the way, we already got this University's PO. I assumed that University would pay for John's request to implement OCR the way he described how your crime lab used. Regards, Flora Kan Data Unlimited International, Inc. www.duii.com USA 1-240-631-7933 -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] LIMS issues While I missed the original thread, I think that the discussion by this poster needs some clarification. Robert Parsons wrote: > JusticeTrax has allowed the GBI system to go entirely paperless, > with the LIMS storing all worksheets, photos, instrumental output, > and other traditional file contents (I'm told they don't maintain > paper case files at all, and print only what they need when court > testimony is required, then destroy the paper records again > afterwards). Supported agencies fill out their analysis requests > on-line, and receive their lab reports the same way, all in a > secure, distributed environment. The system can also log and > manage all kinds of lab and personnel activity data (user > customizable), and includes both chemical inventory and evidence > inventory reconciliation utilities as add-on options. Please note that my comments are my personal opinion and do not reflect that of my agency, entity, or any affiliated organization. I have not been all that happy with JusticeTrax. JusticeTrax has proven to be pretty inflexible when it comes to Medical Examiner reports and efforts. In particular: 1) The document tracking software is inappropriate for long text documents such as ME reports (as opposed to short, template-based documents such as toxicology reports). The process for amending reports if a typo is discovered late (and this is common when you have tens of pages of free text in a report) is unwieldy. 2) The conversion software from Word to the archive format (PDF) instroduces errors into the archived documents. In particular, many Unicode characters (such as math symbols and such) are not correctly translated, nor are many of the Word formatting calls. Thus, for instance, outlines and bullets are not correctly transcribed. 3) The "paperless" office idea may work well for final reports, but does not work well for systems that have a large amount of external documentation that must be retained. For instance, there is no mechanism for retaining medical records, external laboratory results such as genetic screening in SIDS, etc. This leads to an interesting problem -- as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping and reviewing them. 4) The system for handling evidence and such is inflexible. Not all the world is amenable to barcodes. The bottom line is that JusticeTrax may be wonderful for a tox lab or DNA lab. I don't know. But as far as ME work goes, it attempts to shoehorn everything into the same paradigm -- and it's not appropriate to pound round objects into square holes just because you like square holes. Fundamentally, a software system should facilitate practice, and not dictate it. And it certainly should not *introduce* errors into documents that have been already proofread. I have suggested to my superiors that JusticeTrax is not the best choice for the ME activity here, but again, that is just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect that of anybody else. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by Flora Kan ] [EndPost by "Robert Parsons" ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 19:27:44 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j97NRiA2010575 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:27:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j97NRihJ010574 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:27:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f In-Reply-To: <000701c5cb71$8ac77e80$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> References: <000701c5cb71$8ac77e80$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: <909C35BC-F998-457A-9655-9A7CD5D8D7E7@zippnet.net> From: Rob Keister Subject: Re: [forens] Re: How far should fingerprints be trusted? Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:27:24 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j97NRiA2010569 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I will admit that I do not know all the gory details of how an AFIS system encodes a ten print card, but is it possible that the print of my right index finger is indistinguishable from Robert Parson's left ring finger, but because the other fingers don't match (or because they are on different digits), the system correctly concludes in a search that my ten print does not match any other ten prints? It seems unlikely for efficiency reasons that an AFIS system compares every finger of an individual searched against every other finger of every other record. But the real flaw in using the lack of observed duplicate prints in routine AFIS use as support is that when an operator searches a latent print, obtains a list of matching candidates and determines that candidate #3 on the list is an identification, do they continue to look at the other 20 candidates on the list to see if there is a duplicate matching print from another person? I would predict not. The computer could be finding duplicates but we're not looking for them. rob keister ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ "When you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer." - Stevie Wonder On Oct 7, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Robert Parsons wrote: > It might be interesting to calculate the odds of two > indistinguishable prints from different fingers being in the > database yet > remaining unrevealed, given all the many comparisons run against the > database over the years (why would a "match" to one of those > fingers not > also produce a "match" to the other, if they are in fact > indistinguishable?). [EndPost by Rob Keister ] From forens-owner Fri Oct 7 23:24:52 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j983OqA2014809 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j983OqSt014808 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:24:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <4f285r$d88rm6@mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony3.iinet.net.au> X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAA+k= X-Mailer: Ultrafunk Popcorn release 1.65 (09-Feb-2004) X-URL: http://www.ultrafunk.com/products/popcorn/ X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:24:34 +1000 From: Richard Wright To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] direction of ejection of cases from pistols Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In what direction are cases discharged from the ejection ports of Luger Parabellum and Walther P38 pistols? http://www.lugerforum.com/ An animated diagram seems to show the direction as to the right and slightly backwards. Is this standard? [EndPost by Richard Wright ] From forens-owner Sat Oct 8 00:57:23 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j984vNA2017268 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j984vNaF017267 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:57:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <34e801c5cbc3$72202e20$215f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <4f285r$d88rm6@mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony3.iinet.net.au> Subject: Re: [forens] direction of ejection of cases from pistols Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:47:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu I remember that as correct for the P38, but don't have a Luger. That said, this is pretty close to generic for semiautomatic pistols but variance occurs due to wear, variety of ammunition, cleanliness, how firmly the shooter holds the pistol, and probably several other things. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Wright" In what direction are cases discharged from the ejection ports of Luger Parabellum and Walther P38 pistols? An animated diagram seems to show the direction as to the right and slightly backwards. Is this standard? [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Sat Oct 8 04:17:32 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j988HVA2019971 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 04:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j988HVbX019970 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 04:17:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: "Bob Kegel" To: Subject: RE: [forens] direction of ejection of cases from pistols Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:17:27 -0700 Message-ID: <001001c5cbe0$b8ded010$0200a8c0@8sv5f01> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <4f285r$d88rm6@mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony3.iinet.net.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > In what direction are cases discharged from the ejection ports of Luger Parabellum > and Walther P38 pistols? > > http://www.lugerforum.com/ > > An animated diagram seems to show the direction as to the right and slightly > backwards. > > Is this standard? Tests by Bill Lewinsky, Minnesota State University-Mankato, found considerable variation in where ejected casings go. See http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=21 And http://www.forcescience.org/rawdata/ LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept Aberdeen, WA USA [EndPost by "Bob Kegel" ] From forens-owner Sat Oct 8 10:34:59 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j98EYwA2025360 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j98EYwxR025359 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:34:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20051007185047.05522be0@calmail.berkeley.edu> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 07:34:31 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Charles Brenner Subject: RE: [forens] Re: How far should fingerprints be trusted? Cc: In-Reply-To: <000701c5cb71$8ac77e80$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20051001092945.048e9280@calmail.berkeley.edu> <000701c5cb71$8ac77e80$9800a8c0@IRRCL.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu At 12:01 PM 10/7/2005, Robert Parsons wrote: >Have it your way, Charles. I didn't "describe" an "experiment," either. I >made reference to an enormous existing body of empirical data, You made reference to a hypothetical body of empirical data, but as we have discussed the critical part of it doesn't exist. > increasing daily, consisting of many millions (perhaps billions) of > comparisons already >completed without any duplication of a single print from two different >fingers ever being demonstrated. Performing (or even observing) some operations that produce data and using the data to test a hypothesis, that's an experiment. I'm a little puzzled that you don't think so but you are of course free to use a word any way you like. > That's pretty substantial evidence (albeit indirect) in support of the > principle of fingerprint uniqueness, It's pretty weak, because contrary evidence would be excused by some reasonable alternative explanation like aliases or record-keeping mixups. This bias virtually destroys the value of the experiment. >[snip] >However, the greater, definitive evidence of fingerprint uniqueness > [pointless digression snipped] ... >So, I continue to wonder: why are we debating this? "We"? Tracing the debate back a few messages, it was you who wrote that "all fingerprints are unique". Brent Turvey merely objected that there is no scientific support for the view, whereupon you tried to supply some. I entered the debate because you put forth an argument containing a fallacy that I thought worth pointing out. That said, I agree that it's not an important argument. Whether fingerprints are unique as patterns on fingers (which is what you claimed and which is what your supporting arguments were directed toward) is, as many have pointed out before, irrelevant to the normal practice of using fingerprints for identification, since in practice so rarely does a criminal leave actual duplicate fingers at a crime scene. Charles --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Charles Brenner ] From forens-owner Sun Oct 9 13:24:45 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j99HOjA2011382 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:24:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j99HOjS5011381 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:24:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: Elycezahn@aol.com Message-ID: <86.325283e8.307aac4f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:24:31 EDT Subject: [forens] Coroner Findings - 1937 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5118 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j99HOkA2011383 I’m writing a mystery set in San Francisco in 1937. Would a coroner be able to detect the different between a fatal head injury caused by a grand mal seizure during a sexual assault, and the villain banging the victim’s head against floor during the same incident? If so, how would the coroner been able to detect the difference? Off line responses are appreciated. Elyce --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by Elycezahn@aol.com] From forens-owner Sun Oct 9 23:32:33 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9A3WXA2019820 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:32:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9A3WXbr019819 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 23:32:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: <017e01c5cd3c$1e808c40$3c5f12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <86.325283e8.307aac4f@aol.com> Subject: Re: [forens] Coroner Findings - 1937 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:03:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Seizure disorders are difficult to detect post mortem because they frequently don't show any brain abnormality. They don't produce injuries. Injuries are detected at autopsy. As a general rule, coroners don't detect these things at all because they are elected officials with (in most states) no medical credentials and don't do autopsies; a few states do require the coroner to be a physician and some of those are pathologists. California currently has multiple ways of defining the administration of its death investigation systems (Medical Examiner, Coroner, Medical Examiner-Coroner, Sheriff-Coroner, etc) and I have no idea what SF had in 1937. Dave Hause, dwhause@jobe.net Ft. Leonard Wood, MO ----- Original Message ----- From: I’m writing a mystery set in San Francisco in 1937. Would a coroner be able to detect the different between a fatal head injury caused by a grand mal seizure during a sexual assault, and the villain banging the victim’s head against floor during the same incident? If so, how would the coroner been able to detect the difference? [EndPost by "Dave Hause" ] From forens-owner Tue Oct 11 17:03:10 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9BL39A2024978 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9BL39Vh024977 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:03:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [forens] QA/QC question Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:03:06 -0500 Message-Id: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B802D855F5@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QA/QC question Thread-Index: AcXOpy1NPzaXEmw2RwuNF8d7SNaCzQ== From: "Koch, James" To: X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j9BL3AA2024979 Does anyone know of a good 'standard' to use to test KOH/methanolic solutions used in chemical solubility tests for paint analysis? Our QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative examinations. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Please send any correspondence to the list and/or my email james.koch@state.mn.us. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Koch, James" ] From forens-owner Wed Oct 12 22:44:42 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9D2igA2021868 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9D2igkO021867 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:44:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=HhpFSjYf8ng/pIJMifWOtvbTBjIW7rIr/dOeSIwFukKoTbY5iH5nr+cGMup4mo8+iwLO+RIQwbOdNZObAyirg+VbYIqzTNbzxhh5SJRi7B3n5KVh6R/IaN01TvOn459PqDgjPfqxVxEMoxTgWvEHNU2nqg4ddU8sGxcPuQwyNz4= Message-ID: <735dd9e50510112046w1e934a6bk1714804ead1bda14@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:46:12 -0400 From: "Peter D. Barnett" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question In-Reply-To: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B802D855F5@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B802D855F5@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j9D2igA2021869 My sugggestion: Get a new GA/QC person. Pete Barnett On 10/11/05, Koch, James wrote: > > Does anyone know of a good 'standard' to use to test KOH/methanolic > solutions used in chemical solubility tests for paint analysis? Our > QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before > use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative > examinations. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Please send > any correspondence to the list and/or my email james.koch@state.mn.us. > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Koch, James" ] > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" ] From forens-owner Wed Oct 12 23:07:46 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9D37kA2022732 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:07:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9D37jcZ022731 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:07:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <46.73659536.307f297a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:07:38 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Peter - so you do not believe in checking the efficacy of test reagents (positive and / or negative controls)? Seems like a foundation of science to me. Why not use a paint standard from a wrecked car that you know should react with the reagent and establish that the reagent works? Then, after logging the results over time you can establish an expiry period for the reagent and therefore test it less frequently, as determined by the results of scientific study. David Epstein In a message dated 10/12/2005 10:46:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pbarnett@fsalab.com writes: My sugggestion: Get a new GA/QC person. Pete Barnett On 10/11/05, Koch, James wrote: > > Does anyone know of a good 'standard' to use to test KOH/methanolic > solutions used in chemical solubility tests for paint analysis? Our > QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before > use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative > examinations. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Please send > any correspondence to the list and/or my email james.koch@state.mn.us. > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 07:25:07 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DBP7A2027724 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DBP79Z027723 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:25:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=2+5qnf5bEj9YOtFJfz3t8cms0lftZI1Y7xmQJkvX4267RtOv8BavJFxjq5S7iRTapPUCSM0PV8SoBOrHJRxZK1ce4YlCm7CxukBfHvWvV4k7rm0ztGNDWvTgn/m4SeA5LV38n2s+AITr22gtuEEvUHM/hssGJqmYHUlkATsKiCE= ; Message-ID: <20051013112446.6106.qmail@web34814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:24:46 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <46.73659536.307f297a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Either the procedure is valid or it is not. ONE validation of the procedure should do the trick. After the procedure is validated, all that should be required is checking the IDENTITY and PURITY (as opposed to the efficacy) of the reagents when they are received at the lab. Re-validating the procedure for each new batch of reagents is unnecessary. This particular QA guy does not sound like one who would accept paint from a known wrecked car, but would insist on a Standard Reference Material. LeonStein@aol.com wrote: Peter - so you do not believe in checking the efficacy of test reagents (positive and / or negative controls)? Seems like a foundation of science to me. Why not use a paint standard from a wrecked car that you know should react with the reagent and establish that the reagent works? Then, after logging the results over time you can establish an expiry period for the reagent and therefore test it less frequently, as determined by the results of scientific study. David Epstein In a message dated 10/12/2005 10:46:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pbarnett@fsalab.com writes: My sugggestion: Get a new GA/QC person. Pete Barnett On 10/11/05, Koch, James wrote: > > Does anyone know of a good 'standard' to use to test KOH/methanolic > solutions used in chemical solubility tests for paint analysis? Our > QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before > use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative > examinations. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Please send > any correspondence to the list and/or my email james.koch@state.mn.us. > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] 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 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by John Lentini ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 07:58:51 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DBwpA2028451 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:58:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DBwpdC028449 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:58:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <1fe.c2783c2.307fa5f1@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:58:41 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu John - My understanding was that the analyst is mixing the reagent in his own lab, and you certainly would check the reagent before using it on case samples (sometimes of limited amount) and before making determinations with the reagent. False negative results in many protocols will lead to altered analysis schemes and / or an erroneous testing outcome. Also, as a mixed reagent for spot tests ages, you must know that it is still effective. That is why I suggested that a log showing effectiveness over time would support the establishment of an expiry date. Once it is demonstrated that the spot test reagent lasts for weeks, months, or years, then all you have to do in the future is mix a new batch, test it with a known material, and then label it with the expiry date. I would not assume so much about what their QA manager would or would not accept. Their job is to ask the scientist what are the controls and checks of their testing systems and then document them, and finally to audit the systems. The QA manager is not in place to write the protocols. The original author stated "Our QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative examinations." This does not say the QA manager is dictating the outcome, other than asking for the scientist to identify their controls and checks. All examinations are experiments, and experiments contain controls and / or reagent blanks. This is basic QA and basic science. David Epstein In a message dated 10/13/2005 7:25:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, johnlentini@yahoo.com writes: Either the procedure is valid or it is not. ONE validation of the procedure should do the trick. After the procedure is validated, all that should be required is checking the IDENTITY and PURITY (as opposed to the efficacy) of the reagents when they are received at the lab. Re-validating the procedure for each new batch of reagents is unnecessary. This particular QA guy does not sound like one who would accept paint from a known wrecked car, but would insist on a Standard Reference Material. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 10:56:00 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DEtxA2002104 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DEtx7S002103 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:55:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:55:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] forwarded message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike & Donna Eyring Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:56:08 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear Jim: I'm not aware or many individuals that are using chemical tests in paint examinations today. I used to, some 25 years ago, but I'd think twice about using most of them today. That's just how polymer science in general, and forensic science in particular, has changed. Diphenylamine based nitrate tests might be an exception to that statement, but there are few others that would come to mind. Solubility isn't a question in that test. The test in question is one that breaks down/degenerates some polymeric esters, and separates some that are soluble in alcohol. It also separates some cellulosics from polyamides. This, and other, solubility tests might have some value in evaluating architectural paints today, but I'm not sure the tests are useful in a general paint analytical scheme any more. We have many, initially water soluble, systems to consider today, and many more to come, that are of different polymeric types, are found in a host of different end uses, and are subject to sulfuric acid attack. Unfortunately, as resin molecular weights have gone into the hole along with VOC's, so has durability. Anyone with a vehicle that has a flaking clear coat please raise their hand. I will concede that there are some solubility tests that offer some "comparative" value in side-by-side analysis but are no longer suitable as "identifying" tests. They are of some distinguishing value within a class, but not necessarily between classes. Unfortunately, new forensic examiners are not always taught the difference. I'm more than willing to read and consider other opinions. Mike Eyring On Oct 11, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Koch, James wrote: > Does anyone know of a good 'standard' to use to test KOH/methanolic > solutions used in chemical solubility tests for paint analysis? Our > QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before > use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative > examinations. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Please send > any correspondence to the list and/or my email james.koch@state.mn.us. > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Koch, James" ] > [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 10:56:32 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DEuWA2002148 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:56:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DEuWZG002147 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:56:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:56:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Tampering? Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:27:16 -0600 From: "Laycock, Dave" We have a question. We (myself and another examiner) are working on a shoe print case involving numerous prints left at a homicide scene. Of major concern is the fact that the actual suspect's shoes have a number of goatheads embedded in the outsoles. However, they can be easily dislodged. Right now we're trying to figure out how to preserve them, since the goathead imprints show up in most of the outsole crime scene photos. Would it be tampering with/altering evidence if we were to attempt to infiltrate a small amount of superglue over the base of the goatheads in order to glue them into position? We believe there is a strong possibility that many of them would be knocked loose if the shoes are repackaged as is. Any other suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks! Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 11:38:55 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DFcsA2003835 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:38:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DFcswb003834 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:38:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <1a4.4160b71c.307fd983@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:38:43 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu You should photograph the shoes. 1X would be preferable, but smaller may have to suffice. Be sure the camera film plane and shoes are a parallel as possible. Include rulers. What is a goathead? Lamar Miller --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 13:49:10 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DHnAA2007274 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:49:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DHnAI9007273 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:49:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.5.4 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:48:28 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Subject: Re: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j9DHnAA2007275 Dave, My only suggestion is to photograph the shoes, and possibly do a silicone (Mikrosil) cast of the outsoles with the goatheads in place. We use something we call the "Kitty Litter" box. It is a shallow wood tray 14"X17"X1.5" inches deep. The tray contains a mixture of black fingerprint powder, fine clay, and Comet cleanser (to prevent clumping or caking) Simply smooth the powder and make a simulated soil impression. the gray powder gives good contrast with oblique lighting so photography is an effective technique. It may be inevitable that some of the goatheads will release. we encounter them here in southern California as well. I think this process could be just the thing you are looking for. Good luck! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist, Major Crimes Unit Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division 1300 18th Street, 4th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Office Phone: (661) 868-5659 Office FAX: (661) 868-5675 Cellular Phone: (661) 979-5548 e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu 10/13/2005 7:56:31 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: Tampering? Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:27:16 -0600 From: "Laycock, Dave" We have a question. We (myself and another examiner) are working on a shoe print case involving numerous prints left at a homicide scene. Of major concern is the fact that the actual suspect's shoes have a number of goatheads embedded in the outsoles. However, they can be easily dislodged. Right now we're trying to figure out how to preserve them, since the goathead imprints show up in most of the outsole crime scene photos. Would it be tampering with/altering evidence if we were to attempt to infiltrate a small amount of superglue over the base of the goatheads in order to glue them into position? We believe there is a strong possibility that many of them would be knocked loose if the shoes are repackaged as is. Any other suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks! Dave Laycock Idaho State Police Forensics [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Greg Laskowski TEL;WORK:868-5659 ORG:District Attorney;District Attorney - Forensic Science Division TEL;PREF;FAX:868-5675 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:GLaskows.DACRIMPO.DADOMAIN N:Laskowski;Greg TITLE:Supervising Criminalist END:VCARD --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/mixed text/plain (text body -- kept) text/plain (text body -- kept) --- [EndPost by "Greg Laskowski" ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 16:32:40 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DKWeA2010831 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DKWetC010830 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:32:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: cbasten owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:32:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Christopher J. Basten" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:57:53 -0600 From: "Laycock, Dave" To: Lamar: We have done all that, good photos, overlays. We were just discussing the possible ways of preserving the evidence for reexamination by a defense expert. The consensus here is that we pack the shoes as carefully as possible, don't try to glue the thorns in place. A goathead is a small thorny seed that likes to stick to clothes, shoes. Sometimes called puncture vine. Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of LamarM@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:39 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) You should photograph the shoes. 1X would be preferable, but smaller may have to suffice. Be sure the camera film plane and shoes are a parallel as possible. Include rulers. What is a goathead? Lamar Miller --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 16:51:57 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DKpvA2011566 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:51:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DKpuAx011565 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:51:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:51:43 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Importance: normal Thread-Topic: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) Thread-Index: AcXQNW/TvNCwWBz8Q8Kp9SgImHZkZAAAlMeQ From: "Allen Miller" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2005 20:51:44.0863 (UTC) FILETIME=[EBD9DEF0:01C5D037] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j9DKpuA2011560 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dave, You could use cable ties and secure the shoe across the instep to the bottom of a suitable box. Either lay the shoe on its side or on the upper with the outsole looking up. Allen Miller Forensic Technical Manager Armor Forensics 904-741-1787 904-741-5407 fax amiller@armorholdings.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher J. Basten Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: RE: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:57:53 -0600 From: "Laycock, Dave" To: Lamar: We have done all that, good photos, overlays. We were just discussing the possible ways of preserving the evidence for reexamination by a defense expert. The consensus here is that we pack the shoes as carefully as possible, don't try to glue the thorns in place. A goathead is a small thorny seed that likes to stick to clothes, shoes. Sometimes called puncture vine. Dave -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of LamarM@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:39 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) You should photograph the shoes. 1X would be preferable, but smaller may have to suffice. Be sure the camera film plane and shoes are a parallel as possible. Include rulers. What is a goathead? Lamar Miller --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] [EndPost by "Christopher J. Basten" ] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. [EndPost by "Allen Miller" ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 18:03:19 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9DM3JA2013135 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9DM3Jb8013134 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:03:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=aCXkNp3imt96/Hd8/q188avLbn6YGygQpv+dq2qn6zqJsYXVBE7NI2mSQRxDLZmnOKBRX4yo5+IuLIZKAS1TbdHPaAfZFDk+xEeR3bTk0j83o4pDN7//E7HIIvRvp4agMQXfwkE+nqYO4VBIfsNIwV+6/+d5tAQ7nn2MYp2K/DE= ; Message-ID: <20051013220308.29778.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: [forens] Rate of Decomposition Due to External Bacteria To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <91ACF95C-2913-11DA-BE00-00039394EE7A@worldnet.att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dear List, Are there any online resources related to the effect of external bacteria (in the air/water, etc.) on the rate of decomposition of a body after death? Most of the resources I've been able to find appear to be referring to internal bacteria/microorganisms in the human body as being the catalyst for decomposition and that acceleration of the process results from temperature and other environmental factors. Does external bacteria play a part in decomposition, perhaps in a body with external wounds? Any help will be sincerely appreciated. Thanks, L. DeShong amateur crime researcher --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Thu Oct 13 20:34:10 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9E0YAA2016130 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9E0YAha016129 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:34:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: WBirkby@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:34:03 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 39 X-Spam-Flag: NO Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Why, Lamar! A "goat head" is obviously the front end of a goat---as opposed to the "ass end" of a goat. Boy, you city boys are sure naive! With all due fondness, Walt Birkby [EndPost by WBirkby@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Oct 14 07:15:22 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9EBFMA2026034 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:15:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9EBFMfe026033 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:15:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LamarM@aol.com Message-ID: <5b.73be886b.3080ed3d@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:15:09 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] ["Laycock, Dave" ] (fwd) To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 10/13/2005 8:35:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, WBirkby@aol.com writes: Why, Lamar! A "goat head" is obviously the front end of a goat---as opposed to the "ass end" of a goat. Boy, you city boys are sure naive! With all due fondness, Walt Birkby I guess I deserved that! Just didn't know they got stuck in the sole of a shoe. Lamar --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LamarM@aol.com] From forens-owner Fri Oct 14 23:07:12 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9F37CA2013385 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9F37B1K013384 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:07:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=m8UDlkU7qyJ2NQ2lp5CYByxT0n1+8JDwN+hq7YjqenSa20pcrEOxPwXhXJUdIbu10EQFKQzw/Eja+MGoi6ZDI6hjdQTvhGzcerZcdJsNylfCbENMIijbmwWCF75uiOBfkOCe0LdsJAPY2sf9EWPvvwB34O6rXsdx6CJ9CLz3PdI= ; Message-ID: <20051015030706.23337.qmail@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:07:06 -0700 (PDT) From: L DeShong Subject: [forens] Paperless Record Keeping To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <6E62F001D7D3D611B70500C09F0CF8327E5E35@DUIISVR1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Dr. Oliver and Listmembers, I've worked for law firms since 1991 and the trend for paperless offices is slowly making headway for them, too. In the early days, I encountered many of the same problems with the various OCR software that Dr. Oliver cited with regard to ME reports. In many cases, it took me less time to type the document than it did for me to scan it, OCR it, proof it for errors such as mistranslated characters, restore the appropriate text and edit the electronic document to get the proper format (which also doesn't translate 9 times out of 10). I'm not familiar with JusticeTrax, but would it perhaps be possible for a hard copy of the document to be scanned into PDF format, rather than electronically converting the format? I know it's an "extra" step, but not a terribly time consuming one. We use Amicus and Summation and it takes me about 5 minutes to go to the scanner at the end of the floor, run the document through the scanner and then go back to my desk and add it to the document management program. It's worth every minute because it keeps my technologically challenged boss from inadvertently deleting major portions a document that took me 5-60 minutes to type (depending on the length and the handwriting). Also, if you have to make a revision, the original file can be overwritten or saved as a different version with an explanation for the revision in the summary (Amicus and Summation both allow detailed descriptions, so you have more than just a document name and date of creation). I guess it's a question of resources and whether or not your office (or anyone else's) has the equipment, software and networking necessary to get around the OCR problem. Hope that helps. L. Deshong Flora Kan wrote: Greetings!! Here comes challenge about imaging. John Plantz is the assistant DNA Lab Director at the University of North Texas that I visited last Friday. John Plantz told that your agency uses JusticeTrax to OCR the examination request form and wanted Starfruit to do the same. I agreed. Are you familiar with John Plantz? He seemed impressed with JusticeTrax. Was he used to Georgia lab staff? How can we find out what OCR hardware and software that Georgia is using? By the way, we already got this University's PO. I assumed that University would pay for John's request to implement OCR the way he described how your crime lab used. Regards, Flora Kan Data Unlimited International, Inc. www.duii.com USA 1-240-631-7933 -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:09 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forens] LIMS issues While I missed the original thread, I think that the discussion by this poster needs some clarification. Robert Parsons wrote: > JusticeTrax has allowed the GBI system to go entirely paperless, > with the LIMS storing all worksheets, photos, instrumental output, > and other traditional file contents (I'm told they don't maintain > paper case files at all, and print only what they need when court > testimony is required, then destroy the paper records again > afterwards). Supported agencies fill out their analysis requests > on-line, and receive their lab reports the same way, all in a > secure, distributed environment. The system can also log and > manage all kinds of lab and personnel activity data (user > customizable), and includes both chemical inventory and evidence > inventory reconciliation utilities as add-on options. Please note that my comments are my personal opinion and do not reflect that of my agency, entity, or any affiliated organization. I have not been all that happy with JusticeTrax. JusticeTrax has proven to be pretty inflexible when it comes to Medical Examiner reports and efforts. In particular: 1) The document tracking software is inappropriate for long text documents such as ME reports (as opposed to short, template-based documents such as toxicology reports). The process for amending reports if a typo is discovered late (and this is common when you have tens of pages of free text in a report) is unwieldy. 2) The conversion software from Word to the archive format (PDF) instroduces errors into the archived documents. In particular, many Unicode characters (such as math symbols and such) are not correctly translated, nor are many of the Word formatting calls. Thus, for instance, outlines and bullets are not correctly transcribed. 3) The "paperless" office idea may work well for final reports, but does not work well for systems that have a large amount of external documentation that must be retained. For instance, there is no mechanism for retaining medical records, external laboratory results such as genetic screening in SIDS, etc. This leads to an interesting problem -- as a ME I am obligated to keep and review medical records, but there is no facility in a "paperless" office for keeping and reviewing them. 4) The system for handling evidence and such is inflexible. Not all the world is amenable to barcodes. The bottom line is that JusticeTrax may be wonderful for a tox lab or DNA lab. I don't know. But as far as ME work goes, it attempts to shoehorn everything into the same paradigm -- and it's not appropriate to pound round objects into square holes just because you like square holes. Fundamentally, a software system should facilitate practice, and not dictate it. And it certainly should not *introduce* errors into documents that have been already proofread. I have suggested to my superiors that JusticeTrax is not the best choice for the ME activity here, but again, that is just my personal opinion and doesn't reflect that of anybody else. billo [EndPost by Bill Oliver ] [EndPost by Flora Kan ] --------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by L DeShong ] From forens-owner Sun Oct 16 12:57:08 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9GGv8A2003773 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9GGv8fo003772 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:57:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [151.203.249.160] X-Originating-Email: [sedonapas@msn.com] X-Sender: sedonapas@msn.com From: "paul servizio" To: References: <57472660FB783A47BD72376AF08F08B802D855F5@ts-dps-mail-01.dps.state.mn.us> <735dd9e50510112046w1e934a6bk1714804ead1bda14@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:56:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:56:58 -0400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2005 16:57:00.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[A01C96A0:01C5D272] X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id j9GGv8A2003774 Some time QA staff get carried away. I know of a lab where the QC staff have hospital/ clinical background mostly. They now require the drug crime lab to use a negative control as lactose each day of testing with reagents as Marquis and Cobalt thio...and document by each chemist to be certain that they don't turn colors on the spot plate as they would with opiates or 'caines. This practice makes no sense, especially since everything will be run on GC-MS anyway. Paul Serviz/chemist ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question My sugggestion: Get a new GA/QC person. Pete Barnett On 10/11/05, Koch, James > wrote: > > Does anyone know of a good 'standard' to use to test KOH/methanolic > solutions used in chemical solubility tests for paint analysis? Our > QA/QC person is on a quest to ensure we test all of our reagents before > use in any kind of exam even if they are used in comparative > examinations. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. Please send > any correspondence to the list and/or my email james.koch@state.mn.us. > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [EndPost by "Koch, James" >] > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "Peter D. Barnett" >] --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by "paul servizio" ] From forens-owner Sun Oct 16 13:02:12 2005 Return-Path: Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9GH2CA2004149 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:02:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id j9GH2C2G004148 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:02:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu: MajorDomo set sender to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu using -f From: LeonStein@aol.com Message-ID: <1a7.41785ae5.3083e18a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:02:02 EDT Subject: Re: [forens] QA/QC question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5200 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-StripMime: Non-text section removed by stripmime Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In a message dated 10/16/2005 12:58:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sedonapas@msn.com writes: Some time QA staff get carried away. I know of a lab where the QC staff have hospital/ clinical background mostly. They now require the drug crime lab to use a negative control as lactose each day of testing with reagents as Marquis and Cobalt thio...and document by each chemist to be certain that they don't turn colors on the spot plate as they would with opiates or 'caines. This practice makes no sense, especially since everything will be run on GC-MS anyway. Paul Serviz/chemist Paul - your example is a clear case of QA/QC designed out of fear, rather then designed to be a scientific approach necessary to establish that a testing system is in control. David --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [EndPost by LeonStein@aol.com]