From forens-owner Sat Jan 1 15:46:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09261 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09256 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA05789; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:40:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:40:56 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: WBirkby@aol.com cc: KJohn39679@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site In-Reply-To: <0.5ce4a0ea.259ebb48@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 WBirkby@aol.com wrote: > From: WBirkby@aol.com > > > As a student of politics, I urge others not to fall for this > classism-in-disguise, > carried out by the usual sandal-wearing, PBS-watching crowd. I have seen (and > met) > these people too many times. They are Leftists to the core. > J. M. Birkby > As a student of politics, you should know that it is not only leftists who find the idea of a government killing its citizens willy-nilly a bad idea. Also, as student of politics, you should know that silly characterizations of those who disagree with our collective hunger for ritual killing as "the usual sandal-wearing, PBS-watching crowd," may make you feel good, but its transparent appeal to stereotype over fact does not actually help you gain support. Recognizing that capital punishment, aside from being immoral, evil, and nonproductive in its own right, compounds our national disgrace by its uneven, racist and incorrect application is not a leftist position. It is unfortunate that you see complacency with ritual killing as a "conservative" trait. It is not. billo When the state is most corrupt, the laws are most multiplied. Tacitus From forens-owner Sat Jan 1 17:13:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09774 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 17:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09769 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 17:07:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu ([24.27.39.20]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:58:19 -0600 From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 15:34:13 -0600 Message-ID: <000001bf549f$f28ca4e0$14271b18@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <0.5ce4a0ea.259ebb48@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Let's see if I understand the situation correctly: Tucson, Arizona is experiencing a problem with Louisiana communists who have an agenda to abolish capital punishment by emphasizing that it affects the poor and minorities more than it does wealthy Whites. These leftists can be identified by their sandals and and their proclivity to watch PBS. Also, wrongful executions will cease to be tragic when more DNA testing is implemented. Sheesh, a major vile conspiracy right under my nose, and I failed to notice it. Thank the muses we have forensic scientists to figure these things out. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@Austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of WBirkby@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 8:07 PM To: KJohn39679@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site Concerning the e-mail about the Louisiana Coalition to Abolish the "DP" (Death Penalty): We have some of those here in Tucson. Their main argument is not that innocent people are being executed, but that those executed are "people of color" or "poor". It is still classism (Marxism), wrapped in a new package. They are more concerned about who specifically is being killed than the killing itself. As a student of politics, I urge others not to fall for this classism-in-disguise, carried out by the usual sandal-wearing, PBS-watching crowd. I have seen (and met) these people too many times. They are Leftists to the core. Any wrongful execution is tragic. But with DNA testing being used much more often, this will change. J. M. Birkby From forens-owner Sat Jan 1 20:59:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA11024 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 20:52:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA11019 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 20:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNO0004IQJYKC@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 17:52:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 17:59:05 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <000b01bf54c4$f317a700$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Jerry; By this logic, would Nova and Frontline be considered "gateway" programming? Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald L. Hurst To: Forens E-mail Group Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2000 1:34 PM Subject: RE: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site > Let's see if I understand the situation correctly: > > Tucson, Arizona is experiencing a problem with Louisiana > communists who have an agenda to abolish capital punishment > by emphasizing that it affects the poor and minorities more > than it does wealthy Whites. These leftists can be > identified by their sandals and and their proclivity to > watch PBS. > > Also, wrongful executions will cease to be tragic when > more DNA testing is implemented. > > Sheesh, a major vile conspiracy right under my nose, and > I failed to notice it. Thank the muses we have forensic > scientists to figure these things out. > > Jerry > > Gerald L. Hurst > ghurst@Austin.rr.com > From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 07:54:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22896 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:49:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22891 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:49:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA02023 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:49:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 07:49:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: So, how bad was *your* Y2K hype? In-Reply-To: <000b01bf54c4$f317a700$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Here's a question for you IM folk in the forensic world. Now that we have passed the infamous "Y2K" mark, how many of your problems actually have had more to do with your precautions and testing rather than from any actual Y2K vulnerability? I just got back from my Christmas break and have rebooted the lab. I do system admin for about 30 machines, varying from Windoze NT boxes to Linux boxex to SGI Irix and Sun Solaris boxes. This weekend, we decided to turn off all our boxes over the New Year changeover since we figured it would be a prime time for intruders to attempt to exploit any undocumented Y2K vulnerabilities in our firewall, and since nobody was going to be here to keep an eye out. As most of you know, the most vulnerable period for a box is power-off/power-on, which is when most hardware failures occur. Sure enough, I came in this morning, started turning on boxes, and three of my boxes had hardware failures -- two with memory chip failures and one with a dard drive failure. Interestingly enough, there have been *no* software glitches yet -- at least at the OS level. So, now, instead of doing casework or research today, I will be playing computer repairman. I started thinking about this. The testing software we used over the past few months actually caused more problems than it solved -- particularly the stuff for Windoze PCs. We had, on average, a corruption of the boot sector or other breakdown in about 20 percent of the boxes we ran diagnostics on, but the problems were with the disgnostics corrupting things, not "real" Y2K problems. All of the Y2K problems uncovered were trivial, but the time to do the testing and the time and cost to repair the damage from the testing was significant. I remember about a year ago when the managerial class really started getting hysteric about this. Of course testing had to be done, and without it there would likely have been some scattered catastrophes here and there. But not here. And, according to all the tech folk I've talked to, not at any of the places I've asked. It has been interesting to note the difference between the responses of the tech folk and the managerial folk, as well. The tech folk have all been going "Yeah, well, it was really no big deal," while the managerial folk have been very busy patting themselves on the back for their decisive action. At my site, the only Y2K "vulnerability" was that the date function on our crime scene cameras didn't work; it didn't matter because we don't use it. So, all youse guys what were on your respective Y2K committees, etc. -- what was *your* experience? billo From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 10:37:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA24773 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA24768 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:35:50 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.6c9c50cb (4188) for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:35:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.6c9c50cb.25a21bb5@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:35:17 EST Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 12/21/99 8:24:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > Now, if we could only convince John Kelly (and others) to follow John > Lentini's example and post a summary or comment with a URL, (snip) >And his subject line even shows that he knew it! Now, if we could only convince others to follow John Kelly's example and care about the infringement upon the rights of citizens by corrupt law enforcement practices. And the evidence even shows that they know about it! According to the Tribune report Florida State Trooper "Strickland stunned the courtroom by testifying that he and his colleagues have routinely filed incomplete and misleading arrest affidavits when working with federal agents" How many care enough to be stunned? How many care enough to do something about it? Forensic science does not operate in a vacuum isolated from the influences of those who administrate department policy. Try as one may it is impossible to remain absolutely immune from one's environment. If a crime lab is controlled by a law enforcement agency that tolerates or encourages officers and agents to build a convincing case even if evidence must be obtained, processed, or presented in an unethical manner, then no devotion to empirical methods can long prevent a compromise of integrity. One must either oppose corruption or embrace it. There is no gray area once misconduct is observed. To look the other way is to become an accomplice. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 11:12:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25063 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:10:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25058 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:10:54 -0500 (EST) From: Knarfgerg@aol.com Received: from Knarfgerg@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.9d8ab40a (4403) for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:10:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.9d8ab40a.25a223e2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:10:10 EST Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 47 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I would love to live in a world where a scientist is allowed to not only acquire data, but also interpret it. I say I would love to since it seems to me that we forensic scientists are being pushed into technician roles. Look at CTS proficiency reports over the last few years and I think you will see that more and more labs are reporting out only data, no conclusions about the data. And the ASCLD/LAB inspection my lab just went through made me realize that ASCLD/LAB cannot write criteria to judge labs that include the scientist's experience. The criteria would be too subjective. So the criteria they have is what data and how to collect it, not the interpretation of that data. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my employer. Greg Frank WSP Crime Lab--Marysville Marysville, WA 98271 knarfgerg@aol.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 12:03:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25813 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:58:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1202.mail.yahoo.com (web1202.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.138]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA25808 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9352 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Jan 2000 16:58:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000103165842.9351.qmail@web1202.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [140.239.17.60] by web1202.mail.yahoo.com; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 08:58:42 PST Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:58:42 -0800 (PST) From: Alexis Surpitski Subject: hair testing for drugs To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hello! I'm new to this list. My name is Alexis D. Surpitski and I am a recent graduate of Penn State University currently making my way in "the real world". I am working on a research project involving substance abusers and we were considering substituting hair testing for urine testing as a biological measure of use. We have heard about the basic advantages: 90 day window; ability to tell heavy users from light; reduced ease of altering the sample. Furthermore, we have covered the major controversies: bias due to melanin (the company we would be using for testing bleaches the hair and claims this eradicates this issue); ability to wash out the drugs (the company looks at the core of the hair not the outside and says this eradicates this issue). What I am interested in finding out, since all of our current information comes from a representative of a hair testing company, is objections people have to using hair tests instead of urine and what these objections are founded on. If you do have any comments, please write. Thanks so much. Alexis D. Surpitski __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 14:21:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27250 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f161.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.161]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA27245 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:19:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 77208 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jan 2000 19:18:46 -0000 Message-ID: <20000103191846.77207.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.245.64.81 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 11:18:46 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.245.64.81] From: "chris breyer" To: KJohn39679@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 11:18:46 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Good article, enjoyed reading it, won't comment on agreeing or disagreeing, but i will ask "why was this posted on a list about forensic science?" Chris Breyer >From: KJohn39679@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Fwd: A Good Article: Louisiana Coalition Launches New Web Site >Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:13:42 EST > > ><< message3.txt >> ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 15:00:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27958 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:58:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us [167.10.5.136]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27941 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:58:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ix.netcom.com by mudd.hdcdojnet.state.ca.us (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA28477; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:58:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3870FEF2.DDF57C1D@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 11:56:34 -0800 From: Keith Inman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forensic mailing list Subject: Seeking Duane Dillon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Will Duane Dillon please respond to me off-list? Thanks for the patience of the list. All the best.......Keith Inman CAL/DNA From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 15:19:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28317 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:18:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28312 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:18:11 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.9f9514bd (4227); Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:17:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.9f9514bd.25a25de2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:17:38 EST Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: Knarfgerg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/3/00 1:39:52 PM, Knarfgerg@aol.com writes: << Look at CTS proficiency reports over the last few years and I think you will see that more and more labs are reporting out only data, no conclusions about the data. >> Thank God they're only reporting the data. Until there are straight forward, nationwide standards for forensic scientists and their crime labs, that's all they should do. When some of these so-called crime lab "scientists" offer their dubious 'scientific opinions' regarding crime evidence, they are no doubt biased and pro-prosecution -- just look at who signs their paychecks. In the quest to rise to the top in their field, they stretch the truth so far that they turn it into lies and help convict innocent people along the way -- all for The Win. A lot of these "scientists" embellish their credentials enough to make juries think they are experts in many sciences when in reality, they aren't even scientists. I'm not saying that it's every forensic scientist -- it may be a relatively small percentage -- but I doubt that. It's frightening to think that these individuals that are untrained and without credentials should have as much power as they do in our court system. How many innocent people have been imprisoned or executed due to a "scientist" giving an "expert" opinion? I think you would find the sheer number of wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed frightening. It could happen to you. Scientists should testify on the facts science, not by biased "expert" opinion. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 15:33:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28529 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:31:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28524 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:31:09 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.f3deb2a3 (3958) for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:30:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.f3deb2a3.25a260e3@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:30:27 EST Subject: Fwd: scary To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.f3deb2a3.25a260e3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_0.f3deb2a3.25a260e3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_0.f3deb2a3.25a260e3_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: Sidg@aol.com From: Sidg@aol.com Full-name: Sidg Message-ID: <0.d6539e0d.25a25912@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:57:06 EST Subject: Fwd: scary To: abe@cuadp.org, BPauley@compuserve.com, KJohn39679@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_0.f3deb2a3.25a25912_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 --part2_0.f3deb2a3.25a25912_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part2_0.f3deb2a3.25a25912_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 14:13:03 -0500 Received: from pimout7-int.prodigy.net (pimout7-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.59.180]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 14:12:52 -0500 Received: from pavilion (TAMPB102-41.splitrock.net [209.156.26.41]) by pimout7-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA56728; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:12:48 -0500 Message-ID: <00b901bf5637$c97f0cc0$291a9cd1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" Subject: scary Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:13:36 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B6_01BF55F4.BA02F380" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01BF55F4.BA02F380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FOREIGN NATIONALS EXECUTED SINCE 1976:=20 Carlos Santana + Dominican Texas March 23, 1993=20 Ramon Montoya + Mexican Texas March 25, 1993=20 Nicholas Ingram British/ American Georgia April 7, 1995=20 Pedro Medina Cuban Florida March 25, 1997=20 Irineo Montoya + Mexican Texas June 18, 1997=20 Mario Murphy + Mexican Virginia September 18, 1997=20 Angel Breard + Paraguayan Virginia April 14, 1998=20 Jose Villafuerte + Honduran Arizona April 22, 1998=20 Tuan Nguyen Vietnamese Oklahoma December 10, 1998=20 Jaturun Siripongs + Thailand California February 9, 1999=20 Karl LaGrand + Germany Arizona February 24, 1999=20 Walter LaGrand + Germany Arizona March 3, 1999=20 Alvaro Calamvro Filippino Nevada April 5, 1999=20 Joseph Stanley Faulder + Canadian Texas June 17, 1999=20 All indications are that none of these executed individuals were notified by= U.S. authorities after arrest of their right to communicate with their cons= ular representatives, as required under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention=20= on Consular Relations. Cases indicated with (+) are those in which the consu= lar notification issue was raised on appeal.=20 FOREIGN NATIONALS RELEASED ON GROUNDS OF INNOCENCE Ricardo Aldape Guerra + M= exican Texas April 1997=20 Roberto Miranda Cuban Nevada Sepember 1996=20 ------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01BF55F4.BA02F380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FOREIGN NATIONALS EXECUTED SINCE 1976:

Carlos Santana + Dominican Texas March 23, 1993
Ramon Montoya + Mexican Texas March 25, 1993
Nicholas Ingram British/ American Georgia April 7, 1995
Pedro Medina Cuban Florida March 25, 1997
Irineo Montoya + Mexican Texas June 18, 1997
Mario Murphy + Mexican Virginia September 18, 1997
Angel Breard + Paraguayan Virginia April 14, 1998
Jose Villafuerte + Honduran Arizona April 22, 1998
Tuan Nguyen Vietnamese Oklahoma December 10, 1998
Jaturun Siripongs + Thailand California February 9, 1999
Karl LaGrand + Germany Arizona February 24, 1999
Walter LaGrand + Germany Arizona March 3, 1999
Alvaro Calamvro Filippino Nevada April 5, 1999
Joseph Stanley Faulder + Canadian Texas June 17, 1999

All indications are that none of these executed individuals were notified= by=20 U.S. authorities after arrest of their right to communicate with their consu= lar=20 representatives, as required under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on=20 Consular Relations. Cases indicated with (+) are those in which the consular= =20 notification issue was raised on appeal.

FOREIGN NATIONALS RELEASED ON GROUNDS OF INNOCENCE=20
Ricardo Aldape Guerra + Mexican Texas April 1997
Roberto Miranda Cuban Nevada Sepember 1996
------=_NextPart_000_00B6_01BF55F4.BA02F380-- --part2_0.f3deb2a3.25a25912_boundary-- --part1_0.f3deb2a3.25a260e3_boundary-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 15:44:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28636 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from tengu.host4u.net (tengu.host4u.net [209.150.128.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28630 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from hp (ezvl-82ppp41.epix.net [199.224.82.41]) by tengu.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21244 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:42:32 -0600 Message-Id: <4.1.20000103152857.0092c4c0@digitaliq.com> X-Sender: digitaliq@digitaliq.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 15:44:30 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Digital InQuest Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_9944540==_.ALT" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --=====================_9944540==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations said: Now, if we could only convince others to follow John Kelly's example and care about the infringement upon the rights of citizens by corrupt law enforcement practices. And the evidence even shows that they know about it! As long as we have an adversarial system where convictions are the most important goal rather than the truth, society will continue to look the other way and refuse to see that the system is fraught with corruption. After all, don't the cops have an "inner crystal ball, ' the hunch' " that leads them to the correct conclusion almost always? We only become concerned when we become the target.....that is regrettable. If a crime lab is controlled by a law enforcement agency that tolerates or encourages officers and agents to build a convincing case even if evidence must be obtained, processed, or presented in an unethical manner, then no devotion to empirical methods can long prevent a compromise of integrity. I don't believe crime labs should be controlled by any law enforcement agency. The evidence should be collected and tested by a completely unrelated system, neither "for" the prosecution nor defense. Allow the evidence to truly stand or fall on its own. My two cents worth Janet --=====================_9944540==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations said:

Now, if we could only convince others to follow John Kelly's example and care about the infringement upon the rights of citizens by corrupt law enforcement
practices. And the evidence even shows that they know about it!
As long as we have an adversarial system where convictions are the most important goal rather than the truth, society will continue to look the other way and refuse to see that the system is fraught with corruption.  After all, don't the cops have an "inner crystal ball, ' the hunch' " that leads them to the correct conclusion almost always? We only become concerned when we become the target.....that is regrettable.

If a crime lab is controlled by a law enforcement agency that tolerates or encourages officers and agents to build a convincing case even if evidence must be
obtained, processed, or presented in an unethical manner, then no devotion to empirical methods can long prevent a compromise of integrity.
I don't believe crime labs should be controlled by any law enforcement agency. The evidence should be collected and tested by a completely unrelated system, neither "for" the prosecution nor defense. Allow the evidence to truly stand or fall on its own.

My two cents worth
Janet --=====================_9944540==_.ALT-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 16:16:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28907 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28901 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:14:35 -0500 (EST) From: lmundy418@aol.com Received: from lmundy418@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.b0f848b (5739) for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:13:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.b0f848b.25a26b17@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:13:59 EST Subject: Glipizide levels? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 20 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id QAA28902 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Can anyone provide therapeutic/toxic/overdose levels for Glipizide (Glucotrol®)?? I couldn't find any in Baselt or in the PDR! Thanks in advance-- Lisa Mundy From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 16:16:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA28914 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:15:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28909 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:15:06 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 3.0.6760b332 (3958); Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:14:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.6760b332.25a26b34@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:14:28 EST Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment To: digitaliq@digitaliq.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/4/00 5:02:23 AM, digitaliq@digitaliq.com writes: << Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations said: Now, if we could only convince others to follow John Kelly's example and care about the infringement upon the rights of citizens by corrupt law enforcement practices. And the evidence even shows that they know about it! As long as we have an adversarial system where convictions are the most important goal rather than the truth, society will continue to look the other way and refuse to see that the system is fraught with corruption. After all, don't the cops have an "inner crystal ball, ' the hunch' " that leads them to the correct conclusion almost always? We only become concerned when we become the target.....that is regrettable. If a crime lab is controlled by a law enforcement agency that tolerates or encourages officers and agents to build a convincing case even if evidence must be obtained, processed, or presented in an unethical manner, then no devotion to empirical methods can long prevent a compromise of integrity. I don't believe crime labs should be controlled by any law enforcement agency. The evidence should be collected and tested by a completely unrelated system, neither "for" the prosecution nor defense. Allow the evidence to truly stand or fall on its own. My two cents worth Janet -------------------- Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations said: Now, if we could only convince others to follow John Kelly's example and care about the infringement upon the rights of citizens by corrupt law enforcement practices. And the evidence even shows that they know about it! As long as we have an adversarial system where convictions are the most important goal rather than the truth, society will continue to look the other way and refuse to see that the system is fraught with corruption.  After all, don't the cops have an "inner crystal ball, ' the hunch' " that leads them to the correct conclusion almost always? We only become concerned when we become the target.....that is regrettable. If a crime lab is controlled by a law enforcement agency that tolerates or encourages officers and agents to build a convincing case even if evidence must be obtained, processed, or presented in an unethical manner, then no devotion to empirical methods can long prevent a compromise of integrity. I don't believe crime labs should be controlled by any law enforcement agency. The evidence should be collected and tested by a completely unrelated system, neither "for" the prosecution nor defense. Allow the evidence to truly stand or fall on its own. My two cents worth Janet One should start with the FBI lab which has been one and the same with the law enforcement component of the FBI since its inception. Indeed for most of its existence, the majority of FBI laab personnel were agents. John Kelly ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb01.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:02:23 -0500 Received: from brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:02:09 -0500 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28636 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:42:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from tengu.host4u.net (tengu.host4u.net [209.150.128.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28630 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from hp (ezvl-82ppp41.epix.net [199.224.82.41]) by tengu.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21244 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 14:42:32 -0600 Message-Id: <4.1.20000103152857.0092c4c0@digitaliq.com> X-Sender: digitaliq@digitaliq.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 15:44:30 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Digital InQuest Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_9944540==_.ALT" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk >> From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 16:42:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29146 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:37:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29124 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:37:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:32:42 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C208@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: scary Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:36:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO And the forensic science take-home point was? Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 2:30 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Fwd: scary From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 17:11:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29454 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:08:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA29448 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 Jan 2000 22:08:48 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:03:23 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'lmundy418@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Glipizide levels? Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:03:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.59FAE1E0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.59FAE1E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What you need is a Material Safety Data Sheet- the MSDS will contain toxicity data as well as a wealth of other health and safety = information. Most chemical manufacturers maintain free MSDS search engines on their = web sites, as do many chemical industry organizations and regulatory = agencies. Here is one of the best MSDS search engines I know of, in that it = searches the MSDS databases of dozens of different companies: http://www.msdsonline.com/ Type in the name of just about any chemical you want data on, and you = will find an MSDS on it. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: lmundy418@aol.com [mailto:lmundy418@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 4:14 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Glipizide levels? Can anyone provide therapeutic/toxic/overdose levels for Glipizide=20 (Glucotrol=AE)?? I couldn't find any in Baselt or in the PDR! Thanks in advance-- Lisa Mundy ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.59FAE1E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Glipizide levels?

What you need is a Material Safety Data Sheet- the = MSDS will contain toxicity data as well as a wealth of other health and = safety information.  Most chemical manufacturers maintain free = MSDS search engines on their web sites, as do many chemical industry = organizations and regulatory agencies.

Here is one of the best MSDS search engines I know = of, in that it searches the MSDS databases of dozens of different = companies: http://www.msdsonline.com/

Type in the name of just about any chemical you want = data on, and you will find an MSDS on it.  Good luck.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: lmundy418@aol.com [mailto:lmundy418@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 4:14 PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Glipizide levels?


Can anyone provide therapeutic/toxic/overdose levels = for Glipizide
(Glucotrol=AE)?? I couldn't find any in Baselt or in = the PDR!
Thanks in advance--
Lisa Mundy

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.59FAE1E0-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 17:12:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29463 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA29457 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:10:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 Jan 2000 22:10:28 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:05:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: So, how bad was *your* Y2K hype? Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:05:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.95A65C56" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.95A65C56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" We had no problems, other than having to manually reset the dates on our old 386 and 486 computers (the ones running some of our older instruments). But then, I took the precaution of installing all the Y2K updates that Microsoft recommended and offered for Windows 95 and NT. I can't say what might have happened if I hadn't done that, but probably nothing. Near as I can tell, most of those fixes had to do with Internet Explorer, and none of these machines are hooked to the Internet, so they don't use IE for much of anything. There are some arcane interactivities between the rest of Windows and the "integrated" IE, so it is possible there might have been minor problems I guess. I didn't bother with the huge service packs (SPs) for Office '97, since we recently replaced all of our office (non-instrument) computers and they are all using Office 2000 with its SP #1, and supposedly (according to Microsoft) have no Y2K or security problems. The service packs for Office '97 supposedly fix many small glitches and some potentially significant security vulnerabilities in various Office applications, so for anyone who is still using Office 97 in conjunction with web activity (Outlook, Excel, Word, etc.), I recommend you download and install those SPs. I would if I were you. Better yet, if you can afford to spend the money, move up to Office 2000 and avoid the hassle. You could also choose to use Corel Office (Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, etc.), which doesn't seem to have these problems. I use both. I think WordPerfect is a far superior word processor, for example, but I prefer Excel and Access to Quattro and Paradox, and I find a lot of the MS Office peripherals very handy (Imager, etc.). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@radix.net] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 7:50 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: So, how bad was *your* Y2K hype? Here's a question for you IM folk in the forensic world. Now that we have passed the infamous "Y2K" mark, how many of your problems actually have had more to do with your precautions and testing rather than from any actual Y2K vulnerability? I just got back from my Christmas break and have rebooted the lab. I do system admin for about 30 machines, varying from Windoze NT boxes to Linux boxex to SGI Irix and Sun Solaris boxes. This weekend, we decided to turn off all our boxes over the New Year changeover since we figured it would be a prime time for intruders to attempt to exploit any undocumented Y2K vulnerabilities in our firewall, and since nobody was going to be here to keep an eye out. As most of you know, the most vulnerable period for a box is power-off/power-on, which is when most hardware failures occur. Sure enough, I came in this morning, started turning on boxes, and three of my boxes had hardware failures -- two with memory chip failures and one with a dard drive failure. Interestingly enough, there have been *no* software glitches yet -- at least at the OS level. So, now, instead of doing casework or research today, I will be playing computer repairman. I started thinking about this. The testing software we used over the past few months actually caused more problems than it solved -- particularly the stuff for Windoze PCs. We had, on average, a corruption of the boot sector or other breakdown in about 20 percent of the boxes we ran diagnostics on, but the problems were with the disgnostics corrupting things, not "real" Y2K problems. All of the Y2K problems uncovered were trivial, but the time to do the testing and the time and cost to repair the damage from the testing was significant. I remember about a year ago when the managerial class really started getting hysteric about this. Of course testing had to be done, and without it there would likely have been some scattered catastrophes here and there. But not here. And, according to all the tech folk I've talked to, not at any of the places I've asked. It has been interesting to note the difference between the responses of the tech folk and the managerial folk, as well. The tech folk have all been going "Yeah, well, it was really no big deal," while the managerial folk have been very busy patting themselves on the back for their decisive action. At my site, the only Y2K "vulnerability" was that the date function on our crime scene cameras didn't work; it didn't matter because we don't use it. So, all youse guys what were on your respective Y2K committees, etc. -- what was *your* experience? billo ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.95A65C56 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: So, how bad was *your* Y2K hype?

We had no problems, other than having to manually = reset the dates on our old 386 and 486 computers (the ones running some = of our older instruments).  But then, I took the precaution of = installing all the Y2K updates that Microsoft recommended and offered = for Windows 95 and NT.  I can't say what might have happened if I = hadn't done that, but probably nothing.  Near as I can tell, most = of those fixes had to do with Internet Explorer, and none of these = machines are hooked to the Internet, so they don't use IE for much of = anything.  There are some arcane interactivities between the rest = of Windows and the "integrated" IE, so it is possible there = might have been minor problems I guess. 

I didn't bother with the huge service packs (SPs) for = Office '97, since we recently replaced all of our office = (non-instrument) computers and they are all using Office 2000 with its = SP #1, and supposedly (according to Microsoft) have no Y2K or security = problems.  The service packs for Office '97 supposedly fix many = small glitches and some potentially significant security = vulnerabilities in various Office applications, so for anyone who is = still using Office 97 in conjunction with web activity (Outlook, Excel, = Word, etc.), I recommend you download and install those SPs.  I = would if I were you.  Better yet, if you can afford to spend the = money, move up to Office 2000 and avoid the hassle.  You could = also choose to use Corel Office (Word Perfect, Quattro Pro, etc.), = which doesn't seem to have these problems.  I use both.  I = think WordPerfect is a far superior word processor, for example, but I = prefer Excel and Access to Quattro and Paradox, and I find a lot of the = MS Office peripherals very handy (Imager, etc.).

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@radix.net]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 7:50 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: So, how bad was *your* Y2K hype?



Here's a question for you IM folk in the forensic = world.  Now that we
have passed the infamous "Y2K" mark, how = many of your problems actually
have had more to do with your precautions and = testing rather than from
any actual Y2K vulnerability?

I just got back from my Christmas break and have = rebooted the lab.  I
do system admin for about 30 machines, varying from = Windoze NT boxes to
Linux boxex to SGI Irix and Sun Solaris = boxes.

This weekend, we decided to turn off all our boxes = over the New Year
changeover since we figured it would be a prime time = for intruders to
attempt to exploit any undocumented Y2K = vulnerabilities in our
firewall, and since nobody was going to be here to = keep an eye out.  As
most of you know, the most vulnerable period for a = box is
power-off/power-on, which is when most hardware = failures occur.  Sure
enough, I came in this morning, started turning on = boxes, and three of
my boxes had hardware failures -- two with memory = chip failures and one
with a dard drive failure.  Interestingly = enough, there have
been *no* software glitches yet -- at least at the = OS level.

So, now, instead of doing casework or research today, = I will
be playing computer repairman.

I started thinking about this.  The testing = software we used
over the past few months actually caused more = problems than
it solved -- particularly the stuff for Windoze = PCs.  We had,
on average, a corruption of the boot sector or other = breakdown
in about 20 percent of the boxes we ran diagnostics = on, but the
problems were with the disgnostics corrupting = things, not "real"
Y2K problems. All of the Y2K problems uncovered were = trivial,
but the time to do the testing and the time and cost = to repair
the damage from the testing was significant.

I remember about a year ago when the managerial class = really
started getting hysteric about this.  Of course = testing had
to be done, and without it there would likely have = been
some scattered catastrophes here and there.  =

But not here.

And, according to all the tech folk I've talked to, = not at
any of the places I've asked.  It has been = interesting to
note the difference between the responses of the = tech folk
and the managerial folk, as well.  The tech = folk have all
been going "Yeah, well, it was really no big = deal," while
the managerial folk have been very busy patting = themselves
on the back for their decisive action.  At my = site, the
only Y2K "vulnerability" was that the date = function on
our crime scene cameras didn't work; it didn't = matter because
we don't use it.

So, all youse guys what were on your respective Y2K = committees,
etc. -- what was *your* experience?


billo

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5636.95A65C56-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 17:22:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA29611 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:20:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA29606 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:20:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 Jan 2000 22:20:27 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:15:02 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Thompson, Roger'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Request Information/Source Forensic Laboratory Safety Video T rain ing Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 17:15:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5637.FA518620" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5637.FA518620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" There are a great many companies selling training videos for employers, including laboratories. Don't forget training on OSHA's Chemical Hygiene Laboratory Standard and Bloodborne Pathogen Standard. Here is one of the most comprehensive training video vendors I know of: Long Island Productions web - www.lip-online.com email - lipmail@mindspring.com phone - 1-800-397-5215. They have an on-line catalog which lists not only videos, but also training books and kits, CD-ROMs, etc. There are other similar vendors available on-line and off-line. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Roger [mailto:rthompson@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us] Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 10:52 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: Request Information/Source Forensic Laboratory Safety Video Train ing We have been using a video (VHS format) acquired from the University of Virginia for our annual safety training. This video covers the chemistry lab basics and includes a test sheet for the participants to complete as a record of understanding and documentation for our training files. I suspect there are other perhaps more forensic-lab safety oriented training videos available, which cover chemical, biological, fume hood, general laboratory safety procedure issues. If anyone has information or a contact source, I would appreciate the help. Roger C. Thompson Crime Laboratory Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Voice- 704-353-1100 Fax- 704-353-0088 Page- 704-565-7054 rthompson@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5637.FA518620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Request Information/Source Forensic Laboratory Safety Video Training
There are a great many companies selling training videos for employers, including laboratories.  Don't forget training on OSHA's Chemical Hygiene Laboratory Standard and Bloodborne Pathogen Standard.
 
Here is one of the most comprehensive training video vendors I know of: 
 
Long Island Productions
phone - 1-800-397-5215.
 
They have an on-line catalog which lists not only videos, but also training books and kits, CD-ROMs, etc.  There are other similar vendors available on-line and off-line.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson, Roger [mailto:rthompson@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us]
Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 10:52 AM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: Request Information/Source Forensic Laboratory Safety Video Train ing

We have been using a video (VHS format) acquired from the University of Virginia for our annual safety training.  This video covers the chemistry lab basics and includes a test sheet for the participants to complete as a record of understanding and documentation for our training files.  I suspect there are other perhaps more forensic-lab safety oriented training videos available, which cover chemical, biological, fume hood, general laboratory safety procedure issues.  If anyone has information or a contact source, I would appreciate the help.

Roger C. Thompson
Crime Laboratory Director
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Voice- 704-353-1100
Fax-   704-353-0088
Page-  704-565-7054
rthompson@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us


------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5637.FA518620-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 18:43:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00150 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:39:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00141 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 Jan 2000 23:39:24 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:33:59 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Alexis Surpitski'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: hair testing for drugs Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:33:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.022293A2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.022293A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" I would be wary of such claims. There are published studies showing that even rigorous washing/processing protocols can fail to remove all surface contaminants. Contrarily, there are also published studies showing that such protocols are quite effective. This is still an active area of investigation, with no definitive answers you can rely on. The bottom line for now is that there are no hair-testing protocols I'm aware of that are NIDA certified, so their usefulness is limited. If I were you, I'd stick with urine and blood drug screens for the time being. In the future, who knows? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Alexis Surpitski [mailto:asurpitski@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 11:59 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: hair testing for drugs Hello! I'm new to this list. My name is Alexis D. Surpitski and I am a recent graduate of Penn State University currently making my way in "the real world". I am working on a research project involving substance abusers and we were considering substituting hair testing for urine testing as a biological measure of use. We have heard about the basic advantages: 90 day window; ability to tell heavy users from light; reduced ease of altering the sample. Furthermore, we have covered the major controversies: bias due to melanin (the company we would be using for testing bleaches the hair and claims this eradicates this issue); ability to wash out the drugs (the company looks at the core of the hair not the outside and says this eradicates this issue). What I am interested in finding out, since all of our current information comes from a representative of a hair testing company, is objections people have to using hair tests instead of urine and what these objections are founded on. If you do have any comments, please write. Thanks so much. Alexis D. Surpitski __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.022293A2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: hair testing for drugs

I would be wary of such claims.  There are = published studies showing that even rigorous washing/processing = protocols can fail to remove all surface contaminants.  = Contrarily, there are also published studies showing that such = protocols are quite effective.  This is still an active area of = investigation, with no definitive answers you can rely on.  The = bottom line for now is that there are no hair-testing protocols I'm = aware of that are NIDA certified, so their usefulness is limited.  = If I were you, I'd stick with urine and blood drug screens for the time = being.  In the future, who knows?

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexis Surpitski [mailto:asurpitski@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 11:59 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: hair testing for drugs


Hello!  I'm new to this list.  My name is = Alexis D.
Surpitski and I am a recent graduate of Penn = State
University currently making my way in "the = real
world".  I am working on a research = project involving
substance abusers and we were considering = substituting
hair testing for urine testing as a biological = measure
of use.

We have heard about the basic advantages: 90 = day
window; ability to tell heavy users from = light;
reduced ease of altering the sample.

Furthermore, we have covered the major = controversies:
bias due to melanin (the company we would be using = for
testing bleaches the hair and claims this = eradicates
this issue); ability to wash out the drugs = (the
company looks at the core of the hair not the = outside
and says this eradicates this issue).

What I am interested in finding out, since all of = our
current information comes from a representative of = a
hair testing company, is objections people have = to
using hair tests instead of urine and what = these
objections are founded on.  If you do have = any
comments, please write.

Thanks so much.

Alexis D. Surpitski
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! = Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.022293A2-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 18:48:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00209 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:45:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00199 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:45:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 3 Jan 2000 23:45:26 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:40:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Quattrone, Alfredo (DHS-FDB)'" , "'catforum@onelist.com'" , forensl , "'Patricia Lough'" , "'Phillips,William,DOJTox.LabMgr'" , Sarah Kerrigan , "'RobertFitzgerald, PhD, VAMC_UCSD'" , "'Katina Kypridakes,Mgr.PrcurCnt'" , "Baldridge, Peter (DHS-FDB)" , "'Peter Baldridge, Senior DHS Attorney'" , "Davidson, Allen (DHS-FDB)" , "Wilson, Ray (DHS-FDB)" Cc: "'Barquest, James, Ph.D.,Med.Device & Safety Unit Chief'" , "Wallace, John (DHS-FDB)" , "Ko, Richard (DHS-FDB)" Subject: RE: [catforum] GHB Field Test Kits Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:40:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.DA1E3AB8" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.DA1E3AB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Few jurisdictions control such precursors, so it may be a moot point = outside of California. Many states (perhaps most) still do not control GHB as = a drug, let alone its precursors. My own state added GHB to the = controlled substance list in 1998, but as far as I know does not control any of = the precursors you listed in any way.=20 Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Quattrone, Alfredo (DHS-FDB) [mailto:AQuattro@dhs.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 5:46 PM To: 'catforum@onelist.com'; forensl; 'Patricia Lough'; 'Phillips,William,DOJTox.LabMgr'; Sarah Kerrigan; 'RobertFitzgerald, PhD, VAMC_UCSD'; 'Katina Kypridakes,Mgr.PrcurCnt'; Baldridge, Peter (DHS-FDB); 'Peter Baldridge, Senior DHS Attorney'; Davidson, Allen (DHS-FDB); Wilson, Ray (DHS-FDB) Cc: 'Barquest, James, Ph.D.,Med.Device & Safety Unit Chief'; Wallace, John (DHS-FDB); Ko, Richard (DHS-FDB) Subject: RE: [catforum] GHB Field Test Kits -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Lough [mailto:plough7537@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 9:39 AM To: CAT Forum; forensl Subject: [catforum] GHB Field Test Kits Ms. Lough - Please note that these kits may NOT WORK for detection of = the newer precursers of GBL & GHB; SUCH PRECURSORS AS: such as = 1,4-butanediol (1,4-BD), or esters thereof (ex. 1,4-butanediol diacetate or diproprianoate), may or may NOT react or complex with the coponents of = such kits, yielding FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS! Whether such kits are Approved by US FDA, in collabration with US DEA, = is also unknown. The reason for possible false positives, of course, is = that 1,4-butanediol itself lacks, at a very least, a single carboxylate = group. The 1,4-butanediol & its diesters, however, are readily converted by = human (liver) alcohol dehydrogenases/ oxidases into gGBH. The 1,4-butanediol = & its diesters are NOW more readily sold via the internet and via illegal = OTC, but more often as "Dietary Supplements". We at DHS (FDB unit) have = recently published a Public Health Alert Warning on abuse and illegal sale of = 1,4-BD and its derivatives (notably the diesters) as abuse substances in themseleves. =20 You may view previous Alerts at http://www.dhs.ca.gov/home/warnings/index.htm , as well as this Alert = at: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/opa/prssrels/1999/54-99.htm . I willl copy and = reprint as well the Alert here: California DHS - Office of Public Affairs NUMBER: 54-99 DATE: December 17, 1999=20 FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE CONTACT: Ken August or Lea Brooks=20 http://www.dhs.ca.gov (916) 657-3064=20 =20 =20 STATE HEALTH DIRECTOR ISSUES WARNING ON ILLEGAL DRUGS SACRAMENTO - State health officials are renewing their warning about a = group of drugs marketed as dietary supplements following reports that three Riverside County body-builders were hospitalized with acute respiratory failure and delirium within one hour of consuming NRG3. The product = contains the ingredient 1,4-butanediol (1,4-BD), also known as 1,4 = tetramethylene glycol, l,4 butylene glycol, butane 1,4 diol or Sucol-B. State Health Director Diana Bonta=B4 is advising consumers not to = consume any product with 1,4-BD because it has been associated with severe and life-threatening health problems. Manufacturers of these products = market them under a variety of names, but other products with this ingredient = are enLiven, Zen, Serenity, Somato-Pro, Orange FX Rush, Lemon FX Drop, = Cherry FX Bomb, Borametz, Pine Needle Extract, Promusol or BVM. The three = Riverside County residents who became ill after consuming NRG3 have since = recovered. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) warned consumers = earlier this year about the use of these products after a number of reports of health problems, including headaches, vomiting, slow heart rate, slow breathing, seizures, unconsciousness, coma and one death. These = products can be in liquid, powder, capsule or other forms and are promoted with = claims to build muscles, improve physical performance, reduce stress, enhance sex = and induce sleep. They may be sold via the Internet or in health food = stores, gymnasiums and fitness centers. Use of these products has been associated with 232 injuries in = California in 1998 and 49 deaths nationwide, including two in California, from 1995 through October 1999, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). DHS considers products containing 1,4-BD to be unapproved drugs. Such = drugs cannot be sold legally in California. Manufacturers and sellers of = these products face removal of their product from sale and possible civil or criminal action.=20 These products are related to gamma hydroxy butyrate (GHB) and gamma butyrolactone (GBL), which have also been associated with severe and life-threatening health problems. GHB is subject to controls similar to cocaine and methamphetamines. Gov. Gray Davis has signed legislation imposing similar restrictions on the availability of 1,4-BD, GBL and = related chemicals, effective Jan. 1, 2000. Individuals who have experienced health problems from these products = should immediately consult a physician. Bonta=B4 also advises consumers who = have used these products over a period of time to contact their physician for directions on how to safely discontinue their use. -o0o- Alfredo J. Quattrone, Ph.D, D.A.B.T. [aquattro@dhs.ca.gov][phone: 916-327-2577] Calif.Dept.Health Services Food & Drug Branch, MS-357 601 No. Seventh Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 =20 From: Patricia Lough I have just learned of new GHB field test kits manufactured by Drug Identification Inc out of Florida. These are for use by narcotics officers on the street, not blood or urine samples. =20 Does anyone have any experience using these kits or any information on the product itself. I am trying to get product info from the company. Thanks, Pattie Lough San Diego PD _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor = ---------------------------- Essential Feynman Library for $7.99! (3 books/ 6 audio tapes -$97 = value)=20 Learn physics from the legenary Richard Feynman, renown for making complex ideas easy to understand. Order NOW at Library of Science: Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------= Basic listserv etiquette applies. Postings are to be relevant to toxicology; please minimize your quotations from previous messages, = and consider whether your reply should most appropriately go to the person = who posted the message or to the entire list of subscribers. Thank you. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.DA1E3AB8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [catforum] GHB Field Test Kits

Few jurisdictions control such precursors, so it may = be a moot point outside of California.  Many states (perhaps most) = still do not control GHB as a drug, let alone its precursors. My own = state added GHB to the controlled substance list in 1998, but as far as = I know does not control any of the precursors you listed in any way. =

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Quattrone, Alfredo (DHS-FDB) [mailto:AQuattro@dhs.ca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 1999 5:46 PM
To: 'catforum@onelist.com'; forensl; 'Patricia = Lough';
'Phillips,William,DOJTox.LabMgr'; Sarah Kerrigan; = 'RobertFitzgerald,
PhD, VAMC_UCSD'; 'Katina Kypridakes,Mgr.PrcurCnt'; = Baldridge, Peter
(DHS-FDB); 'Peter Baldridge, Senior DHS Attorney'; = Davidson, Allen
(DHS-FDB); Wilson, Ray (DHS-FDB)
Cc: 'Barquest, James, Ph.D.,Med.Device & Safety = Unit Chief'; Wallace,
John (DHS-FDB); Ko, Richard (DHS-FDB)
Subject: RE: [catforum] GHB Field Test Kits





-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Lough [mailto:plough7537@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 1999 9:39 AM
To: CAT Forum; forensl
Subject: [catforum] GHB Field Test Kits

Ms. Lough - Please note that these kits may NOT WORK = for detection of the
newer precursers of GBL & GHB;   SUCH = PRECURSORS AS: such as 1,4-butanediol
(1,4-BD), or esters thereof (ex. 1,4-butanediol = diacetate or
diproprianoate), may or may NOT react or complex = with the coponents of such
kits, yielding FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS!

Whether such kits are Approved by US FDA, in = collabration with US DEA, is
also unknown.  The reason for possible false = positives, of course, is that
1,4-butanediol itself lacks, at a very least, a = single carboxylate group.
The 1,4-butanediol & its diesters, however, are = readily converted by human
(liver) alcohol dehydrogenases/ oxidases into gGBH. = The 1,4-butanediol & its
diesters are NOW more readily sold via the internet = and via illegal OTC, but
more often as "Dietary Supplements".  = We at DHS (FDB unit) have recently
published a Public Health Alert Warning on abuse and = illegal sale of 1,4-BD
and its derivatives (notably the diesters) as abuse = substances in
themseleves. 

You may view previous Alerts at
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/home/warnings/index.htm , = as well as this Alert at:
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/opa/prssrels/1999/54-99.htm = . I willl copy and reprint
as well the Alert here:

        =         =         =         California = DHS - Office of Public Affairs

NUMBER: 54-99 DATE: December 17, 1999
FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE CONTACT: Ken August or Lea = Brooks
http://www.dhs.ca.gov   (916) 657-3064 =
   
 
        =         STATE HEALTH = DIRECTOR ISSUES WARNING ON ILLEGAL DRUGS

SACRAMENTO - State health officials are renewing = their warning about a group
of drugs marketed as dietary supplements following = reports that three
Riverside County body-builders were hospitalized = with acute respiratory
failure and delirium within one hour of consuming = NRG3. The product contains
the ingredient 1,4-butanediol (1,4-BD), also known = as 1,4 tetramethylene
glycol, l,4 butylene glycol, butane 1,4 diol or = Sucol-B.

State Health Director Diana Bonta=B4 is advising = consumers not to consume any
product with 1,4-BD because it has been associated = with severe and
life-threatening health problems. Manufacturers of = these products market
them under a variety of names, but other products = with this ingredient are
enLiven, Zen, Serenity, Somato-Pro, Orange FX Rush, = Lemon FX Drop, Cherry FX
Bomb, Borametz, Pine Needle Extract, Promusol or = BVM. The three Riverside
County residents who became ill after consuming NRG3 = have since recovered.

The California Department of Health Services (DHS) = warned consumers earlier
this year about the use of these products after a = number of reports of
health problems, including headaches, vomiting, slow = heart rate, slow
breathing, seizures, unconsciousness, coma and one = death. These products can
be in liquid, powder, capsule or other forms and are = promoted with claims to
build muscles, improve physical performance, reduce = stress, enhance sex and
induce sleep. They may be sold via the Internet or = in health food stores,
gymnasiums and fitness centers.

Use of these products has been associated with 232 = injuries in California in
1998 and 49 deaths nationwide, including two in = California, from 1995
through October 1999, according to the Drug = Enforcement Administration
(DEA).

DHS considers products containing 1,4-BD to be = unapproved drugs. Such drugs
cannot be sold legally in California. Manufacturers = and sellers of these
products face removal of their product from sale and = possible civil or
criminal action.

These products are related to gamma hydroxy butyrate = (GHB) and gamma
butyrolactone (GBL), which have also been associated = with severe and
life-threatening health problems. GHB is subject to = controls similar to
cocaine and methamphetamines. Gov. Gray Davis has = signed legislation
imposing similar restrictions on the availability of = 1,4-BD, GBL and related
chemicals, effective Jan. 1, 2000.

Individuals who have experienced health problems from = these products should
immediately consult a physician. Bonta=B4 also = advises consumers who have used
these products over a period of time to contact = their physician for
directions on how to safely discontinue their = use.
-o0o-

Alfredo J. Quattrone, Ph.D, D.A.B.T.  = [aquattro@dhs.ca.gov][phone:
916-327-2577]
Calif.Dept.Health Services
Food & Drug Branch, MS-357
601 No. Seventh Street,
Sacramento, CA  95814
 



From: Patricia Lough = <plough7537@yahoo.com>


   I have just learned of new GHB field = test kits
manufactured by Drug Identification Inc out = of
Florida.    These are for use by = narcotics officers on
the street, not blood or urine samples.  =
   Does anyone have any experience using = these kits or
any information on the product itself.  I am = trying to
get product info from the company.
    Thanks,
Pattie Lough
San Diego PD

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor = ----------------------------

Essential Feynman Library for $7.99! (3 books/ 6 = audio tapes -$97 value)
Learn physics from the legenary Richard Feynman, = renown for making
complex ideas easy to understand. Order NOW at = Library of Science:
<a href=3D" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/dblselect5 = ">Click Here</a>

---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
Basic listserv etiquette applies.  Postings are = to be relevant to
toxicology;  please minimize your quotations = from previous messages, and
consider whether your reply should most = appropriately go to the person who
posted the message or to the entire list of = subscribers.  Thank you.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5643.DA1E3AB8-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 19:02:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00387 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:00:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00382 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 00:00:41 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:55:16 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Sidg@aol.com'" , Knarfgerg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:55:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5645.FB6F75C2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5645.FB6F75C2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Your comments are without factual basis. Most forensic scientists are decent, hardworking, reasonably well trained and competent professionals who do the best they can in a field where they are frequently overworked due to crushing caseloads and inadequate resources - and they are often underpaid to boot. Can we as a profession become better than we are? Of course, and some of us are working very hard to establish programs and standards that will improve and benefit the profession, and in turn the public at large. While there are true charlatans running around, most of us do actually have professional credentials of some kind (appropriate degrees, etc.), but unfortunately most of us have not subjected themselves to the external scrutiny of a certification board, and most labs have not submitted themselves to external review by an accreditation board, because that kind of credentialing remains voluntary in most jurisdictions in this country. Yet the forensic science profession has made great leaps forward in the last decade in the pursuit of excellence and the demonstration of that excellence through external peer review. Most of the major forensic branches now have available to them certification boards (ABC, ABFT, ABFA, ABFD, ABFO, ABP-FP, ABFP, etc.) for their specialties, crime labs as institutions have a national accreditation board (ASCLD-LAB), and standardized peer-written and peer-reviewed methodologies are being published (ASTM). I don't have the specific figures at my fingertips, but something like 1/4 (perhaps considerably more) of all government forensic labs have now voluntarily submitted to ASCLD-LAB accreditation inspection, and passed. Among the Criminalistics branch of forensic science, close to 500 criminalists have voluntarily subjected themselves to the ABC certification process, which involves basic credential reviews, written exams, annual proficiency tests, and a requirement for continuing education. While this is not a majority of practicing criminalists, it is not bad considering that the ABC only launched its program in 1993, six short years ago. Older forensic certification boards have higher percentages of their specialty base participating. These are all demanding, rigorous programs, not "rubber stamps." These organizations are setting voluntary consensus standards that amount to a kind of "national standard," but so long as they are not required by law there will be those who refuse to use the standards or to participate in the programs. There is a slowly growing number of jurisdictions that is beginning to make such credentials mandatory through law or agency regulation/policy. So far, that has only affected forensic scientists working in the public sector, for a publicly-funded agency. Yet even if all government agencies had such requirements, unless there were laws requiring compliance with national accreditation/certification/standardization standards, there would still be "free-lancers" in private practice who refuse to participate voluntarily and so escape external evaluation. Of course, if enough judges decide to require such external credentials in order to admit expert testimony, then they will be legally recognized de facto standards, even without the benefit of statutory incorporation. On the other hand, there is a real risk of mandatory standards being written in so restrictive a manner that they no longer allow a scientist to BE a scientist, i.e., to use professional judgment to decide the best process to follow in addressing a specific problem/situation. So we must be wary and careful, even as we work to establish useful standards. Contrary to your assertion, a forensic scientist who merely reports data without interpreting the significance of it is useless to the administration of justice - those who read his/her reports are rarely competent to understand the significance of the data without his/her help in interpretation. If our profession has a major failing, it is in the area of too many practitioners NOT interpreting their results and just reporting data, which one or both sides is then free to twist, misconstrue, misapply, or otherwise misuse in court or during the investigation. Interpretation is part and parcel of a scientist's job, ESPECIALLY a forensic scientist's. There are "bad apples" to be sure, working both as public servants and as private "experts for hire," but they are in fact that "very small percentage" you are so dubious of. I have to say that in 20 years of work in this field (and I have worked, and continue to work, in both the public and the private sector), I have never once personally seen a forensic scientist on the public payroll give anything but objective and competent scientific testimony, although I have certainly heard of it happening and am fully aware it does happen. On the other hand, I have personally seen exactly the kind of incompetent and /or biased testimony you speak of from private "experts" working for the defense, and I see it on a regular basis. That is because, again contrary to your belief, one's livelihood in the public sector is usually NOT affected by the results of one's analyses - most of us feel free to call it like it is (and do so), without any fear of negative repercussions from the law enforcement agencies we serve. Conversely, in the private sector many unscrupulous examiners feel a need to "satisfy" their clients and build their businesses, so they give the "desired" results whether factual and accurate or not. Fortunately there are many others in the private sector, some of whom are regular participants in this forum, who are highly scrupulous and thoroughly competent professionals who also "call it like it is" whether their clients like it or not. Although I believe relatively few public sector forensic scientists ever feel any significant pressure to be partisan in their work, I have long advocated that public crime labs be part of the judicial branch of government or be independent agencies, so that they are never under the color of influence (real or imagined) of a parent law enforcement agency. Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their work. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:18 PM To: Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. In a message dated 1/3/00 1:39:52 PM, Knarfgerg@aol.com writes: << Look at CTS proficiency reports over the last few years and I think you will see that more and more labs are reporting out only data, no conclusions about the data. >> Thank God they're only reporting the data. Until there are straight forward, nationwide standards for forensic scientists and their crime labs, that's all they should do. When some of these so-called crime lab "scientists" offer their dubious 'scientific opinions' regarding crime evidence, they are no doubt biased and pro-prosecution -- just look at who signs their paychecks. In the quest to rise to the top in their field, they stretch the truth so far that they turn it into lies and help convict innocent people along the way -- all for The Win. A lot of these "scientists" embellish their credentials enough to make juries think they are experts in many sciences when in reality, they aren't even scientists. I'm not saying that it's every forensic scientist -- it may be a relatively small percentage -- but I doubt that. It's frightening to think that these individuals that are untrained and without credentials should have as much power as they do in our court system. How many innocent people have been imprisoned or executed due to a "scientist" giving an "expert" opinion? I think you would find the sheer number of wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed frightening. It could happen to you. Scientists should testify on the facts science, not by biased "expert" opinion. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5645.FB6F75C2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.

Your comments are without factual basis.  Most = forensic scientists are decent, hardworking, reasonably well trained = and competent professionals who do the best they can in a field where = they are frequently overworked due to crushing caseloads and inadequate = resources - and they are often underpaid to boot.  Can we as a = profession become better than we are?  Of course, and some of us = are working very hard to establish programs and standards that will = improve and benefit the profession, and in turn the public at = large.

While there are true charlatans running around, most = of us do actually have professional credentials of some kind = (appropriate degrees, etc.), but unfortunately most of us have not = subjected themselves to the external scrutiny of a certification board, = and most labs have not submitted themselves to external review by an = accreditation board, because that kind of credentialing remains = voluntary in most jurisdictions in this country.  Yet the forensic = science profession has made great leaps forward in the last decade in = the pursuit of excellence and the demonstration of that excellence = through external peer review.  

Most of the major forensic branches now have = available to them certification boards (ABC, ABFT, ABFA, ABFD, ABFO, = ABP-FP, ABFP, etc.) for their specialties, crime labs as institutions = have a national accreditation board (ASCLD-LAB), and standardized = peer-written and peer-reviewed methodologies are being published = (ASTM).  I don't have the specific figures at my fingertips, but = something like 1/4 (perhaps considerably more) of all government = forensic labs have now voluntarily submitted to ASCLD-LAB accreditation = inspection, and passed.  Among the Criminalistics branch of = forensic science, close to 500 criminalists have voluntarily subjected = themselves to the ABC certification process, which involves basic = credential reviews, written exams, annual proficiency tests, and a = requirement for continuing education.  While this is not a = majority of practicing criminalists, it is not bad considering that the = ABC only launched its program in 1993, six short years ago.  Older = forensic certification boards have higher percentages of their = specialty base participating.  These are all demanding, rigorous = programs, not "rubber stamps."

These organizations are setting voluntary consensus = standards that amount to a kind of "national standard," but = so long as they are not required by law there will be those who refuse = to use the standards or to participate in the programs.  There is = a slowly growing number of jurisdictions that is beginning to make such = credentials mandatory through law or agency regulation/policy.  So = far, that has only affected forensic scientists working in the public = sector, for a publicly-funded agency.  Yet even if all government = agencies had such requirements, unless there were laws requiring = compliance with national accreditation/certification/standardization = standards, there would still be "free-lancers" in private = practice who refuse to participate voluntarily and so escape external = evaluation.  Of course, if enough judges decide to require such = external credentials in order to admit expert testimony, then they will = be legally recognized de facto standards, even without the benefit of = statutory incorporation.

On the other hand, there is a real risk of mandatory = standards being written in so restrictive a manner that they no longer = allow a scientist to BE a scientist, i.e., to use professional judgment = to decide the best process to follow in addressing a specific = problem/situation.  So we must be wary and careful, even as we = work to establish useful standards.

Contrary to your assertion, a forensic scientist who = merely reports data without interpreting the significance of it is = useless to the administration of justice - those who read his/her = reports are rarely competent to understand the significance of the data = without his/her help in interpretation.  If our profession has a = major failing, it is in the area of too many practitioners NOT = interpreting their results and just reporting data, which one or both = sides is then free to twist, misconstrue, misapply, or otherwise misuse = in court or during the investigation.  Interpretation is part and = parcel of a scientist's job, ESPECIALLY a forensic scientist's. =

There are "bad apples" to be sure, working = both as public servants and as private "experts for hire," = but they are in fact that "very small percentage" you are so = dubious of.  I have to say that in 20 years of work in this field = (and I have worked, and continue to work, in both the public and the = private sector), I have never once personally seen a forensic scientist = on the public payroll give anything but objective and competent = scientific testimony, although I have certainly heard of it happening = and am fully aware it does happen.  On the other hand, I have = personally seen exactly the kind of incompetent and /or biased = testimony you speak of from private "experts" working for the = defense, and I see it on a regular basis. That is because, again = contrary to your belief, one's livelihood in the public sector is = usually NOT affected by the results of one's analyses - most of us feel = free to call it like it is (and do so), without any fear of negative = repercussions from the law enforcement agencies we serve.  = Conversely, in the private sector many unscrupulous examiners feel a = need to "satisfy" their clients and build their businesses, = so they give the "desired" results whether factual and = accurate or not.  Fortunately there are many others in the private = sector, some of whom are regular participants in this forum, who are = highly scrupulous and thoroughly competent professionals who also = "call it like it is" whether their clients like it or = not. 

Although I believe relatively few public sector = forensic scientists ever feel any significant pressure to be partisan = in their work, I have long advocated that public crime labs be part of = the judicial branch of government or be independent agencies, so that = they are never under the color of influence (real or imagined) of a = parent law enforcement agency. 

Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is = totally reprehensible and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic = scientist to behave in a partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional = manner in relation to their work.


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:18 PM
To: Knarfgerg@aol.com; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.



In a message dated 1/3/00 1:39:52 PM, = Knarfgerg@aol.com writes:

<< Look at CTS proficiency reports over the = last few years and I think you
will
see that more and more labs are reporting out only = data, no conclusions about
the data. >>

Thank God they're only reporting the data. Until = there are straight forward,
nationwide standards for forensic scientists and = their crime labs, that's all
they should do. When some of these so-called crime = lab "scientists" offer
their dubious 'scientific opinions' regarding crime = evidence, they are no
doubt biased and pro-prosecution -- just look at who = signs their paychecks.
In the quest to rise to the top in their field, they = stretch the truth so far
that they turn it into lies and help convict = innocent people along the way --
all for The Win. A lot of these = "scientists" embellish their credentials
enough to make juries think they are experts in many = sciences when in
reality, they aren't even scientists. I'm not saying = that it's every forensic
scientist -- it may be a relatively small percentage = -- but I doubt that.
It's frightening to think that these individuals = that are untrained and
without credentials should have as much power as = they do in our court system.
How many innocent people have been imprisoned or = executed due to a
"scientist" giving an "expert" = opinion? I think you would find the sheer
number of wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed = frightening. It could happen
to you. Scientists should testify on the facts = science, not by biased
"expert" opinion.

Barbara Jean McAtlin
703.352.8140

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5645.FB6F75C2-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 3 19:32:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA00645 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:30:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f29.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.29]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA00640 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 75436 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jan 2000 00:29:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000104002939.75435.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 24.131.187.76 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:29:39 PST X-Originating-IP: [24.131.187.76] From: "Peter Yallaly" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forensic Biologist Position Available Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 18:29:39 CST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO The Northern Illinois Police Crime Laboratory, a full service ASCLD/LAB accredited laboratory that services approximately 40 police departments in Lake and Cook counties of Illinois, is seeking a Forensic Biologist. The successful applicant will be responsible for the following duties: Identification and collection of body fluids from items of evidence DNA analysis of biological evidence using STRs and capillary electrophoresis Preparation of written reports of findings and opinions Testifying to results in court Participation in research and validation studies Training police and medical personnel regarding evidence collection techniques Assisting law enforcement officers at crime scenes The successful applicant must at a minimum possess a Bachelor's degree in biological, chemical or forensic science (Masters of Science or Doctor of Philosophy is highly desirable). Additionally, applicants that have completed courses in genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology (in compliance with DAB) will receive foremost consideration. Preference will be given to individuals with experience using the ABI 310 and/or previous court testimony as an expert witness. Salary Range: Commensurate with experience. Please submit a letter of application and detailed resume tot he following address: Peter Yallaly Northern Illinois Police Crime Laboratory 1677 Old Deerfield Road Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Phone (847) 432-8160 Fax (847) 432-5199 E-mail NIPCL@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 08:52:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05559 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05549 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 7.0.a9676538 (7319); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:48:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.a9676538.25a3543b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:48:43 EST Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Knarfgerg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: << Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their work. >> I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 09:15:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05848 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from lc3ms1.lorainccc.edu (lc3ms1.lorainccc.edu [192.232.30.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05843 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:12:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from lorainccc.edu (www3.lorainccc.edu [192.232.30.33]) by lc3ms1.lorainccc.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA27102 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:11:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3871FFAC.2203FD66@lorainccc.edu> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:11:56 -0500 From: crimelab X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win98; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens-l Subject: Feb 29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Y2K maybe over but what about the new one - Leap Year. The rule is Leap Year is every four years except if the year ends in 00. Except if the year is divisable by 400; then it is a leap year. From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 09:40:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06039 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from red.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.226]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06034 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:37:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by red.uspis.gov; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA03355; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'Robert Parsons'" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:41:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bob, Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough response. I share the opinions you have expressed. I have long been concerned that the public as a whole might perceive the forensic scientist who is administrated by a police agency (or a DA's office) as biased. Most forensic scientists know that we are "not beholden' " to anyone and we take our role as advocate of the evidence very seriously; however, the problem of public perception should be a very serious concern to our field. I support the goals of accreditation and I support the ideals of certification. Both are truely meritorious, but I wonder how necessary (I said necessary NOT valid) all of those efforts would have been if 30 years ago labs would have been taken out from the administration of police agencies and DA's offices. It's a complicated issue no doubt, and expecting a concensus among forensic scientists on this or any other issue isn't realistic. . . but I often wonder, other than the police who administer the labs, who actually thinks that it is a good idea to be administered by an unabashedly advocated organization? I absolutely do not believe that administration by a police agency is synonomous with a biased work product, I'm just worried that many potential jurors might believe it. I'm old enough to know that the history behind the establishment of most labs often included LEAA money, maybe that "shaped" our early days. Maybe many labs were created in the image of the FBI. But maybe, just maybe. . . it's time for us to support the idea of divesting police agencies of the responsibility to manage crime laboratories with even a fraction of the zeal we've invested in accreditation or certification. Just a thought. . . Inasmuch as I am employed by a federal law enforcement organization. . . surely realize that my opinions are my own and I would venture to guess do NOT represent the official position of my employer(if one even exists). . . I appreciate an employer who welcomes the free thinking of it's employees :-) Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist -----Original Message----- From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 6:55 PM To: 'Sidg@aol.com'; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Your comments are without factual basis. Most forensic scientists are decent, hardworking, reasonably well trained and competent professionals who do the best they can in a field where they are frequently overworked due to crushing caseloads and inadequate resources - and they are often underpaid to boot. Can we as a profession become better than we are? Of course, and some of us are working very hard to establish programs and standards that will improve and benefit the profession, and in turn the public at large. While there are true charlatans running around, most of us do actually have professional credentials of some kind (appropriate degrees, etc.), but unfortunately most of us have not subjected themselves to the external scrutiny of a certification board, and most labs have not submitted themselves to external review by an accreditation board, because that kind of credentialing remains voluntary in most jurisdictions in this country. Yet the forensic science profession has made great leaps forward in the last decade in the pursuit of excellence and the demonstration of that excellence through external peer review. Most of the major forensic branches now have available to them certification boards (ABC, ABFT, ABFA, ABFD, ABFO, ABP-FP, ABFP, etc.) for their specialties, crime labs as institutions have a national accreditation board (ASCLD-LAB), and standardized peer-written and peer-reviewed methodologies are being published (ASTM). I don't have the specific figures at my fingertips, but something like 1/4 (perhaps considerably more) of all government forensic labs have now voluntarily submitted to ASCLD-LAB accreditation inspection, and passed. Among the Criminalistics branch of forensic science, close to 500 criminalists have voluntarily subjected themselves to the ABC certification process, which involves basic credential reviews, written exams, annual proficiency tests, and a requirement for continuing education. While this is not a majority of practicing criminalists, it is not bad considering that the ABC only launched its program in 1993, six short years ago. Older forensic certification boards have higher percentages of their specialty base participating. These are all demanding, rigorous programs, not "rubber stamps." These organizations are setting voluntary consensus standards that amount to a kind of "national standard," but so long as they are not required by law there will be those who refuse to use the standards or to participate in the programs. There is a slowly growing number of jurisdictions that is beginning to make such credentials mandatory through law or agency regulation/policy. So far, that has only affected forensic scientists working in the public sector, for a publicly-funded agency. Yet even if all government agencies had such requirements, unless there were laws requiring compliance with national accreditation/certification/standardization standards, there would still be "free-lancers" in private practice who refuse to participate voluntarily and so escape external evaluation. Of course, if enough judges decide to require such external credentials in order to admit expert testimony, then they will be legally recognized de facto standards, even without the benefit of statutory incorporation. On the other hand, there is a real risk of mandatory standards being written in so restrictive a manner that they no longer allow a scientist to BE a scientist, i.e., to use professional judgment to decide the best process to follow in addressing a specific problem/situation. So we must be wary and careful, even as we work to establish useful standards. Contrary to your assertion, a forensic scientist who merely reports data without interpreting the significance of it is useless to the administration of justice - those who read his/her reports are rarely competent to understand the significance of the data without his/her help in interpretation. If our profession has a major failing, it is in the area of too many practitioners NOT interpreting their results and just reporting data, which one or both sides is then free to twist, misconstrue, misapply, or otherwise misuse in court or during the investigation. Interpretation is part and parcel of a scientist's job, ESPECIALLY a forensic scientist's. There are "bad apples" to be sure, working both as public servants and as private "experts for hire," but they are in fact that "very small percentage" you are so dubious of. I have to say that in 20 years of work in this field (and I have worked, and continue to work, in both the public and the private sector), I have never once personally seen a forensic scientist on the public payroll give anything but objective and competent scientific testimony, although I have certainly heard of it happening and am fully aware it does happen. On the other hand, I have personally seen exactly the kind of incompetent and /or biased testimony you speak of from private "experts" working for the defense, and I see it on a regular basis. That is because, again contrary to your belief, one's livelihood in the public sector is usually NOT affected by the results of one's analyses - most of us feel free to call it like it is (and do so), without any fear of negative repercussions from the law enforcement agencies we serve. Conversely, in the private sector many unscrupulous examiners feel a need to "satisfy" their clients and build their businesses, so they give the "desired" results whether factual and accurate or not. Fortunately there are many others in the private sector, some of whom are regular participants in this forum, who are highly scrupulous and thoroughly competent professionals who also "call it like it is" whether their clients like it or not. Although I believe relatively few public sector forensic scientists ever feel any significant pressure to be partisan in their work, I have long advocated that public crime labs be part of the judicial branch of government or be independent agencies, so that they are never under the color of influence (real or imagined) of a parent law enforcement agency. Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their work. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Sidg@aol.com [ mailto:Sidg@aol.com ] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:18 PM To: Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. In a message dated 1/3/00 1:39:52 PM, Knarfgerg@aol.com writes: << Look at CTS proficiency reports over the last few years and I think you will see that more and more labs are reporting out only data, no conclusions about the data. >> Thank God they're only reporting the data. Until there are straight forward, nationwide standards for forensic scientists and their crime labs, that's all they should do. When some of these so-called crime lab "scientists" offer their dubious 'scientific opinions' regarding crime evidence, they are no doubt biased and pro-prosecution -- just look at who signs their paychecks. In the quest to rise to the top in their field, they stretch the truth so far that they turn it into lies and help convict innocent people along the way -- all for The Win. A lot of these "scientists" embellish their credentials enough to make juries think they are experts in many sciences when in reality, they aren't even scientists. I'm not saying that it's every forensic scientist -- it may be a relatively small percentage -- but I doubt that. It's frightening to think that these individuals that are untrained and without credentials should have as much power as they do in our court system. How many innocent people have been imprisoned or executed due to a "scientist" giving an "expert" opinion? I think you would find the sheer number of wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed frightening. It could happen to you. Scientists should testify on the facts science, not by biased "expert" opinion. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 09:53:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06289 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:51:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA06282 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.cda1d9aa (4001) for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:50:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.cda1d9aa.25a362bf@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:50:39 EST Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/3/00 1:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, KJohn39679@aol.com writes: > > One should start with the FBI lab which has been one and the same with the > law enforcement component of the FBI since its inception. Indeed for most of > > its existence, the majority of FBI laab personnel were agents. And what of the ATF, those noble protectors of, . . .well, what ever it is that ATF agents are supposed to protect. I know virtually nothing of the forensic science division of the ATF. I have no reason to believe that the lab personnel at the ATF are anything but conscientious in the performance of their duties. The investigations and other experience I have had with agents from the ATF has never resulted in a positive impression of the integrity of the enforcement arm of this Bureau. I have read reports on this list giving accounts of ATF agents who have shown great devotion and courage in the furtherance of justice. I intend to devote some time to researching these stories in order to acquire some sense of balanced perspective regarding these agents. I do find it disturbing that I would have to search out honerable law enforcement officers from a federal agency. It should require great effort to locate agents who engage in misconduct and abuse of authority rather than those who demonstrate ethical integrity. What I would like to know is how the ATF forensic science labs compare with the FBI. As I noted I have little knowledge about the function of the ATF labs but I imagine with the wide range of jurisdiction handled by the ATF the responsibilities of the lab personnel is rather challenging. I am particularly interested in whether the ATF forensic science personnel are brought up through the ranks of the enforcement agents as the FBI tends to do or if they are recruited independently. Any one care to provide some insight? If this post seems awkward it is because I am trying to avoid insulting anyone employed in the Forensic labs of the ATF. I have never found cause to believe there is any lack of integrity amongst those in the forensic area of the ATF and have no wish to give offense there. As far as the enforcement agents I don't really have much of a concern about offending them. Just my educated view, which I would love to have proven wrong. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 10:43:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06712 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:42:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfs.state.va.us (dgsgtfo.dgs.state.va.us [159.169.223.252]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06707 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:41:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by DFS-PDC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:38:06 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Dolan, Julia" To: "'LEGALEYE1@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: From The Tampa Tribune - comment Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:38:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO You don't have to "search out" examples of ATF agents doing good and noble work. The reason it's not posted or announced is because it's not news. It's every day work. It becomes news when it's out of the ordinary, which is when and why it becomes posted to a list such as this - the anomalous misconduct. The every day good works of ATF agents are typical. You don't see on the local news the routine everyday stuff - you see out of the ordinary happenings - "bad news". As a disclaimer, I am proud to have worked as a forensic chemist for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms where I was privileged to work among some of the most talented, experienced, hardworking and ethical scientists in the field. In the fields in which the ATF labs do work, they are without a doubt, among the best in the world. My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth of VA Division of Forensic Science. Julia Ann Dolan Forensic Scientist Supervisor Trace Evidence 703-764-4600 Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us -----Original Message----- From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [SMTP:LEGALEYE1@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment In a message dated 1/3/00 1:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, KJohn39679@aol.com writes: > > One should start with the FBI lab which has been one and the same with the > law enforcement component of the FBI since its inception. Indeed for most of > > its existence, the majority of FBI laab personnel were agents. And what of the ATF, those noble protectors of, . . .well, what ever it is that ATF agents are supposed to protect. I know virtually nothing of the forensic science division of the ATF. I have no reason to believe that the lab personnel at the ATF are anything but conscientious in the performance of their duties. The investigations and other experience I have had with agents from the ATF has never resulted in a positive impression of the integrity of the enforcement arm of this Bureau. I have read reports on this list giving accounts of ATF agents who have shown great devotion and courage in the furtherance of justice. I intend to devote some time to researching these stories in order to acquire some sense of balanced perspective regarding these agents. I do find it disturbing that I would have to search out honerable law enforcement officers from a federal agency. It should require great effort to locate agents who engage in misconduct and abuse of authority rather than those who demonstrate ethical integrity. What I would like to know is how the ATF forensic science labs compare with the FBI. As I noted I have little knowledge about the function of the ATF labs but I imagine with the wide range of jurisdiction handled by the ATF the responsibilities of the lab personnel is rather challenging. I am particularly interested in whether the ATF forensic science personnel are brought up through the ranks of the enforcement agents as the FBI tends to do or if they are recruited independently. Any one care to provide some insight? If this post seems awkward it is because I am trying to avoid insulting anyone employed in the Forensic labs of the ATF. I have never found cause to believe there is any lack of integrity amongst those in the forensic area of the ATF and have no wish to give offense there. As far as the enforcement agents I don't really have much of a concern about offending them. Just my educated view, which I would love to have proven wrong. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 10:44:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06719 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06714 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:42:21 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.3c56aeb4 (4001) for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:41:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3c56aeb4.25a36eb7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:41:43 EST Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/3/00 12:49:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, digitaliq@digitaliq.com writes: > As long as we have an adversarial system where convictions are the most > important goal rather than the truth, society will continue to look the > other > way and refuse to see that the system is fraught with corruption. The need for a devotion to one another and the defense of the rights of each as well as the whole is undoubtedly lacking. Corruption is taking it's toll on the Supreme law of the nation to be sure. This gives cause for every one who has taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic, to reexamine what that oath initials. The duty we bind upon ourselves with the affirmation of devotion to the defense of the rights and liberties of every citizen is not relieved when we leave military service, or employment with a branch of the government. That oath is permanent and binds upon all who pledge themselves to the defense of the Constitution, a life long duty, so long as it is within their ability to act. As for the adversarial system of resolving criminal accusations. The option is far less appealing. The Inquisitionary system (did I pronounce that right?) from which we ascended does not provide the rights afforded to those accused of crimes. Under our adversarial system the prosecution is supposed to bear the full burden of proving guilt. That means the accused cannot be compelled to give testimony in his own trial if he chooses not to, and the choice to refrain from testifying cannot even be mentioned by the prosecutor. Under the inqusitionary system the accused must stand and answer the questions put to him by the prosecutor and the court. A whole bushel of Constitutional rights and protections would be surrendered should we abandon the adversarial system. However there is one aspect of our system that tends to get lost in the aggressive pursuit of convictions of the guilty. As Janet notes, the drive to obtain convictions too often places blinders on the investigators as well as the prosecutors. US, State, and District Attorneys to often forget that the responsibility of defending the innocent is as much their duty as the defense attorney's. I have investigated and read of too many cases where the prosecutors have stated openly that they didn't feel the defendant they prosecuted should have been sent to prison. Or the prosecutor proclaims that it is not his job to render a verdict. His job is to present the evidence for a conviction and the jury is responsible for determining guilt. This is a shame upon our system of justice. It is the responsibility of every citizen to protect the innocent from injustice. It is more so the duty of those who enjoy immunity from accountability as pseudo judiciary officers, to discover and expose the truth what ever it is, even if it does not further there political career with the impression that they are hard on crime. My 10 cents. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 11:01:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06861 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA06856 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:54:08 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C20D@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: ATF Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:58:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Having, in a previous incarnation, been in an office across the parking lot from the ATF lab in Rockville, MD, and years before rotated through this lab as a forensic path resident, my impression was that the scientific staff were primarily scientists, none mentioning having started as an agent, that they seemed to do careful work, and were generally nice folks who were helpful in teaching a student or giving a quick consultation. For that matter, the agents I've met have been mostly nice folks, too, although I mostly met them in teaching situations concerning fires and explosions and they haven't targeted me for any raids. David W. Hause, LTC MC Pathology Division General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473 ph. 573-596-1509 David.Hause@amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [mailto:LEGALEYE1@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment In a message dated 1/3/00 1:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, KJohn39679@aol.com writes: > > One should start with the FBI lab which has been one and the same with the > law enforcement component of the FBI since its inception. Indeed for most of > > its existence, the majority of FBI laab personnel were agents. And what of the ATF, those noble protectors of, . . .well, what ever it is that ATF agents are supposed to protect. I know virtually nothing of the forensic science division of the ATF. I have no reason to believe that the lab personnel at the ATF are anything but conscientious in the performance of their duties. The investigations and other experience I have had with agents from the ATF has never resulted in a positive impression of the integrity of the enforcement arm of this Bureau. I have read reports on this list giving accounts of ATF agents who have shown great devotion and courage in the furtherance of justice. I intend to devote some time to researching these stories in order to acquire some sense of balanced perspective regarding these agents. I do find it disturbing that I would have to search out honerable law enforcement officers from a federal agency. It should require great effort to locate agents who engage in misconduct and abuse of authority rather than those who demonstrate ethical integrity. What I would like to know is how the ATF forensic science labs compare with the FBI. As I noted I have little knowledge about the function of the ATF labs but I imagine with the wide range of jurisdiction handled by the ATF the responsibilities of the lab personnel is rather challenging. I am particularly interested in whether the ATF forensic science personnel are brought up through the ranks of the enforcement agents as the FBI tends to do or if they are recruited independently. Any one care to provide some insight? If this post seems awkward it is because I am trying to avoid insulting anyone employed in the Forensic labs of the ATF. I have never found cause to believe there is any lack of integrity amongst those in the forensic area of the ATF and have no wish to give offense there. As far as the enforcement agents I don't really have much of a concern about offending them. Just my educated view, which I would love to have proven wrong. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 11:12:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06984 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:10:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from red.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.226]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06977 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:10:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by red.uspis.gov; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA09161; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:22:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'Sidg@aol.com'" , rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Knarfgerg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:14:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Barbara, Do you have some specific experience that has made you so jaded about Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if you don't mind me asking? Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist -----Original Message----- From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: << Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their work. >> I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 11:30:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07128 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:28:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07123 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:28:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.77.157.137]) by mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000104162845.VRIG1891@worldnet.att.net> for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:28:45 +0000 Message-ID: <38721FAD.CAE72D88@worldnet.att.net> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:28:31 -0500 From: James Kammerer X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Employment Opportunity Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Job Opportunity FORENSIC ANALYST SALARY RANGE $35,627 - $52,637 (Pay Level 20/UNR1) SHIFT 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday NATURE OF WORK Under general supervision, the purpose of the position is to analyze videotapes and still photographs used in criminal investigations. Employees in this classification perform specialized technical work in the repair, reconstruction, and authenticity of audio and videotape evidence. Position is responsible for the formal reporting of and testifying to the findings of such analysis. Tasks involve the ability to exert heavy physical effort with greater emphasis on climbing and balancing, but typically involving some combination of stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. May occasionally involve heavier objects and materials up to 100 pounds. NOTE: A more detailed description of the duties required in this position is available upon request from Human Resources. REQUIREMENTS 1. Bachelor's degree in the natural or physical sciences, criminalistics, engineering, mathematics, audio/visual production or a closely related field; supplemented by laboratory experience; forensic laboratory experience preferred. 2. Any equivalent combination of education, training, and experience may substitute for noted requirements. Such experience must be clearly documented for consideration. WORK LOCATION Department of Law Enforcement/Crime Scene 201 Southeast 6 Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida CLOSING DATE Position open until filled HOW TO APPLY Applications may be obtained and must be received in Human Resources, Ron Cochran Public Safety Building, 2601 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, by the closing date. A resume may accompany a complete application. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Job Line: (888) 276-7827. Web Site: www.sheriff.org Applicants who qualify will be subject to an extensive selection process and screening program which may include, but not be limited to evaluation of training and experience; written test; interview; polygraph examination; psychological evaluation; employment record, fingerprint and background check; medical examination; and drug screen. BSO is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of age, citizenship status, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Veterans preference per Florida law Post Date: 12/20/1999 H:appint\postings\postings.00\00-018A From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 12:13:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07552 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:10:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from city_mail ([204.2.44.66]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA07547 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:10:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from citymail-Message_Server by city_mail with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:10:09 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:09:37 -0600 From: "James Bell" To: Subject: "Fluorescein Bloodstain Enhancement Techniques" class Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id MAA07548 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO The Pasadena Police Department will be hosting a "Fluorescein Bloodstain Enhancement Techniques" class Jan 13-14. Fluorescein is a bloodstain enhancement technique that is as good if not better than luminol. Using the technique developed by Robert Cheeseman, fluorescein is easier to apply and much easier to photograph because total darkness is not required and an alternate light source is used. Attendees will be licensed to use the technique. The cost for the class is $350 per student. For more information please contact Detective James Bell, Pasadena Police Department, Pasadena TX. 713-475-7803 Detective James Bell Pasadena Police Department, Pasadena TX P.O. Box 3209 Pasadena TX 77501 713-475-7803 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 12:13:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07585 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:11:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07580 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:11:52 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id a.0.19317c3b (4225); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:11:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.19317c3b.25a383b4@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:11:16 EST Subject: Re: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: SLSmith@uspis.gov, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Knarfgerg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/4/00 11:10:17 AM, SLSmith@uspis.gov writes: << Do you have some specific experience that has made you so jaded about Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if you don't mind me asking? >> I have been researching wrongful convictions as well as working on trying to get a wrongfully convicted man out of prison for some time now. He's been on Florida's Death Row for almost 25 years. One of the biggest reasons he was even convicted in the first place was because of the FBI lab as well as the farce that law enforcement called an 'investigation.' The "scientists" at the FBI lab actually admitted to throwing away evidence and/or destroying it. >From what I've found so far, a crime lab would do well to be an independent agency instead of an arm of any law enforcement agency. The "scientists" that were called by the prosecution during the trial were pro-prosecution because of their ties with law enforcement. They clearly fit the so-called evidence to the crime by what-ever "scientific" means they were able to do so. The entire case is filled with people that weren't in actuality scientists but were announced to the court by the prosecution as such. The FBI lab as well as the key law enforcement figures in his case withheld exculpatory evidence while twisting and turning pro-prosecution to meet their ends - a conviction at any cost - even an innocent man. For more information on this case, please visit: http://www.banfound.u-net.com/camp5attach.htm To read Fatal Flaw - a book about this case, please see: http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage If you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer already, you will have to load it from the page to be able to view the book. It's 297 pages and well worth the read. If you choose to read it, please read it in its entirety. In the beginning, it almost seems clear that this man is guilty. By the end, you'll have absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that he's innocent and has been a victim of the system for over two decades. DNA testing would exonerate him if the prosecution would ever release the needed items. They won't. The FBI threw away a lot of the exculpatory evidence while the prosecution hid it from the defense. This whole case is frightening - especially considering that this sort of thing could happen to any one of us. Believe it. That's the single most reason that I vote for labs to not be part of any law enforcement agency. Labs that are owned or governed by law enforcement agencies have proven many more times than this one case that they are biased and pro-prosecution as long as they're paid and governed by a law enforcement agency. I have a real problem with a lot of the "scientists" at the FBI lab because: (a.) They're not scientists, and (b.) They are FBI agents or some similar agency's agent or officer. When you put those things together, you have a pro-prosecution non-scientist passing off information that they aren't qualified to testify to, as facts. They even call themselves experts. Would you want a pro-prosecut ion non-scientist testifying to the 'facts' in your trial? I think not. So anyway, that's where I get my opinion. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 12:54:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07861 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA07856 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 17:52:38 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:47:11 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Sidg@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:47:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF56DB.BA1B5726" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF56DB.BA1B5726 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Most do - sincerely, they do. This is a case of the age-old story of a loud (or in this case dishonest) minority unfairly coloring one's perception of an entire group which the minority does NOT represent. Nevertheless, the harm that minority of dishonest forensic "scientists" does is incalculable and intolerable. The national certification, accreditation, and standardization programs I mentioned have as one of their goals to someday make it impossible (or at least extremely difficult) for those honorless miscreants to continue to practice, and to put an end to the harm they do. We will likely never entirely realize that goal, as such programs can only do so much (especially when participation is voluntary, not mandated) but we can go a long way towards realizing it and improve things considerably - and we will as time goes on. These programs are healthy and growing, they are past the point where their naysayers have any hope of killing them, and have taken on a life of their own. If more people got involved in supporting, running, and contributing to those programs, rather than fearfully or skeptically ignoring them or actually working against them, our progress would be enhanced. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: << Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their work. >> I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF56DB.BA1B5726 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.

Most do - sincerely, they do.  This is a case of = the age-old story of a loud (or in this case dishonest) minority = unfairly coloring one's perception of an entire group which the = minority does NOT represent.

Nevertheless, the harm that minority of dishonest = forensic "scientists" does is incalculable and = intolerable.  The national certification, accreditation, and = standardization programs I mentioned have as one of their goals to = someday make it impossible (or at least extremely difficult) for those = honorless miscreants to continue to practice, and to put an end to the = harm they do.  We will likely never entirely realize that goal, as = such programs can only do so much (especially when participation is = voluntary, not mandated) but we can go a long way towards realizing it = and improve things considerably - and we will as time goes on.  = These programs are healthy and growing, they are past the point where = their naysayers have any hope of killing them, and have taken on a life = of their own.  If more people got involved in supporting, running, = and contributing to those programs, rather than fearfully or = skeptically ignoring them or actually working against them, our = progress would be enhanced.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges = Dropped.



In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, = rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:

<< Regardless of the frequency, I of course = agree it is totally reprehensible
and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic = scientist to behave in a
partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner = in relation to their
work. >>

I sincerely wish that they all believed as you = do.
Barbara Jean McAtlin
703.352.8140

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF56DB.BA1B5726-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 12:56:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07876 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from usacil2.army.mil (usacil2.forscom.army.mil [160.136.216.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07871 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by usacil2.forscom.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:55:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: Lynn Henson To: "'Smith, Stephanie L'" Cc: "'forens-l'" Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:55:13 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO 1. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that cops do clear/eliminate people as suspects in an investigation. 2. Do you think the public will ever be aware of the investigative lead type exams we do or the exams we perform that help the police / attorneys eliminate a suspect? If we were directly linked to the court system, would we be too far removed from the investigators (Police) to be utilized to help eliminate suspects? (i.e.. sorry guys, he may have been drunk, he may be being elusive and his car may be damaged but that's not the car that left the paint on the hit and run victim's clothing.) I know the perception is we work for the police but sometimes we help to create that perception. We talk about the cases where the physical evidence helps to prove a case. Do we talk about the work we do that helps clear/eliminate suspects? We hear about the DNA that is used to help clear the folks who were convicted and are in prison but what about the folks we eliminate daily prior to any trial? Just some thoughts, Lynn Henson US Army Crime Lab DSN 797-7265 Commercial 404-362-7265 email - hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Stephanie L [SMTP:SLSmith@uspis.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:42 AM > To: 'Robert Parsons' > Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > Bob, > > Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough response. I share the opinions you > have expressed. > > I have long been concerned that the public as a whole might perceive the > forensic scientist who is administrated by a police agency (or a DA's > office) as biased. Most forensic scientists know that we are "not > beholden' > " to anyone and we take our role as advocate of the evidence very > seriously; > however, the problem of public perception should be a very serious concern > to our field. > > I support the goals of accreditation and I support the ideals of > certification. Both are truely meritorious, but I wonder how necessary (I > said necessary NOT valid) all of those efforts would have been if 30 years > ago labs would have been taken out from the administration of police > agencies and DA's offices. > > It's a complicated issue no doubt, and expecting a concensus among > forensic > scientists on this or any other issue isn't realistic. . . but I often > wonder, other than the police who administer the labs, who actually thinks > that it is a good idea to be administered by an unabashedly advocated > organization? I absolutely do not believe that administration by a police > agency is synonomous with a biased work product, I'm just worried that > many > potential jurors might believe it. I'm old enough to know that the > history > behind the establishment of most labs often included LEAA money, maybe > that > "shaped" our early days. Maybe many labs were created in the image of the > FBI. But maybe, just maybe. . . it's time for us to support the idea of > divesting police agencies of the responsibility to manage crime > laboratories > with even a fraction of the zeal we've invested in accreditation or > certification. Just a thought. . . > > Inasmuch as I am employed by a federal law enforcement organization. . . > surely realize that my opinions are my own and I would venture to guess do > NOT represent the official position of my employer(if one even exists). . > . > I appreciate an employer who welcomes the free thinking of it's employees > :-) > > > Stephanie L. Smith > Senior Forensic Chemist > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 6:55 PM > To: 'Sidg@aol.com'; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > Your comments are without factual basis. Most forensic scientists are > decent, hardworking, reasonably well trained and competent professionals > who > do the best they can in a field where they are frequently overworked due > to > crushing caseloads and inadequate resources - and they are often underpaid > to boot. Can we as a profession become better than we are? Of course, > and > some of us are working very hard to establish programs and standards that > will improve and benefit the profession, and in turn the public at large. > > While there are true charlatans running around, most of us do actually > have > professional credentials of some kind (appropriate degrees, etc.), but > unfortunately most of us have not subjected themselves to the external > scrutiny of a certification board, and most labs have not submitted > themselves to external review by an accreditation board, because that kind > of credentialing remains voluntary in most jurisdictions in this country. > Yet the forensic science profession has made great leaps forward in the > last > decade in the pursuit of excellence and the demonstration of that > excellence > through external peer review. > > Most of the major forensic branches now have available to them > certification > boards (ABC, ABFT, ABFA, ABFD, ABFO, ABP-FP, ABFP, etc.) for their > specialties, crime labs as institutions have a national accreditation > board > (ASCLD-LAB), and standardized peer-written and peer-reviewed methodologies > are being published (ASTM). I don't have the specific figures at my > fingertips, but something like 1/4 (perhaps considerably more) of all > government forensic labs have now voluntarily submitted to ASCLD-LAB > accreditation inspection, and passed. Among the Criminalistics branch of > forensic science, close to 500 criminalists have voluntarily subjected > themselves to the ABC certification process, which involves basic > credential > reviews, written exams, annual proficiency tests, and a requirement for > continuing education. While this is not a majority of practicing > criminalists, it is not bad considering that the ABC only launched its > program in 1993, six short years ago. Older forensic certification boards > have higher percentages of their specialty base participating. These are > all demanding, rigorous programs, not "rubber stamps." > > These organizations are setting voluntary consensus standards that amount > to > a kind of "national standard," but so long as they are not required by law > there will be those who refuse to use the standards or to participate in > the > programs. There is a slowly growing number of jurisdictions that is > beginning to make such credentials mandatory through law or agency > regulation/policy. So far, that has only affected forensic scientists > working in the public sector, for a publicly-funded agency. Yet even if > all > government agencies had such requirements, unless there were laws > requiring > compliance with national accreditation/certification/standardization > standards, there would still be "free-lancers" in private practice who > refuse to participate voluntarily and so escape external evaluation. Of > course, if enough judges decide to require such external credentials in > order to admit expert testimony, then they will be legally recognized de > facto standards, even without the benefit of statutory incorporation. > > On the other hand, there is a real risk of mandatory standards being > written > in so restrictive a manner that they no longer allow a scientist to BE a > scientist, i.e., to use professional judgment to decide the best process > to > follow in addressing a specific problem/situation. So we must be wary and > careful, even as we work to establish useful standards. > > Contrary to your assertion, a forensic scientist who merely reports data > without interpreting the significance of it is useless to the > administration > of justice - those who read his/her reports are rarely competent to > understand the significance of the data without his/her help in > interpretation. If our profession has a major failing, it is in the area > of > too many practitioners NOT interpreting their results and just reporting > data, which one or both sides is then free to twist, misconstrue, > misapply, > or otherwise misuse in court or during the investigation. Interpretation > is > part and parcel of a scientist's job, ESPECIALLY a forensic scientist's. > > There are "bad apples" to be sure, working both as public servants and as > private "experts for hire," but they are in fact that "very small > percentage" you are so dubious of. I have to say that in 20 years of work > in this field (and I have worked, and continue to work, in both the public > and the private sector), I have never once personally seen a forensic > scientist on the public payroll give anything but objective and competent > scientific testimony, although I have certainly heard of it happening and > am > fully aware it does happen. On the other hand, I have personally seen > exactly the kind of incompetent and /or biased testimony you speak of from > private "experts" working for the defense, and I see it on a regular > basis. > That is because, again contrary to your belief, one's livelihood in the > public sector is usually NOT affected by the results of one's analyses - > most of us feel free to call it like it is (and do so), without any fear > of > negative repercussions from the law enforcement agencies we serve. > Conversely, in the private sector many unscrupulous examiners feel a need > to > "satisfy" their clients and build their businesses, so they give the > "desired" results whether factual and accurate or not. Fortunately there > are many others in the private sector, some of whom are regular > participants > in this forum, who are highly scrupulous and thoroughly competent > professionals who also "call it like it is" whether their clients like it > or > not. > > Although I believe relatively few public sector forensic scientists ever > feel any significant pressure to be partisan in their work, I have long > advocated that public crime labs be part of the judicial branch of > government or be independent agencies, so that they are never under the > color of influence (real or imagined) of a parent law enforcement agency. > > > Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible > and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a > partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their > work. > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sidg@aol.com [ mailto:Sidg@aol.com ] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:18 PM > To: Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > In a message dated 1/3/00 1:39:52 PM, Knarfgerg@aol.com writes: > > << Look at CTS proficiency reports over the last few years and I think you > > will > see that more and more labs are reporting out only data, no conclusions > about > the data. >> > > Thank God they're only reporting the data. Until there are straight > forward, > > nationwide standards for forensic scientists and their crime labs, that's > all > they should do. When some of these so-called crime lab "scientists" offer > their dubious 'scientific opinions' regarding crime evidence, they are no > doubt biased and pro-prosecution -- just look at who signs their > paychecks. > In the quest to rise to the top in their field, they stretch the truth so > far > that they turn it into lies and help convict innocent people along the way > -- > all for The Win. A lot of these "scientists" embellish their credentials > enough to make juries think they are experts in many sciences when in > reality, they aren't even scientists. I'm not saying that it's every > forensic > scientist -- it may be a relatively small percentage -- but I doubt that. > It's frightening to think that these individuals that are untrained and > without credentials should have as much power as they do in our court > system. > How many innocent people have been imprisoned or executed due to a > "scientist" giving an "expert" opinion? I think you would find the sheer > number of wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed frightening. It could > happen > > to you. Scientists should testify on the facts science, not by biased > "expert" opinion. > > Barbara Jean McAtlin > 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 13:31:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA08184 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08179 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:29:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:29:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens-l'" Subject: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 13:29:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF56E1.99786DA0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF56E1.99786DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" <<>> False. If there was deceit and mishandling in a case that should be brought out. But to say that the vast majority of us are not free to render an objective opinion is ludicrous. I have never (or personally know anyone) who has changed an opinion (or even been asked to) because they worked for a law enforcement agency. What happens 25 years ago, I cannot speak to, but in the short time (5 years) that I have been around forensic labs, that type of influence is non existent in my experience. Besides, we may be paid by the city but we are "governed" by ASCLD, DAB, SWGDAM, NRC, etc. who really set our policies. <> Of the ones I know of at the FBI and state and local labs, absolutely. I would insist on it. My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of CMPD or its staff. Jeff Sailus DNA Analyst CMPD Crime Lab Ph 704-336-7755 Fax 704-353-0088 Email: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us <>-----Original Message----- <>From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] <>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:11 PM <>To: SLSmith@uspis.gov; rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; <>forens@statgen.ncsu.edu <>Subject: Re: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. <> <> <> <>In a message dated 1/4/00 11:10:17 AM, SLSmith@uspis.gov writes: <> <><< Do you have some specific experience that has made you so <>jaded about <> <>Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if <>you don't mind <> <>me asking? >> <> <>I have been researching wrongful convictions as well as <>working on trying to <>get a wrongfully convicted man out of prison for some time <>now. He's been on <>Florida's Death Row for almost 25 years. One of the biggest <>reasons he was <>even convicted in the first place was because of the FBI lab <>as well as the <>farce that law enforcement called an 'investigation.' The <>"scientists" at the <>FBI lab actually admitted to throwing away evidence and/or <>destroying it. <>From what I've found so far, a crime lab would do well to be <>an independent <>agency instead of an arm of any law enforcement agency. The <>"scientists" that <>were called by the prosecution during the trial were <>pro-prosecution because <>of their ties with law enforcement. They clearly fit the <>so-called evidence <>to the crime by what-ever "scientific" means they were able <>to do so. The <>entire case is filled with people that weren't in actuality <>scientists but <>were announced to the court by the prosecution as such. The <>FBI lab as well <>as the key law enforcement figures in his case withheld <>exculpatory evidence <>while twisting and turning pro-prosecution to meet their ends <>- a conviction <>at any cost - even an innocent man. <> <>For more information on this case, please visit: <>http://www.banfound.u-net.com/camp5attach.htm <> <>To read Fatal Flaw - a book about this case, please see: <>http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage <> <>If you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer <>already, you will <>have to load it from the page to be able to view the book. <>It's 297 pages and <>well worth the read. If you choose to read it, please read it in its <>entirety. In the beginning, it almost seems clear that this <>man is guilty. By <>the end, you'll have absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that <>he's innocent and <>has been a victim of the system for over two decades. <> <>DNA testing would exonerate him if the prosecution would ever <>release the <>needed items. They won't. The FBI threw away a lot of the exculpatory <>evidence while the prosecution hid it from the defense. This <>whole case is <>frightening - especially considering that this sort of thing <>could happen to <>any one of us. Believe it. That's the single most reason that <>I vote for labs <>to not be part of any law enforcement agency. <> <>Labs that are owned or governed by law enforcement agencies <>have proven many <>more times than this one case that they are biased and <>pro-prosecution as <>long as they're paid and governed by a law enforcement <>agency. I have a real <>problem with a lot of the "scientists" at the FBI lab <>because: (a.) They're <>not scientists, and (b.) They are FBI agents or some similar <>agency's agent <>or officer. When you put those things together, you have a <>pro-prosecution <>non-scientist passing off information that they aren't <>qualified to testify <>to, as facts. They even call themselves experts. Would you <>want a pro-prosecut <>ion non-scientist testifying to the 'facts' in your trial? I <>think not. <> <>So anyway, that's where I get my opinion. <>Barbara Jean McAtlin <>703.352.8140 <> ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF56E1.99786DA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges = Dropped.)

<<<Labs that are owned or governed by law = enforcement agencies have proven many
more times than this one case that they are biased = and pro-prosecution as
long as they're paid and governed by a law = enforcement agency. I have a real
problem with a lot of the "scientists" at = the FBI lab because: (a.) They're
not scientists, and (b.) They are FBI agents or some = similar agency's agent
or officer. When you put those things together, you = have a pro-prosecution
non-scientist passing off information that they = aren't qualified to testify
to, as facts. They even call themselves experts. = >>>

False.  If there was deceit and mishandling in a = case that should be brought out.  But to say that the vast = majority of us are not free to render an objective opinion is = ludicrous.  I have never (or personally know anyone) who has = changed an opinion (or even been asked to) because they worked for a = law enforcement agency. What happens 25 years ago, I cannot speak to, = but in the short time (5 years) that I have been around forensic labs, = that type of influence is non existent in my experience.  Besides, = we may be paid by the city but we are "governed" by ASCLD, = DAB, SWGDAM, NRC, etc. who really set our policies.

<<Would you want a pro-prosecution = non-scientist testifying to the 'facts' in your trial? I think = not.>>

Of the ones I know of at the FBI and state and local = labs, absolutely.  I would insist on it.

My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of = CMPD or its staff.

Jeff Sailus
DNA Analyst
CMPD Crime Lab
Ph  704-336-7755
Fax  704-353-0088
Email:  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us


<>-----Original Message-----
<>From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com]
<>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:11 = PM
<>To: SLSmith@uspis.gov; = rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com;
<>forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
<>Subject: Re: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges = Dropped.
<>
<>
<>
<>In a message dated 1/4/00 11:10:17 AM, = SLSmith@uspis.gov writes:
<>
<><< Do you have some specific = experience that has made you so
<>jaded about
<>
<>Forensic Scientists? What is your connection = with the list if
<>you don't mind
<>
<>me asking? >>
<>
<>I have been researching wrongful convictions = as well as
<>working on trying to
<>get a wrongfully convicted man out of prison = for some time
<>now. He's been on
<>Florida's Death Row for almost 25 years. One = of the biggest
<>reasons he was
<>even convicted in the first place was = because of the FBI lab
<>as well as the
<>farce that law enforcement called an = 'investigation.' The
<>"scientists" at the
<>FBI lab actually admitted to throwing away = evidence and/or
<>destroying it.
<>From what I've found so far, a crime lab = would do well to be
<>an independent
<>agency instead of an arm of any law = enforcement agency. The
<>"scientists" that
<>were called by the prosecution during the = trial were
<>pro-prosecution because
<>of their ties with law enforcement. They = clearly fit the
<>so-called evidence
<>to the crime by what-ever = "scientific" means they were able
<>to do so. The
<>entire case is filled with people that = weren't in actuality
<>scientists but
<>were announced to the court by the = prosecution as such. The
<>FBI lab as well
<>as the key law enforcement figures in his = case withheld
<>exculpatory evidence
<>while twisting and turning pro-prosecution = to meet their ends
<>- a conviction
<>at any cost - even an innocent man.
<>
<>For more information on this case, please = visit:
<>http://www.banfound.u-net.com/camp5attach.htm
<>
<>To read Fatal Flaw - a book about this case, = please see:
<>http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage
<>
<>If you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed on = your computer
<>already, you will
<>have to load it from the page to be able to = view the book.
<>It's 297 pages and
<>well worth the read. If you choose to read = it, please read it in its
<>entirety. In the beginning, it almost seems = clear that this
<>man is guilty. By
<>the end, you'll have absolutely no doubt = what-so-ever that
<>he's innocent and
<>has been a victim of the system for over two = decades.
<>
<>DNA testing would exonerate him if the = prosecution would ever
<>release the
<>needed items. They won't. The FBI threw away = a lot of the exculpatory
<>evidence while the prosecution hid it from = the defense. This
<>whole case is
<>frightening - especially considering that = this sort of thing
<>could happen to
<>any one of us. Believe it. That's the single = most reason that
<>I vote for labs
<>to not be part of any law enforcement = agency.
<>
<>Labs that are owned or governed by law = enforcement agencies
<>have proven many
<>more times than this one case that they are = biased and
<>pro-prosecution as
<>long as they're paid and governed by a law = enforcement
<>agency. I have a real
<>problem with a lot of the = "scientists" at the FBI lab
<>because: (a.) They're
<>not scientists, and (b.) They are FBI agents = or some similar
<>agency's agent
<>or officer. When you put those things = together, you have a
<>pro-prosecution
<>non-scientist passing off information that = they aren't
<>qualified to testify
<>to, as facts. They even call themselves = experts. Would you
<>want a pro-prosecut
<>ion non-scientist testifying to the 'facts' = in your trial? I
<>think not.
<>
<>So anyway, that's where I get my = opinion.
<>Barbara Jean McAtlin
<>703.352.8140
<>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF56E1.99786DA0-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 14:03:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08488 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA08483 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:01:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 18:56:28 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Tue Jan 04 11:01:07 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:01:48 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:00:55 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: JBell@ci.pasadena.tx.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Fluorescein Bloodstain Enhancement Techniques" class Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Mr. Bell: What exactly do you mean by "licensed to use the technique?" I am not aware of any licensing body to apply a forensic technique, particularly since the methods have been published in peer reviewed journals such as the Journal of Identification. Also, please elucidate further what the class will entail and what the tuition will cover. I am interested because we will soon be examining the reagents and technique for use by our laboratory personnel. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "James Bell" 1/4/2000 9:09:37 AM >>> The Pasadena Police Department will be hosting a "Fluorescein Bloodstain Enhancement Techniques" class Jan 13-14. Fluorescein is a bloodstain enhancement technique that is as good if not better than luminol. Using the technique developed by Robert Cheeseman, fluorescein is easier to apply and much easier to photograph because total darkness is not required and an alternate light source is used. Attendees will be licensed to use the technique. The cost for the class is $350 per student. For more information please contact Detective James Bell, Pasadena Police Department, Pasadena TX. 713-475-7803 Detective James Bell Pasadena Police Department, Pasadena TX P.O. Box 3209 Pasadena TX 77501 713-475-7803 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 14:26:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08658 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08653 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:24:43 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 3.0.3bfb8385 (4010); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:24:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3bfb8385.25a3a2d8@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:24:08 EST Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil, SLSmith@uspis.gov CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/4/00 1:53:04 PM, hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil writes: << Do we talk about the work we do that helps clear/eliminate suspects? We hear about the DNA that is used to help clearthe folks who were convicted and are in prison but what about the folks we eliminate daily prior to any trial? >> I'd like to hear of some examples please. Especially the DNA examples. Thanks. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 14:35:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08934 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from red.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.226]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08929 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:33:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by red.uspis.gov; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA02952; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:45:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: FW: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:38:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Stephanie L Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:37 PM To: 'Lynn Henson' Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Lynn, I appreciate your observations and thoughtful commentary. I would hope that my suggestion that forensic scientists might be better off if we were distinctly separated from law enforcement doesn't make one think that I am without appreciation for the work of these organizations. I believe that while we often work closely (with law enforcement personnel) to answer questions raised by the investigative process, I honestly believe that the public would see us much more clearly for the advocates of the evidence that we are if we weren't percieved as extensions of (or subordinates to) a law enforcement agency. It is exceedingly rare that the perception is validated but it has been on a few tragic cases. As Julia Dolan stated in a related response "You don't see on the local news the routine everyday stuff- you see out of the ordinary happenings- "bad news". I would hope that if we were "directly linked to the court system" we would not be too far removed to assist in the elimination of suspects. I do not believe that the exoneration of the innocent is necessarily connected with how closely we are associated with the policing agency. Do you believe that if we were not administered by the police agencies they would tend to use our services less? The solution of the fictitious hit and run case you used as an example wouldn't have different results whether you as a forensic scientist were employed directly by the law enforcement agency investigating the case or whether you worked at a lab that was completely autonomous from the LE agency. Perhaps you're saying that the early involvement in the case might be lessened and perhaps that is true, again I would hope not. I agree with you whole-heartedly that as a group of professionals, forensic scientists have contributed to the perception that we "work for the police" (or the prosecution). We know that what we do is right and just and important,but it just doesn't make for a good read. I think (or perhaps unrealistically hope) that as a group we could combat that perception, but acknowledging those issues that contribute to the problem obviously would have to proceed any repair to our reputations. The perception is real and not completely without foundation. The sad thing is that the foundation is so very very small in relation to the vast good that we facilitate every single day. You know the routine. . . these are my thoughts and just my thoughts and my employer probably doesn't think the same thoughts Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Henson [mailto:hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:55 PM To: 'Smith, Stephanie L' Cc: 'forens-l' Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. 1. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that cops do clear/eliminate people as suspects in an investigation. 2. Do you think the public will ever be aware of the investigative lead type exams we do or the exams we perform that help the police / attorneys eliminate a suspect? If we were directly linked to the court system, would we be too far removed from the investigators (Police) to be utilized to help eliminate suspects? (i.e.. sorry guys, he may have been drunk, he may be being elusive and his car may be damaged but that's not the car that left the paint on the hit and run victim's clothing.) I know the perception is we work for the police but sometimes we help to create that perception. We talk about the cases where the physical evidence helps to prove a case. Do we talk about the work we do that helps clear/eliminate suspects? We hear about the DNA that is used to help clear the folks who were convicted and are in prison but what about the folks we eliminate daily prior to any trial? Just some thoughts, Lynn Henson US Army Crime Lab DSN 797-7265 Commercial 404-362-7265 email - hensonl@usacil-acirs.army.mil > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Stephanie L [SMTP:SLSmith@uspis.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:42 AM > To: 'Robert Parsons' > Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' > Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > Bob, > > Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough response. I share the opinions you > have expressed. > > I have long been concerned that the public as a whole might perceive the > forensic scientist who is administrated by a police agency (or a DA's > office) as biased. Most forensic scientists know that we are "not > beholden' > " to anyone and we take our role as advocate of the evidence very > seriously; > however, the problem of public perception should be a very serious concern > to our field. > > I support the goals of accreditation and I support the ideals of > certification. Both are truely meritorious, but I wonder how necessary (I > said necessary NOT valid) all of those efforts would have been if 30 years > ago labs would have been taken out from the administration of police > agencies and DA's offices. > > It's a complicated issue no doubt, and expecting a concensus among > forensic > scientists on this or any other issue isn't realistic. . . but I often > wonder, other than the police who administer the labs, who actually thinks > that it is a good idea to be administered by an unabashedly advocated > organization? I absolutely do not believe that administration by a police > agency is synonomous with a biased work product, I'm just worried that > many > potential jurors might believe it. I'm old enough to know that the > history > behind the establishment of most labs often included LEAA money, maybe > that > "shaped" our early days. Maybe many labs were created in the image of the > FBI. But maybe, just maybe. . . it's time for us to support the idea of > divesting police agencies of the responsibility to manage crime > laboratories > with even a fraction of the zeal we've invested in accreditation or > certification. Just a thought. . . > > Inasmuch as I am employed by a federal law enforcement organization. . . > surely realize that my opinions are my own and I would venture to guess do > NOT represent the official position of my employer(if one even exists). . > . > I appreciate an employer who welcomes the free thinking of it's employees > :-) > > > Stephanie L. Smith > Senior Forensic Chemist > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Parsons [mailto:rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 6:55 PM > To: 'Sidg@aol.com'; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > Your comments are without factual basis. Most forensic scientists are > decent, hardworking, reasonably well trained and competent professionals > who > do the best they can in a field where they are frequently overworked due > to > crushing caseloads and inadequate resources - and they are often underpaid > to boot. Can we as a profession become better than we are? Of course, > and > some of us are working very hard to establish programs and standards that > will improve and benefit the profession, and in turn the public at large. > > While there are true charlatans running around, most of us do actually > have > professional credentials of some kind (appropriate degrees, etc.), but > unfortunately most of us have not subjected themselves to the external > scrutiny of a certification board, and most labs have not submitted > themselves to external review by an accreditation board, because that kind > of credentialing remains voluntary in most jurisdictions in this country. > Yet the forensic science profession has made great leaps forward in the > last > decade in the pursuit of excellence and the demonstration of that > excellence > through external peer review. > > Most of the major forensic branches now have available to them > certification > boards (ABC, ABFT, ABFA, ABFD, ABFO, ABP-FP, ABFP, etc.) for their > specialties, crime labs as institutions have a national accreditation > board > (ASCLD-LAB), and standardized peer-written and peer-reviewed methodologies > are being published (ASTM). I don't have the specific figures at my > fingertips, but something like 1/4 (perhaps considerably more) of all > government forensic labs have now voluntarily submitted to ASCLD-LAB > accreditation inspection, and passed. Among the Criminalistics branch of > forensic science, close to 500 criminalists have voluntarily subjected > themselves to the ABC certification process, which involves basic > credential > reviews, written exams, annual proficiency tests, and a requirement for > continuing education. While this is not a majority of practicing > criminalists, it is not bad considering that the ABC only launched its > program in 1993, six short years ago. Older forensic certification boards > have higher percentages of their specialty base participating. These are > all demanding, rigorous programs, not "rubber stamps." > > These organizations are setting voluntary consensus standards that amount > to > a kind of "national standard," but so long as they are not required by law > there will be those who refuse to use the standards or to participate in > the > programs. There is a slowly growing number of jurisdictions that is > beginning to make such credentials mandatory through law or agency > regulation/policy. So far, that has only affected forensic scientists > working in the public sector, for a publicly-funded agency. Yet even if > all > government agencies had such requirements, unless there were laws > requiring > compliance with national accreditation/certification/standardization > standards, there would still be "free-lancers" in private practice who > refuse to participate voluntarily and so escape external evaluation. Of > course, if enough judges decide to require such external credentials in > order to admit expert testimony, then they will be legally recognized de > facto standards, even without the benefit of statutory incorporation. > > On the other hand, there is a real risk of mandatory standards being > written > in so restrictive a manner that they no longer allow a scientist to BE a > scientist, i.e., to use professional judgment to decide the best process > to > follow in addressing a specific problem/situation. So we must be wary and > careful, even as we work to establish useful standards. > > Contrary to your assertion, a forensic scientist who merely reports data > without interpreting the significance of it is useless to the > administration > of justice - those who read his/her reports are rarely competent to > understand the significance of the data without his/her help in > interpretation. If our profession has a major failing, it is in the area > of > too many practitioners NOT interpreting their results and just reporting > data, which one or both sides is then free to twist, misconstrue, > misapply, > or otherwise misuse in court or during the investigation. Interpretation > is > part and parcel of a scientist's job, ESPECIALLY a forensic scientist's. > > There are "bad apples" to be sure, working both as public servants and as > private "experts for hire," but they are in fact that "very small > percentage" you are so dubious of. I have to say that in 20 years of work > in this field (and I have worked, and continue to work, in both the public > and the private sector), I have never once personally seen a forensic > scientist on the public payroll give anything but objective and competent > scientific testimony, although I have certainly heard of it happening and > am > fully aware it does happen. On the other hand, I have personally seen > exactly the kind of incompetent and /or biased testimony you speak of from > private "experts" working for the defense, and I see it on a regular > basis. > That is because, again contrary to your belief, one's livelihood in the > public sector is usually NOT affected by the results of one's analyses - > most of us feel free to call it like it is (and do so), without any fear > of > negative repercussions from the law enforcement agencies we serve. > Conversely, in the private sector many unscrupulous examiners feel a need > to > "satisfy" their clients and build their businesses, so they give the > "desired" results whether factual and accurate or not. Fortunately there > are many others in the private sector, some of whom are regular > participants > in this forum, who are highly scrupulous and thoroughly competent > professionals who also "call it like it is" whether their clients like it > or > not. > > Although I believe relatively few public sector forensic scientists ever > feel any significant pressure to be partisan in their work, I have long > advocated that public crime labs be part of the judicial branch of > government or be independent agencies, so that they are never under the > color of influence (real or imagined) of a parent law enforcement agency. > > > Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally reprehensible > and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a > partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their > work. > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sidg@aol.com [ mailto:Sidg@aol.com ] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:18 PM > To: Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > In a message dated 1/3/00 1:39:52 PM, Knarfgerg@aol.com writes: > > << Look at CTS proficiency reports over the last few years and I think you > > will > see that more and more labs are reporting out only data, no conclusions > about > the data. >> > > Thank God they're only reporting the data. Until there are straight > forward, > > nationwide standards for forensic scientists and their crime labs, that's > all > they should do. When some of these so-called crime lab "scientists" offer > their dubious 'scientific opinions' regarding crime evidence, they are no > doubt biased and pro-prosecution -- just look at who signs their > paychecks. > In the quest to rise to the top in their field, they stretch the truth so > far > that they turn it into lies and help convict innocent people along the way > -- > all for The Win. A lot of these "scientists" embellish their credentials > enough to make juries think they are experts in many sciences when in > reality, they aren't even scientists. I'm not saying that it's every > forensic > scientist -- it may be a relatively small percentage -- but I doubt that. > It's frightening to think that these individuals that are untrained and > without credentials should have as much power as they do in our court > system. > How many innocent people have been imprisoned or executed due to a > "scientist" giving an "expert" opinion? I think you would find the sheer > number of wrongfully imprisoned and/or executed frightening. It could > happen > > to you. Scientists should testify on the facts science, not by biased > "expert" opinion. > > Barbara Jean McAtlin > 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 15:05:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09276 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (mta4.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.142]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09271 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:03:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNT00512UCCUM@mta4.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:02:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:08:52 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <004b01bf56ef$85a1a900$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Stephanie, and others; Reading these rather positive posts by various list member-practitioners regarding the high ethical standards that exist in the forensic community, one is left with the impression that forensic scientists who work for the state are enthusiastic about alienating the prosecutor's office should the evidence require it. To be fair, I have not always observed this to be the case in practice. When I do observe this, it gives me some reason for optimism. When I do not, it can frequently be said that pride has gone before the fall. To be blunt: Given the reality that forensic scientists and those posing as such without any forensic background or training (including forensic experts for the state who are cultivated when lab personnel do not fall in line with case theories) routinely provide overly confident testimony on weak evidence, I think that there is not a lot of support for the kind of assuredness that we are reading here. That and given what DNA is teaching us about the certainty of past conclusions. I think that there is much support for the public to be skeptical, disheartened, and even angry with this community given the conduct it endorses by act or omission of act. We should think about that and start having some honest conversations about what is going on around us in this community, dispensing with our various righteousnesses before sitting down at that table. Like an annual ethics conference or something (unaffiliated with and unbound to any individual, group or agency). Two quotes, for those who care for such things: ".it not infrequently happens that judges and jury, counsel for the prosecution and experts, all too sure of their logic and reason, are guided by invisible powers that have already decided the question of guilt or innocence." - Theodor Reik, The Unknown Murderer, (Prentice-Hall, 1945) "This over-estimation of comprehensibility, of logical sequence, and the reasonable character of a chain of thoughts has delayed the progress of science as well as that of justice. It is not true that people do not want to learn the truth. The greatest obstacle to the attainment of new knowledge is rather the firm conviction that the truth is already known." - Theodor Reik, The Unknown Murderer, (Prentice-Hall, 1945) Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Smith, Stephanie L To: ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:14 AM Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > Barbara, > > Do you have some specific experience that has made you so jaded about > Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if you don't mind > me asking? > > Stephanie L. Smith > Senior Forensic Chemist > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM > To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > > << Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally > reprehensible > and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a > partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their > work. >> > > I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. > Barbara Jean McAtlin > 703.352.8140 > From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 15:22:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09402 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:20:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (mta4.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.142]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09397 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:20:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNT00CBJV52AI@mta4.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:19:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:26:06 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <006301bf56f1$edb2fa60$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Lynn; Interesting post. Response below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Lynn Henson To: 'Smith, Stephanie L' Cc: 'forens-l' Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > 1. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that cops do clear/eliminate > people as suspects in an investigation. My enthusiasm with these occurances varies based upon the extent to which the Investigating Officer has made real efforts to remove preconceived theories and exaggerations from their investigation. That and the grasp that they have of the evidence in the case and how it corroborates or contradicts any statements that have been made by witnesses, victims, and suspects. For example, if a polygraph has been at all involved in this declaration of elimination (not an infrequent occurance), my enthusiasm is sharply diminished. > > 2. Do you think the public will ever be aware of the investigative lead type > exams we do or the exams we perform that help the police / attorneys > eliminate a suspect? If we were directly linked to the court system, would > we be too far removed from the investigators (Police) to be utilized to help > eliminate suspects? (i.e.. sorry guys, he may have been drunk, he may be > being elusive and his car may be damaged but that's not the car that left > the paint on the hit and run victim's clothing.) > > I know the perception is we work for the police but sometimes we help to > create that perception. We talk about the cases where the physical evidence > helps to prove a case. Do we talk about the work we do that helps > clear/eliminate suspects? We hear about the DNA that is used to help clear > the folks who were convicted and are in prison but what about the folks we > eliminate daily prior to any trial? > I wonder if there are not some very obvious reasons why it is unpopular to discuss cases involving forensic scientists that helped clear or eliminate suspects. 1) It does not play well to the media; 2) It may involve a clash with a law enforcement agency that really liked a suspect for the crime -- and may have been kicked in its pride by the forensic elimination; 3) It may involve having helped defense at trial, which involves alienating oneself from the DA, which few forensic scientists working for the state are eager to do, arguably. For myself, I think that this is perhaps the most important effort that a forensic scientist can aid in. More to think about, to be sure. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 15:27:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09487 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from red.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.226]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09471 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:25:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by red.uspis.gov; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA05627; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:38:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'Sidg@aol.com'" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:30:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Barbara, I am aware of this case, ironically I spent my youth in a community not 10 miles from Tommy Zeigler's furniture store. I have read information on the case and I am concerned that justice was NOT served in the case. I must acknowledge that I am unfamiliar with any of the physical evidence that was presented at the case. If forensic scientists from the FBI testified to matters in which they were unqualified to render opinions they quite simply did not serve justice. You will not find support among the forensic community for actions which compromise justice. Your passionate support of the cause of Mr. Zeigler threatens to leave you without the ability to apply rational thought to your endeavors. . . if bias has been exemplified in the running commentary on this matter it has been by you. Is it possible that the story you tell is much more compelling when the forensic scientists of the world are all in collusion to subvert what is right? There are poor representatives of every profession, but foolish is the judge who categorizes every man by the actions of a few. My opinions are my own. . . . Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist -----Original Message----- From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:11 PM To: SLSmith@uspis.gov; rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. In a message dated 1/4/00 11:10:17 AM, SLSmith@uspis.gov writes: << Do you have some specific experience that has made you so jaded about Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if you don't mind me asking? >> I have been researching wrongful convictions as well as working on trying to get a wrongfully convicted man out of prison for some time now. He's been on Florida's Death Row for almost 25 years. One of the biggest reasons he was even convicted in the first place was because of the FBI lab as well as the farce that law enforcement called an 'investigation.' The "scientists" at the FBI lab actually admitted to throwing away evidence and/or destroying it. >From what I've found so far, a crime lab would do well to be an independent agency instead of an arm of any law enforcement agency. The "scientists" that were called by the prosecution during the trial were pro-prosecution because of their ties with law enforcement. They clearly fit the so-called evidence to the crime by what-ever "scientific" means they were able to do so. The entire case is filled with people that weren't in actuality scientists but were announced to the court by the prosecution as such. The FBI lab as well as the key law enforcement figures in his case withheld exculpatory evidence while twisting and turning pro-prosecution to meet their ends - a conviction at any cost - even an innocent man. For more information on this case, please visit: http://www.banfound.u-net.com/camp5attach.htm To read Fatal Flaw - a book about this case, please see: http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage If you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer already, you will have to load it from the page to be able to view the book. It's 297 pages and well worth the read. If you choose to read it, please read it in its entirety. In the beginning, it almost seems clear that this man is guilty. By the end, you'll have absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that he's innocent and has been a victim of the system for over two decades. DNA testing would exonerate him if the prosecution would ever release the needed items. They won't. The FBI threw away a lot of the exculpatory evidence while the prosecution hid it from the defense. This whole case is frightening - especially considering that this sort of thing could happen to any one of us. Believe it. That's the single most reason that I vote for labs to not be part of any law enforcement agency. Labs that are owned or governed by law enforcement agencies have proven many more times than this one case that they are biased and pro-prosecution as long as they're paid and governed by a law enforcement agency. I have a real problem with a lot of the "scientists" at the FBI lab because: (a.) They're not scientists, and (b.) They are FBI agents or some similar agency's agent or officer. When you put those things together, you have a pro-prosecution non-scientist passing off information that they aren't qualified to testify to, as facts. They even call themselves experts. Would you want a pro-prosecut ion non-scientist testifying to the 'facts' in your trial? I think not. So anyway, that's where I get my opinion. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 15:42:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09620 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:35:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09613 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:35:34 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.a59e6a05 (3982) for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:35:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.a59e6a05.25a3b376@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:35:02 EST Subject: No Subject To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 15:44:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09691 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09682 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:43:04 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.dfffbf4 (3982) for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:36:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.dfffbf4.25a3b3c5@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:36:21 EST Subject: Fwd: Please Read To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_0.dfffbf4.25a3b3c5_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_0.dfffbf4.25a3b3c5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_0.dfffbf4.25a3b3c5_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (rly-zc04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.4]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 10:58:55 -0500 Received: from smtp1.hitter.net (smtp1.hitter.net [207.192.64.51]) by rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 10:58:40 -0500 Received: from hitter.net (cit-p12-213.hitter.net [207.192.73.213]) by smtp1.hitter.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA68091; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:55:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <387218D0.F1C4FE1B@hitter.net> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 10:59:12 -0500 From: Gail Reply-To: thequill@hitter.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Please Read Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; Mike Farrell wrote: > >>>>From former Judge Charles Baird: The PBS series Frontline is showing a > >>program dedicated to convicted inmates who are later able to prove their > >>innocence with DNA evidence. The Frontline program focuses on the Texas > >>case of Roy Criner who has 2 DNA tests which prove his innocence but he > >>remains in prison. The program will be broadcast on 1/11 (but check your > >>local listings to make sure). Below is an op-ed from Clarence Page related > >>to the Frontline program and focusing on the Criner case. > >>> > > > >Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune - > >>>WASHINGTON - You might think it is a simple matter for prison inmates to > >>>walk free when DNA tests prove they are innocent. You also might think it > >>is easy for them to get permission to have the evidence in their cases > >>retested with modern DNA testing techniques. You might even think > >>prosecutors and the courts are interested, more than anything else, in > >>justice, in finding actual wrongdoers, not in keeping apparently innocent > >>people locked up. Maybe you believe in the tooth fairy, too. Wrongful > >>conviction, it turns out, is not enough to get you out of jail, even when > >>your innocence is supported by DNA evidence. Clyde Charles, 46, was one of > >>the lucky ones. He made national news a few days before Christmas when he > >>walked out of the Louisiana State penitentiary at Angola, cleared by DNA > >>evidence after serving 18 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. > >>>He was lucky because the evidence had not been lost or destroyed, as it > >>>has been in countless other similar cases. He was lucky that the Innocence > >>>Project at New York's Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva > >>>University successfully sued the state in 1998 to allow Charles to be > >>retested. Cardozo law Prof. Barry Scheck, who became famous as O.J. > >>Simpson's DNA attorney, has helped free Charles and almost 70 other inmates > >>using DNA testing techniques that were not available when the men were > >>convicted. Charles was lucky, project attorneys say, that the state did not > >>fight to keep him locked up. Instead, before approving the test, the state > >>required Charles to promise not to sue the state for false imprisonment. > >>>Next door in Texas, Roy Criner has not been as lucky. Criner, 34, is a > >>burly and baby-faced logger who was sentenced to 99 years in prison for the > >>rape and murder of Deanna Ogg, 16, whose body was found in Montgomery > >>County, Texas, in 1986. Criner has remained in jail despite two DNA tests > >>in the past three years that refute the testimony that convicted him. > >>Criner and Charles are two of the Innocence Project's cases spotlighted in > >>The Case for Innocence, a Frontline documentary, scheduled for broadcast on > >>PBS stations on Jan. 11. > >>> When Frontline's reporters interview state officials, including Judge > >>>Sharon Keller, who wrote the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal's rejection > >>>of Criner's appeal, they simply shrug off the DNA results as compelling, > >>>but not compelling enough. Could he be innocent, an interviewer asks. > >>"Oh, I suppose that's a possibility," Keller says after a slight pause, as > >>if the notion had not occurred to her until that moment. "But he certainly > >>hasn't established it." So what if all of the prosecution arguments made in > >>his case have been refuted? What if, Keller offers, Criner had an > >>accomplice that the court did not know about. It is not enough that the > >>state no longer has proof that Criner is guilty, Keller says, Criner now > >>must establish that he is "unquestionably innocent." Such defensiveness on > >>the state's part is all too typical in such cases. > >>> The sad fact is, as one of Criner's defenders puts it, "Innocence is not > >>>a basis for getting out of prison in this country." Sadder still is the > >>refusal of many prosecutors to reopen cases after DNA evidence shows they > >>have jailed the wrong man. The path to federal appeals also has been > >>squeezed off by new federal laws and Supreme Court decisions that have > >>limited one's rights to appeal. > >>> What is to be done? Defenders of the status quo argue that taxpayers > >>>can't afford to open the floodgates to all of the inmates who claim they > >>>should get new trials, too. But the taxpayers don't have to. All that the > >>>states have to do is to pass new laws, rules and procedures that can > >>protect rights while avoiding frivolous appeals. A DNA evidence law that > >>Illinois passed two years ago makes a good model. Among its requirements, > >>the conviction must have occurred before DNA testing was used in criminal > >>investigations. The conviction also must have been based almost entirely on > >>identification by a witness and the evidence to be tested has to have been > >>in the custody of a law enforcement agency since the trial ended. > >>> In the meantime, we, the public, should let our governors and > >>>prosecutors know that we want justice for victims and criminals, not just > >>big prison body counts. > >>> One prominent governor, George W. Bush, could make a particularly > >>>meaningful contribution by looking into the Roy Criner case. True, Bush > >>has a lot on his mind these days. But he does call himself a "compassionate > >>conservative," doesn't he? > >>> Talk is cheap. Actions speak. --part1_0.dfffbf4.25a3b3c5_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 16:21:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10422 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:20:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10417 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:20:06 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id d.0.af0e45ba (3962); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:19:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.af0e45ba.25a3bde2@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:19:30 EST Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Jeff I would like to weigh in on this one. I worked for the FBI for sixteen year, twelve of those years with the FBI lab. I believe there are pressures. I believe that a few folks in that lab bent to those pressures. I believe that I have successfully shown that. But I don't believe that the majority of any of us in any lab put out a bad work product. If that were true it would be shown clearly and often. What has happened with this system of acceptance of scientific evidence by our courts is that generally we have no more than anecdote to indicate the failure/error rate of our industry of forensic science. We need a system of independent audit of our labs. Many folks in the industry fear audit as much as the FBI lab feared an ASCLD inspection for twenty years. That fear proved to be fear of the unknown. We have passed that hurdle. Thousands of incarcerated individuals did not walk free. Tens of thousands of cases were not overturned. (We forget too often that forensic science is just part of the case, not the whole case.) Now we need to look at independent audit. The definition of audit will be determined by this country as a whole working through elected officials with the advice of the forensic science community as well as a lot of other folks who are paying our paychecks. To say at this point that the industry is full of folks who are biasing their reports and bending to "pro-prosecutorial" pressures is as hollow as the FBI's fear of an ASLCD inspection. There is only anecdote to support that allegation. Nothing more. And the anedotes come to the attention of all of us very likely because they represent aberration. Nothing more. All human enterprises have an error rate. This forensic scientist certainly has an error rate. Don't elevate that error rate into something it is not. Frederic Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 16:43:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10732 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:40:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10727 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:40:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:35:58 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C20E@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'FORENS-L'" Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:40:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Is unpopular the word for elimination of suspects? Un-newsworthy, unmemorable, routine, may be better. When we successfully eliminate someone as a suspect (which includes convincing law enforcement and prosecutor), they don't go to trial, we don't testify, and the newspapers don't write about it. And if honest testimony for the defense at trial (when you have failed to convince the prosecutor of the elimination) alienates that prosecutor because he loses, fine. I'm in favor of alienating people who are opposed to honest testimony. A man can be judged fairly well by the quality of his enemies. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Brent Turvey [mailto:bturvey@profiling.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:26 PM I wonder if there are not some very obvious reasons why it is unpopular to discuss cases involving forensic scientists that helped clear or eliminate suspects. 1) It does not play well to the media; 2) It may involve a clash with a law enforcement agency that really liked a suspect for the crime -- and may have been kicked in its pride by the forensic elimination; 3) It may involve having helped defense at trial, which involves alienating oneself from the DA, which few forensic scientists working for the state are eager to do, arguably. For myself, I think that this is perhaps the most important effort that a forensic scientist can aid in. More to think about, to be sure. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 16:47:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10813 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:45:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10808 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:45:15 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.4622377b (3962); Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:44:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.4622377b.25a3c3bf@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:44:31 EST Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: Sidg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Barbara Let's go beyond the point where the lab has now, in this ideal world, become not associated with the law enforcement agencies. What drives the funding? >From where will the pressures on those "independent" labs originate and what pressures will drive those labs seeking those funds. When a crime is committed we all seek closure. Big crimes DEMAND closure. Politicians stomp. Presidents comment. Bureaucrats declare theirs is THE answer. Supervisors look toward wanting to be at the next level of supervision. Telephones ring. The media is everywhere. Every tiny piece of the puzzle is worn out. And the RIGHT answer is too often the first answer, the fastest answer. Now put those pressures on any lab, those associated with law enforcement and those not. It is true that there were those at the FBI lab who biased. Proven beyond any doubt. But did they all? No. I worked there. I know. I have the data. When bias was a problem I reported it to the whole world through a system of governmental review. Some of my concerns were upheld and some not substantiated. In the case you are reviewing from Florida you may very well see bias. But then you may be wanting to see bias. Is there bias in your own approach? You object to agents as forensic scientists. Why? I was an FBI agent as well as a scientist. I hold a BS & PhD in chemistry. As well as a degree in law. Why can't scientists also be agents? I knew a bunch of them who were as objective as any investigator anywhere. Where is your data that says how many of the FBI's "experts" were not really experts, just agents? I will not play devil's advocate with you but ask you to look closely at your data and possibly reevaluate your position. I also review such cases as you are reviewing and am appalled at the consequences of our justice system's error rate. But I try at the same time to not allow my being appalled cloud my reasoning and result in my making statements without the data to back those statements. If you take away the tools needed by law enforcement to function properly, you will be responsible for possibly introducing error rate into the system also. Just because one police officer misuses his weapon, we should not disarm all officers. Just because forensic labs have an error rate, we should not take this valuable tool away from law enforcement. We need to improve on the system, not destroy it. I think what we need is a system of audit for forensic labs just as there is in every testing laboratory environment in this country. Clinical labs and environmental labs already have such systems in place. Why not use those labs as models for future audit? And leave the forensic labs that are attached to law enforcement organizations right where they are. As very valuable tools of agencies dedicated to finding truth but prone to error just like you and I. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 17:28:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11248 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11243 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:25:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA23007; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:25:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:25:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com cc: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <0.af0e45ba.25a3bde2@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com > > Jeff > Now we need to look at independent audit. The definition of audit will be > determined by this country as a whole working through elected officials > with the advice of the forensic science community as well as a lot of other > folks who are paying our paychecks. > To say at this point that the industry is full of folks who > are biasing their reports and bending to "pro-prosecutorial" pressures is as > hollow as the FBI's fear of an ASLCD inspection. There is only anecdote to > support that allegation. Nothing more. And the anedotes come to the > attention of all of us very likely because they represent aberration. > Nothing more. > Well, for once, Fred, we seem to be on the same wavelength. I must say, though, that the character assassination sub-committee of the forens-L mailing list actually has more to fear from a *real* QA and a *real* audit than any laboratory does. One of the first principles of quality assurance and quality auditing is that 99.999% of problems are structural and not due to individuals. People do not want to go to work and do a bad job. They are most often forced into doing a "bad" job by structural constraints. Unfortunately, this means that folk who spend their time engaging in self-serving self-aggrandizing self-righteous breast-beating by stereotyping "forensic scientists" as "corrupt" or "incompetent" or whatever will have to find some other way of viewing themselves as holier than the rest. The postings on the list show that many of those who cry for "quality" in forensic science have little interest in real quality. They are just looking for someone to blame, someone to look down upon, and for secondary gain -- an attitude which is, of course, the first "don't" in quality assurance management and implementation. Until *that* attitude changes, until audits themselves are viewed professionally, and until such audits are used as quality tools rather than punitive attempts at exorcism, such a call is self-serving and futile. For those interested in a professional approach to quality, I suggest taking a look at the American Society for Quality, www.asq.org. billo, CQA(ASQ) From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 17:46:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11404 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:44:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11399 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNU00MVD1NLGY@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:40:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 14:46:50 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <017301bf5705$96f5b000$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Stephanie; I read your response to Barbara with some interest. There are a few comments that I would like to make, if you would indulge me. First, there has been the suggestion that the overstatement of testimony, the hiding of exculpatory evidence, and the existence of pro-prosecution bias are rare exceptions to the rule in the forensic sciences. The inference almost being that such instances need no great attention because they cause no great harm by virtue of alleged infrequency. This causes me to ask myself two questions-- upon what facts are this suggestion based (certainly this issue needs some visitation), and how often does it have to happen before it becomes "common" or worthy of our attention? See the rest below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Smith, Stephanie L To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:30 PM Subject: RE: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > Dear Barbara, > > I am aware of this case, ironically I spent my youth in a community not 10 > miles from Tommy Zeigler's furniture store. I have read information on the > case and I am concerned that justice was NOT served in the case. What do you mean by "justice," and what criteria should be used to decide whether or not it has been served (I have my own criteria, but they are not always in agreement with those who practice law or serve on juries)? Further still, how often do we believe that justice has been served when the facts of a case go unknown, an innocent person has gone to prison, and a criminal has gone free? Then, how many are anxious to admit that they were wrong when it has been demostrated that this has happened (or work to keep the possibility from being investigated at all), and how many are then held accountible? > > I must acknowledge that I am unfamiliar with any of the physical evidence > that was presented at the case. If forensic scientists from the FBI > testified to matters in which they were unqualified to render opinions they > quite simply did not serve justice. You will not find support among the > forensic community for actions which compromise justice. > Justice is a very subjective, personal concept. When one person believes it has been served, another may not. So I am not sure I would hang my hat (or a friend) on what the forensic community does or does not support. Nor am I even certain that there is one forensic community. This much is certain, members of the forensic community have banded together in support erroneous conclusions in the past. There is no reason to believe that this will not continue. > Your passionate support of the cause of Mr. Zeigler threatens to leave you > without the ability to apply rational thought to your endeavors. . . if bias > has been exemplified in the running commentary on this matter it has been by > you. Is it possible that the story you tell is much more compelling when > the forensic scientists of the world are all in collusion to subvert what is > right? I am not sure that we, as forensic scientists, can decry the passion or zeal of others when it provides a mechanism for bringing "injustice" to our attention. What we do in our own examination of the facts is really the issue. The public has the right to be offended, and the innocent have the right to their voice as well. Though I agree that this has no place in the forensic sciences. > > There are poor representatives of every profession, but foolish is the judge > who categorizes every man by the actions of a few. > > My opinions are my own. . . . > > Stephanie L. Smith > Senior Forensic Chemist Those are very wise and well chosen words. I do agree with them. I do not agree, however, that it has been established with any degree of reliability which forensic scientists are in the minority and which are not. I think that this issue needs visiting. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 17:51:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11438 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:49:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11433 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:49:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNU0017E1RL8C@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:42:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 14:49:14 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <017b01bf5705$ecc43d80$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C20E@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dave; I could not agree more. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH To: 'FORENS-L' Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 1:40 PM Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > And if honest testimony for the defense at trial (when you have > failed to convince the prosecutor of the elimination) alienates that > prosecutor because he loses, fine. I'm in favor of alienating people who > are opposed to honest testimony. A man can be judged fairly well by the > quality of his enemies. > Dave Hause From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 18:13:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11619 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:11:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA11614 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 23:11:23 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:05:55 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: FORENS-L Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:05:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5708.41183A88" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5708.41183A88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To Stephanie - I share your concerns, which is why I am an advocate of government crime labs existing as branches of the judiciary or as independent agencies. It is rare that law enforcement agencies try to force forensic scientists to give erroneous or exaggerated reports or testimony, and rarer still that forensic scientists give in to such pressures, whether they come from a "parent" agency or not. Yet the rare cases where such compromise of professional scientific integrity occurs is reason enough to look for a solution, especially when the rare "Fred Zains" of our profession manage to tarnish the rest of us with their despicable, if uncommon, acts. It is not our reputations which so much concerns me as the harm it does to the public's confidence in our work, to the detriment of their ability to fairly and thoroughly weigh the evidence when they become jurors. The US Army has an old adage (at least that's where I hear it most often): "It is not enough to avoid wrongdoing, you must also avoid the APPEARANCE of wrongdoing." So long as crime labs remain part of law enforcement agencies, they will be subject to the kind of baseless generalized suspicions we have seen voiced in this forum. I know that most forensic scientists do their work unfettered by law enforcement pressure, but like you I'm not sure the public knows it any longer. To Lynn - It is precisely the point you make, that the public only hears about the rare improprieties, and never hears or thinks about the routine, daily proprieties; only about the suspects we help convict, and never the ones we routinely exonerate; that is the problem. We can rightly criticize the press for skewing public impression with sensationalized reporting, but that will not solve the problem. I personally don't think anything would be lost by putting our labs under the courts rather than law enforcement agencies. In state lab systems and in independent local multi-jurisdictional labs like mine, the labs successfully serve a great many different law enforcement agencies without being a part of them, and serve them well. It doesn't hurt their ability to help in investigations, or in law enforcement's motivation to seek their help, at least not that I can see. It is when cops do not seek scientific help, and instead spend weeks building a case on less reliable evidence, that they are most in danger of becoming so "married" to their theories of the crime that they have a hard time seeing and admitting when they were wrong. But I think that's an encouragement, not a discouragement, to seek out the lab's help early in the investigation. Our own agencies aren't always overjoyed when we tell them they have the wrong suspect, but most are grateful to know they are barking up the wrong tree so they can begin seeking out the right one, and I can't see there being any difference if we were part of their agencies, except in the public's perception. We don't have to be part of "their team" to be a valued resource to them. Most cops really do want to catch the right guy, and most know they are helped in that endeavor by seeking out the lab's assistance, whether it is part of their own agency or not. To Barbara - If there was misconduct by forensic scientists in the case you refer to, that is something we all condemn, but you continue to err with sweeping generalizations which are simply non-factual. Having "ties to law enforcement" does not automatically make a forensic scientist "pro-prosecution," as I and others have repeatedly pointed out. Most of us our going to tell it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may. FYI, most FBI lab analysts are, in fact, degreed scientists. The mere fact that the FBI historically required them to go through agent training and qualify as field agents does not transform a scientist into a non-scientist. Today, the FBI has moved away from the concept of agent-analysts, and many, perhaps most, of their lab scientists are non-sworn civilian employees. There are state law enforcement agencies with a similar tradition. Personally, it always seemed wasteful and silly to me to spend all that time and money to train someone to be a law enforcement officer when the person will never conduct a criminal investigation outside the lab, much less arrest anyone or fire a service revolver (it also eliminates from your talent pool very good scientists who aren't up to the physical requirements of a police academy); but that doesn't make them any less scientists or any less capable to act as scientists. It is true that some types of crime lab work have historically been done by non-scientists (fingerprinting and firearms examinations come to mind, among others), but these are professional positions filled by what are best characterized as skilled tradesmen who learn their craft in a apprenticeship under accomplished masters of the art. The fact that they were not scientists made them no less expert in what they did, although today there is a trend for even these specialties to employ scientists and/or scientific methodology, if for no other reason than to prove through science that their art was as reliable as they always believed it was. To Brent: I know it's hard to let go of long-held cherished beliefs, but you have really got to get over your obsessive delusion that crime lab personnel live in fear of the almighty prosecutor. No, we aren't particularly anxious to alienate them, but neither are we particularly concerned about alienating them - we are completely indifferent to the possibility of alienating them. As many on this forum have told you before, we don't give a rat's backside about the opinion of the prosecutor (or the defense attorney). We're only concerned with doing a good job, accurately and completely reporting the results, and trying our best to see that the trier of fact gets to hear those results. The last time this issue came up, someone did a poll and the results were crystal clear - while a few labs indicated they had to get "permission" from prosecutors to talk to defense attorneys, the vast majority confirmed that the prosecutor has no control whatsoever over their labs and no influence over their careers. No Brent, we really, really don't care what the prosecutor's reaction to our reports is - because his/her opinion doesn't affect us in any way, shape, or form (and even if it did, most of us still wouldn't let it bias us). Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5708.41183A88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.

To Stephanie -

I share your concerns, which is why I am an advocate = of government crime labs existing as branches of the judiciary or as = independent agencies.  It is rare that law enforcement agencies = try to force forensic scientists to give erroneous or exaggerated = reports or testimony, and rarer still that forensic scientists give in = to such pressures, whether they come from a "parent" agency = or not.  Yet the rare cases where such compromise of professional = scientific integrity occurs is reason enough to look for a solution, = especially when the rare "Fred Zains" of our profession = manage to tarnish the rest of us with their despicable, if uncommon, = acts.  It is not our reputations which so much concerns me as the = harm it does to the public's confidence in our work, to the detriment = of their ability to fairly and thoroughly weigh the evidence when they = become jurors.

The US Army has an old adage (at least that's where I = hear it most often):  "It is not enough to avoid wrongdoing, = you must also avoid the APPEARANCE of wrongdoing."  So long = as crime labs remain part of law enforcement agencies, they will be = subject to the kind of baseless generalized suspicions we have seen = voiced in this forum.  I know that most forensic scientists do = their work unfettered by law enforcement pressure, but like you I'm not = sure the public knows it any longer.


To Lynn -

It is precisely the point you make, that the public = only hears about the rare improprieties, and never hears or thinks = about the routine, daily proprieties; only about the suspects we help = convict, and never the ones we routinely exonerate; that is the = problem.  We can rightly criticize the press for skewing public = impression with sensationalized reporting, but that will not solve the = problem.  I personally don't think anything would be lost by = putting our labs under the courts rather than law enforcement = agencies.  In state lab systems and in independent local = multi-jurisdictional labs like mine, the labs successfully serve a = great many different law enforcement agencies without being a part of = them, and serve them well.  It doesn't hurt their ability to help = in investigations, or in law enforcement's motivation to seek their = help, at least not that I can see. 

It is when cops do not seek scientific help, and = instead spend weeks building a case on less reliable evidence, that = they are most in danger of becoming so "married" to their = theories of the crime that they have a hard time seeing and admitting = when they were wrong.  But I think that's an encouragement, not a = discouragement, to seek out the lab's help early in the = investigation.  Our own agencies aren't always overjoyed when we = tell them they have the wrong suspect, but most are grateful to know = they are barking up the wrong tree so they can begin seeking out the = right one, and I can't see there being any difference if we were part = of their agencies, except in the public's perception.  We don't = have to be part of "their team" to be a valued resource to = them.  Most cops really do want to catch the right guy, and most = know they are helped in that endeavor by seeking out the lab's = assistance, whether it is part of their own agency or not.


To Barbara -

If there was misconduct by forensic scientists in the = case you refer to, that is something we all condemn, but you continue = to err with sweeping generalizations which are simply = non-factual.  Having "ties to law enforcement" does not = automatically make a forensic scientist "pro-prosecution," as = I and others have repeatedly pointed out.  Most of us our going to = tell it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may.  FYI, = most FBI lab analysts are, in fact, degreed scientists.  The mere = fact that the FBI historically required them to go through agent = training and qualify as field agents does not transform a scientist = into a non-scientist.  Today, the FBI has moved away from the = concept of agent-analysts, and many, perhaps most, of their lab = scientists are non-sworn civilian employees.  There are state law = enforcement agencies with a similar tradition.  Personally, it = always seemed wasteful and silly to me to spend all that time and money = to train someone to be a law enforcement officer when the person will = never conduct a criminal investigation outside the lab, much less = arrest anyone or fire a service revolver (it also eliminates from your = talent pool very good scientists who aren't up to the physical = requirements of a police academy); but that doesn't make them any less = scientists or any less capable to act as scientists.

It is true that some types of crime lab work have = historically been done by non-scientists (fingerprinting and firearms = examinations come to mind, among others), but these are professional = positions filled by what are best characterized as skilled tradesmen = who learn their craft in a apprenticeship under accomplished masters of = the art.  The fact that they were not scientists made them no less = expert in what they did, although today there is a trend for even these = specialties to employ scientists and/or scientific methodology, if for = no other reason than to prove through science that their art was as = reliable as they always believed it was.


To Brent:

I know it's hard to let go of long-held cherished = beliefs, but you have really got to get over your obsessive delusion = that crime lab personnel live in fear of the almighty prosecutor.  = No, we aren't particularly anxious to alienate them, but neither are we = particularly concerned about alienating them - we are completely = indifferent to the possibility of alienating them.  As many on = this forum have told you before, we don't give a rat's backside about = the opinion of the prosecutor (or the defense attorney).  We're = only concerned with doing a good job, accurately and completely = reporting the results, and trying our best to see that the trier of = fact gets to hear those results.  The last time this issue came = up, someone did a poll and the results were crystal clear - while a few = labs indicated they had to get "permission" from prosecutors = to talk to defense attorneys, the vast majority confirmed that the = prosecutor has no control whatsoever over their labs and no influence = over their careers.  No Brent, we really, really don't care what = the prosecutor's reaction to our reports is - because his/her opinion = doesn't affect us in any way, shape, or form (and even if it did, most = of us still wouldn't let it bias us).

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5708.41183A88-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 18:28:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11709 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:26:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA11704 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:26:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 23:26:31 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:21:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: From The Tampa Tribune - comment Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:20:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF570A.5DE7836A" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF570A.5DE7836A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Well, Bill, my only experience with ATF lab personnel are with their fire debris and explosives folks, but I can tell you that they are very talented accomplished scientists, that they have served on the boards and committees of some of the most prestigious and important organizations in forensics, and that they have been leaders in setting national standards for the profession through work in those organizations. I have worked with them and/or seen their work in organizations like AAFS, ABC, ASTM, and more than one TWG (for example, the first president of the ABC was an ATF lab scientist and administrator, Rick Tontarski). ATF lab personnel are in my opinion unsurpassed in expertise regarding crimes involving arsons and explosives, and their lab's reputation for firearms and alcohol expertise is just as impressive, although I have no personal experience with the latter. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [mailto:LEGALEYE1@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:51 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment In a message dated 1/3/00 1:25:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, KJohn39679@aol.com writes: > > One should start with the FBI lab which has been one and the same with the > law enforcement component of the FBI since its inception. Indeed for most of > > its existence, the majority of FBI laab personnel were agents. And what of the ATF, those noble protectors of, . . .well, what ever it is that ATF agents are supposed to protect. I know virtually nothing of the forensic science division of the ATF. I have no reason to believe that the lab personnel at the ATF are anything but conscientious in the performance of their duties. The investigations and other experience I have had with agents from the ATF has never resulted in a positive impression of the integrity of the enforcement arm of this Bureau. I have read reports on this list giving accounts of ATF agents who have shown great devotion and courage in the furtherance of justice. I intend to devote some time to researching these stories in order to acquire some sense of balanced perspective regarding these agents. I do find it disturbing that I would have to search out honerable law enforcement officers from a federal agency. It should require great effort to locate agents who engage in misconduct and abuse of authority rather than those who demonstrate ethical integrity. What I would like to know is how the ATF forensic science labs compare with the FBI. As I noted I have little knowledge about the function of the ATF labs but I imagine with the wide range of jurisdiction handled by the ATF the responsibilities of the lab personnel is rather challenging. I am particularly interested in whether the ATF forensic science personnel are brought up through the ranks of the enforcement agents as the FBI tends to do or if they are recruited independently. Any one care to provide some insight? If this post seems awkward it is because I am trying to avoid insulting anyone employed in the Forensic labs of the ATF. I have never found cause to believe there is any lack of integrity amongst those in the forensic area of the ATF and have no wish to give offense there. As far as the enforcement agents I don't really have much of a concern about offending them. Just my educated view, which I would love to have proven wrong. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF570A.5DE7836A Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: From The Tampa Tribune - comment

Well, Bill, my only experience with ATF lab personnel = are with their fire debris and explosives folks, but I can tell you = that they are very talented accomplished scientists, that they have = served on the boards and committees of some of the most prestigious and = important organizations in forensics, and that they have been leaders = in setting national standards for the profession through work in those = organizations.  I have worked with them and/or seen their work in = organizations like AAFS, ABC, ASTM, and more than one TWG (for example, = the first president of the ABC was an ATF lab scientist and = administrator, Rick Tontarski).  ATF lab personnel are in my = opinion unsurpassed in expertise regarding crimes involving arsons and = explosives, and their lab's reputation for firearms and alcohol = expertise is just as impressive, although I have no personal experience = with the latter.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com [mailto:LEGALEYE1@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:51 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: From The Tampa Tribune - comment


In a message dated 1/3/00 1:25:16 PM Pacific Standard = Time,
KJohn39679@aol.com writes:

>
>  One should start with the FBI lab which = has been one and the same with the
>  law enforcement component of the FBI = since its inception. Indeed for most
of
>
>  its existence, the majority of FBI laab = personnel were agents.
 
And what of the ATF, those noble protectors of, . . = .well, what ever it is
that ATF agents are supposed to protect.  I = know virtually nothing of the
forensic science division of the ATF.  I have = no reason to believe that the
lab personnel at the ATF are anything but = conscientious in the performance of
their duties.  The investigations and other = experience I have had with agents
from the ATF has never resulted in a positive = impression of the integrity of
the enforcement arm of this Bureau.  I have = read reports on this list giving
accounts of ATF agents who have shown great devotion = and courage in the
furtherance of justice.  I intend to devote = some time to researching these
stories in order to acquire some sense of balanced = perspective regarding
these agents.  I do find it disturbing that I = would have to search out
honerable law enforcement officers from a federal = agency.  It should require
great effort to locate agents who engage in = misconduct and abuse of authority
rather than those who demonstrate ethical integrity.<= /FONT>
What I would like to know is how the ATF forensic = science labs compare with
the FBI.  As I noted I have little knowledge = about the function of the ATF
labs but I imagine with the wide range of = jurisdiction handled by the ATF the
responsibilities of the lab personnel is rather = challenging.  I am
particularly interested in whether the ATF forensic = science personnel are
brought up through the ranks of the enforcement = agents as the FBI tends to do
or if they are recruited independently.  Any = one care to provide some insight?
If this post seems awkward it is because I am trying = to avoid insulting
anyone employed in the Forensic labs of the = ATF.  I have never found cause to
believe there is any lack of integrity amongst those = in the forensic area of
the ATF and have no wish to give offense = there.  As far as the enforcement
agents I don't really have much of a concern about = offending them.  Just my
educated view, which I would love to have proven = wrong.  


Bill Holden
Legaleye Investigations
Legaleye1@aol.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF570A.5DE7836A-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 19:03:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA11878 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA11873 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:59:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 23:59:31 UT Received: by EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:54:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 18:53:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF570E.FA21D786" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF570E.FA21D786 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ah Brent, ever the "half-empty glass" cynic. <> There is no such inference (except perhaps in jaundiced depths of your own mind), merely a rebuttal to untrue slanders that have no data to back them up. Most of us who have replied to those attacks have stated quite plainly that even one case of such bias is unacceptable and insufferable, because even one innocent wrongly convicted constitutes "great harm." << This causes me to ask myself two questions-- upon what facts are this suggestion based (certainly this issue needs some visitation),>> Answer -- the personal experience of all who have replied in the profession's defense - we routinely see just the opposite: dedication by all those we have worked with over the decades to scientific truth and justice, with total unconcern for the "pressures" you think are so pervasive and overpowering, and complete disgust regarding the dishonorable aberrations of the few you think are the majority. If our personal experience is insufficient, what facts would you like? What facts can be gathered to prove that something does not exist? It's simple to prove the existence of something, near impossible to "prove" it's nonexistence. << and how often does it have to happen before it becomes "common" or worthy of our attention?>> Answer (for the umpteenth time): Only once. It is always worthy of our concern and our concerted action to correct and prevent. We're not going to sit idly by when people slander the entire profession without justification, but that doesn't mean we aren't concerned about even a single aberration in professional conduct. <<> There are poor representatives of every profession, but foolish is the judge > who categorizes every man by the actions of a few. Those are very wise and well chosen words. I do agree with them. I do not agree, however, that it has been established with any degree of reliability which forensic scientists are in the minority and which are not. >> How do you propose we establish it Brent? How do the honest, dedicated, forensic scientists prove they are in the majority? You can prove the existence of corruption, but how do you "prove" the absence of it? It is easy to sling accusations and generalizations based on a few isolated documented cases, but that's no indication of any veracity in the position that the corrupt are the majority. Innocent until proven guilty? I guess that doesn't apply to forensic scientists in your philosophy - you've run into a few bad (in your opinion) apples, so that means the whole barrel must be rotten. How "scientific" is that illogic? Sheesh. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF570E.FA21D786 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.

Ah Brent, ever the "half-empty glass" = cynic.

<<First, there has been the suggestion that the = overstatement of testimony,
the hiding of exculpatory evidence, and the = existence of pro-prosecution
bias are rare exceptions to the rule in the forensic = sciences. The inference
almost being that such instances need no great = attention because they cause
no great harm by virtue of alleged = infrequency.>>

There is no such inference (except perhaps in = jaundiced depths of your own mind), merely a rebuttal to untrue = slanders that have no data to back them up.  Most of us who have = replied to those attacks have stated quite plainly that even one case = of such bias is unacceptable and insufferable, because even one = innocent wrongly convicted constitutes "great = harm."

<< This causes me to ask myself two questions-- = upon what facts are this suggestion based (certainly this issue needs = some  visitation),>>

Answer  -- the personal experience of all who = have replied in the profession's defense - we routinely see just the = opposite:  dedication by all those we have worked with over the = decades to scientific truth and justice, with total unconcern for the = "pressures" you think are so pervasive and overpowering, and = complete disgust regarding the dishonorable aberrations of the few you = think are the majority.  If our personal experience is = insufficient, what facts would you like?  What facts can be = gathered to prove that something does not exist?  It's simple to = prove the existence of something, near impossible to "prove" = it's nonexistence.

<< and how often does it have to happen = before
it becomes "common" or worthy of our = attention?>>

Answer (for the umpteenth time):  Only = once.  It is always worthy of our concern and our concerted action = to correct and prevent.  We're not going to sit idly by when = people slander the entire profession without justification, but that = doesn't mean we aren't concerned about even a single aberration in = professional conduct.

<snip>

<<> There are poor representatives of every = profession, but foolish is the
judge
> who categorizes every man by the actions of a = few.

Those are very wise and well chosen words. I do agree = with them. I do not
agree, however, that it has been established with = any degree of reliability
which forensic scientists are in the minority and = which are not.
>>

How do you propose we establish it Brent?  How = do the honest, dedicated, forensic scientists prove they are in the = majority?  You can prove the existence of corruption, but how do = you "prove" the absence of it?  It is easy to sling = accusations and generalizations based on a few isolated documented = cases, but that's no indication of any veracity in the position that = the corrupt are the majority.  Innocent until proven guilty?  = I guess that doesn't apply to forensic scientists in your philosophy - = you've run into a few bad (in your opinion) apples, so that means the = whole barrel must be rotten.  How "scientific" is that = illogic?  Sheesh.


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

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF570E.FA21D786-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 19:31:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12096 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12084 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNU0080P6MX1X@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:28:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 16:34:28 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <008301bf5714$a0035a80$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill & Fred; As I alluded to before, the reports of the status quo of the forensic community (which does not arguably exist) are equally anecdotal. The issue needs formal visiting. I wonder if that will ever happen. Other comments below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com > > > > Jeff > > > Now we need to look at independent audit. The definition of audit will be > > determined by this country as a whole working through elected officials > > with the advice of the forensic science community as well as a lot of other > > folks who are paying our paychecks. > > > To say at this point that the industry is full of folks who > > are biasing their reports and bending to "pro-prosecutorial" pressures is as > > hollow as the FBI's fear of an ASLCD inspection. There is only anecdote to > > support that allegation. Nothing more. And the anedotes come to the > > attention of all of us very likely because they represent aberration. > > Nothing more. > > > > > Well, for once, Fred, we seem to be on the same wavelength. I must > say, though, that the character assassination sub-committee of the > forens-L mailing list actually has more to fear from a *real* QA and a > *real* audit than any laboratory does. One of the first principles of > quality assurance and quality auditing is that 99.999% of problems are > structural and not due to individuals. People do not want to go to > work and do a bad job. They are most often forced into doing a "bad" > job by structural constraints. This much I understand conceptually, but the practical reality is that there must be some kind of accountability (This is one of the reasons that I post my own courtroom testimony on my website-- for others to read and criticize). To say nothing of the responsibility that a professional has when confronted between the choice of agreeing to do bad work and doing no work. What is the ethical choice? Also, I find the statistic that you cite regarding the percentage of problems being structural as opposed to individual curious... are you suggesting that individuals do not participate in the structure and therefore have no responsibility for the work they perform in it? And from where is this statistic derived? Just curious. > > Unfortunately, this means that folk who spend their time engaging in > self-serving self-aggrandizing self-righteous breast-beating by > stereotyping "forensic scientists" as "corrupt" or "incompetent" or > whatever will have to find some other way of viewing themselves as > holier than the rest. > I don't think that asking questions and making factual observations should be discouraged. > The postings on the list show that many of those who cry for "quality" > in forensic science have little interest in real quality. They are > just looking for someone to blame, someone to look down upon, and for > secondary gain -- an attitude which is, of course, the first "don't" in > quality assurance management and implementation. Until *that* attitude > changes, until audits themselves are viewed professionally, and until > such audits are used as quality tools rather than punitive attempts at > exorcism, such a call is self-serving and futile. Though I understand the point you are trying to make, you have gone over the edge of reason in making it. The above statement is broad generalization about motives and attitudes, ironically espousing the logic that is being decried by this post. More to the point, forensic science is not an academic exercise. It involves the life and liberty of real people. The standards must be set high. We seem to forget that a lot on this list with, for example, the certainty shown in the verve of the above argument. It is no wonder we do not always have the full possession of public confidence: "When the liberty of an individual may depend in part on physical evidence, it is not unreasonable to ask that the expert witnesses who are called upon to testify, either against the defendant or in his behalf, know what they are doing." --Dr. John I. Thornton, Crime Investigation, 2nd Ed., (1974): Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 19:44:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12258 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f41.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA12253 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:42:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 54061 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jan 2000 00:41:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000105004145.54060.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 63.209.93.7 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 16:41:45 PST X-Originating-IP: [63.209.93.7] From: "chris breyer" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: was Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. now ethics and certification. Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 16:41:45 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO The certification programs are all well and good, but in this ABC-certified forensic scientist's opinion, they are only a guard against incompetence, not bias or all-out chicanery/mountebanking. One noted local blood alcohol defense expert comes to mind. No, I'm certain he's not certified as I am, but in his days as a government-employed forensic scientist, i've no doubt he could have passed whatever certification process one might have designed for those times (pre-ABC certification availability). Thankfully, my experiences and contacts with other forensic scientists at large has given me no reason to believe that the fraudulent scientists are in anything but the slim minority. Chris Breyer >From: Robert Parsons >To: "'Sidg@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. >Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:47:10 -0500 > >Most do - sincerely, they do. This is a case of the age-old story of a >loud >(or in this case dishonest) minority unfairly coloring one's perception of >an entire group which the minority does NOT represent. > >Nevertheless, the harm that minority of dishonest forensic "scientists" >does >is incalculable and intolerable. The national certification, >accreditation, >and standardization programs I mentioned have as one of their goals to >someday make it impossible (or at least extremely difficult) for those >honorless miscreants to continue to practice, and to put an end to the harm >they do. We will likely never entirely realize that goal, as such programs >can only do so much (especially when participation is voluntary, not >mandated) but we can go a long way towards realizing it and improve things >considerably - and we will as time goes on. These programs are healthy and >growing, they are past the point where their naysayers have any hope of >killing them, and have taken on a life of their own. If more people got >involved in supporting, running, and contributing to those programs, rather >than fearfully or skeptically ignoring them or actually working against >them, our progress would be enhanced. > >Bob Parsons, F-ABC >Forensic Chemist >Regional Crime Laboratory >at Indian River Community College >Ft. Pierce, FL > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM >To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > >In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > ><< Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally >reprehensible >and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in a >partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to their >work. >> > >I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. >Barbara Jean McAtlin >703.352.8140 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 20:00:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12382 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:57:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12377 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:57:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNU00H477XB7S@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:55:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:02:17 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <00a601bf5718$83523e20$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bob; As usual you've provided a clear and cogent response. But to clarify, my positions are neither cherished, or beliefs. Some quick thoughts: 1) The poll of this list referred to in your post represents forensic scientists who are, or feel, able to respond to such a poll-- not surprisingly this included a majority of those from labs not run by prosecutors. I wonder what the actual count is. 2) I think that it is disingenuous for one person to presume to speak for the entire forensic community on matters involving the nature and influences of individual professional relationships (which this subject includes), no matter who they are. Each of us are really only experts of our own experience and professional relationships. 3) It is good to hear someone saying publicly what you have said below, and for that I am grateful. You have added to my experience. And on a personal note we could use you in California. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Parsons To: FORENS-L Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:05 PM Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > To Brent: > > I know it's hard to let go of long-held cherished beliefs, but you have > really got to get over your obsessive delusion that crime lab personnel live > in fear of the almighty prosecutor. No, we aren't particularly anxious to > alienate them, but neither are we particularly concerned about alienating > them - we are completely indifferent to the possibility of alienating them. > As many on this forum have told you before, we don't give a rat's backside > about the opinion of the prosecutor (or the defense attorney). We're only > concerned with doing a good job, accurately and completely reporting the > results, and trying our best to see that the trier of fact gets to hear > those results. The last time this issue came up, someone did a poll and the > results were crystal clear - while a few labs indicated they had to get > "permission" from prosecutors to talk to defense attorneys, the vast > majority confirmed that the prosecutor has no control whatsoever over their > labs and no influence over their careers. No Brent, we really, really don't > care what the prosecutor's reaction to our reports is - because his/her > opinion doesn't affect us in any way, shape, or form (and even if it did, > most of us still wouldn't let it bias us). > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 20:13:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12506 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f269.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA12501 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 72911 invoked by uid 0); 5 Jan 2000 01:10:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20000105011038.72910.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 63.209.93.7 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:10:38 PST X-Originating-IP: [63.209.93.7] From: "chris breyer" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:10:38 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO It seems to me that what is being suggested is that the fact that i have only testified in support of conclusions which the evidence and data derived from that evidence support, whilst allowing that other interpretations are possible (no matter how likely or unlikely) equates to me lacking the intestinal fortitude to tell an investigator or a district attorney that i will not testify to something that isn't true? I don't believe i am the only one of my ilk in this field. I am confident there are hundreds like me. I work in a community of scientists whose reproval i fear a hundred times more than the reproval of an investigator or attorney. Any note i make or report i file is discoverable, and could end up before the eyes of another competent consulting forensic scientist (as could transcripts of my court testimony). THAT is what sits in the back of my mind when i deliver an opinion or conclusion. As to the following: (including forensic experts for the state who are cultivated when lab personnel do not fall in line with case theories) that statement in itself admits that there was more than one forensic scientist in that lab *who would not* deliver the desired opinion or conclusion for the prosecutor, thus necessitating the "cultivated expert". while that situation is no less unacceptable, it does show you paint with too broad a brush. chris breyer >From: Brent Turvey >Reply-To: Brent Turvey >To: FORENS-L >Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. >Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:08:52 -0800 > >Stephanie, and others; > >Reading these rather positive posts by various list member-practitioners >regarding the high ethical standards that exist in the forensic community, >one is left with the impression that forensic scientists who work for the >state are enthusiastic about alienating the prosecutor's office should the >evidence require it. > >To be fair, I have not always observed this to be the case in practice. >When >I do observe this, it gives me some reason for optimism. When I do not, it >can frequently be said that pride has gone before the fall. > >To be blunt: Given the reality that forensic scientists and those posing as >such without any forensic background or training (including forensic >experts >for the state who are cultivated when lab personnel do not fall in line >with >case theories) routinely provide overly confident testimony on weak >evidence, I think that there is not a lot of support for the kind of >assuredness that we are reading here. That and given what DNA is teaching >us >about the certainty of past conclusions. > >I think that there is much support for the public to be skeptical, >disheartened, and even angry with this community given the conduct it >endorses by act or omission of act. We should think about that and start >having some honest conversations about what is going on around us in this >community, dispensing with our various righteousnesses before sitting down >at that table. Like an annual ethics conference or something (unaffiliated >with and unbound to any individual, group or agency). > >Two quotes, for those who care for such things: > >".it not infrequently happens that judges and jury, counsel for the >prosecution and experts, all too sure of their logic and reason, are guided >by invisible powers that have already decided the question of guilt or >innocence." - Theodor Reik, The Unknown Murderer, (Prentice-Hall, 1945) > >"This over-estimation of comprehensibility, of logical sequence, and the >reasonable character of a chain of thoughts has delayed the progress of >science as well as that of justice. It is not true that people do not want >to learn the truth. The greatest obstacle to the attainment of new >knowledge >is rather the firm conviction that the truth is already known." - Theodor >Reik, The Unknown Murderer, (Prentice-Hall, 1945) > >Brent >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science >Secretary, ABP >bturvey@profiling.org > >Knowledge Solutions, LLC >http://www.corpus-delicti.com >Academy of Behavioral Profiling >http://www.profiling.org > >************************************************************************ >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Smith, Stephanie L >To: ; ; ; > >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:14 AM >Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > Barbara, > > > > Do you have some specific experience that has made you so jaded about > > Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if you don't >mind > > me asking? > > > > Stephanie L. Smith > > Senior Forensic Chemist > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM > > To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > > > > << Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally > > reprehensible > > and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in >a > > partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to >their > > work. >> > > > > I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. > > Barbara Jean McAtlin > > 703.352.8140 > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 20:17:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12538 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:15:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12533 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:15:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNU00G8J8PDHU@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:12:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:19:08 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <00af01bf571a$ddbbc5a0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bob; I am not a cynic, I am realist. And unfortunately, no; experience is not sufficient. Not in this work. See the following: "Experience is neither a liability nor an enemy of the truth; it is a valuable commodity, but it should not be used as a mask to deflect legitimate scientific scrutiny, the sort of scrutiny that customarily is leveled at scientific evidence of all sorts. To do so is professionally bankrupt and devoid of scientific legitimacy, and courts would do well to disallow testimony of this sort. Experience ought to be used to enable the expert to remember the when and the how, why, who, and what. Experience should not make the expert less responsible, but rather more responsible for justifying an opinion with defensible scientific facts." - Thornton, John I., "The General Assumptions And Rationale Of Forensic Identification," for David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, & Joseph Sanders, Editors, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law And Science Of Expert Testimony, Volume 2, (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1997) Additionally, the argument that you have used to decry my opinion on the subject (that there are some forensic scientists who are clearly biased) works in reverse. The suggestion that there are few instances of such bias is only an opinion, and without the precise foundation, measures, and gauges in that opinion I've no way to give it much weight. For my own views, I have been careful to make no generalizations here, only ask questions based on having observed much to incur the need for those questions. And how quickly the assumptions and ad hominem attacks begin. The emotion alone is telling. But that aside... If you do not deny that this type of bias exists, and if you do not deny that miscarriages of justice have occurred, and if you agree that a forensic scientist has a responsibility to examine these things and ask questions about them in their own work, then I would say that we have nothing to argue about. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Parsons To: Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:53 PM Subject: RE: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > Ah Brent, ever the "half-empty glass" cynic. > > < the hiding of exculpatory evidence, and the existence of pro-prosecution > bias are rare exceptions to the rule in the forensic sciences. The inference > almost being that such instances need no great attention because they cause > no great harm by virtue of alleged infrequency.>> > > There is no such inference (except perhaps in jaundiced depths of your own > mind), merely a rebuttal to untrue slanders that have no data to back them > up. Most of us who have replied to those attacks have stated quite plainly > that even one case of such bias is unacceptable and insufferable, because > even one innocent wrongly convicted constitutes "great harm." > > << This causes me to ask myself two questions-- upon what facts are this > suggestion based (certainly this issue needs some visitation),>> > > Answer -- the personal experience of all who have replied in the > profession's defense - we routinely see just the opposite: dedication by > all those we have worked with over the decades to scientific truth and > justice, with total unconcern for the "pressures" you think are so pervasive > and overpowering, and complete disgust regarding the dishonorable > aberrations of the few you think are the majority. If our personal > experience is insufficient, what facts would you like? What facts can be > gathered to prove that something does not exist? It's simple to prove the > existence of something, near impossible to "prove" it's nonexistence. > > << and how often does it have to happen before > it becomes "common" or worthy of our attention?>> > > Answer (for the umpteenth time): Only once. It is always worthy of our > concern and our concerted action to correct and prevent. We're not going to > sit idly by when people slander the entire profession without justification, > but that doesn't mean we aren't concerned about even a single aberration in > professional conduct. > > > > <<> There are poor representatives of every profession, but foolish is the > judge > > who categorizes every man by the actions of a few. > > Those are very wise and well chosen words. I do agree with them. I do not > agree, however, that it has been established with any degree of reliability > which forensic scientists are in the minority and which are not. > >> > > How do you propose we establish it Brent? How do the honest, dedicated, > forensic scientists prove they are in the majority? You can prove the > existence of corruption, but how do you "prove" the absence of it? It is > easy to sling accusations and generalizations based on a few isolated > documented cases, but that's no indication of any veracity in the position > that the corrupt are the majority. Innocent until proven guilty? I guess > that doesn't apply to forensic scientists in your philosophy - you've run > into a few bad (in your opinion) apples, so that means the whole barrel must > be rotten. How "scientific" is that illogic? Sheesh. > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > From forens-owner Tue Jan 4 20:24:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12595 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:22:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA12590 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:22:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNU007PM93VK9@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:21:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:27:50 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <00b701bf571c$147cfea0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: <20000105011009.16659.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Chris; I find it interesting that you have elicited a personal message to you from my post. That aside my reference is only that there are forensic scientists that engage in the practice that you have described. I have no way of knowing how many there are, what percentage they represent -- only what I have observed. And my observation is that there are more than a few who routinely engage in this practice. If that offends you... do not shoot the messenger. And do not ascribe to me opinions or positions that I have not taken in order to pad your arguments. I have not painted with any brush at all in any attempt to characterize the profession, other than to say it contains an unquantified element that is biased. If you disagree with that, then indeed there is cause for concern. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: chris breyer To: Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 5:10 PM Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > It seems to me that what is being suggested is that the fact that i have > only testified in support of conclusions which the evidence and data derived > from that evidence support, whilst allowing that other interpretations are > possible (no matter how likely or unlikely) equates to me lacking the > intestinal fortitude to tell an investigator or a district attorney that i > will not testify to something that isn't true? > > I don't believe i am the only one of my ilk in this field. I am confident > there are hundreds like me. I work in a community of scientists whose > reproval i fear a hundred times more than the reproval of an investigator or > attorney. Any note i make or report i file is discoverable, and could end > up before the eyes of another competent consulting forensic scientist (as > could transcripts of my court testimony). THAT is what sits in the back of > my mind when i deliver an opinion or conclusion. > > As to the following: > > (including forensic experts for the state who are cultivated when lab > personnel do not fall in line with case theories) > > that statement in itself admits that there was more than one forensic > scientist in that lab *who would not* deliver the desired opinion or > conclusion for the prosecutor, thus necessitating the "cultivated expert". > while that situation is no less unacceptable, it does show you paint with > too broad a brush. > > chris breyer > > >From: Brent Turvey > >Reply-To: Brent Turvey > >To: FORENS-L > >Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > >Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:08:52 -0800 > > > >Stephanie, and others; > > > >Reading these rather positive posts by various list member-practitioners > >regarding the high ethical standards that exist in the forensic community, > >one is left with the impression that forensic scientists who work for the > >state are enthusiastic about alienating the prosecutor's office should the > >evidence require it. > > > >To be fair, I have not always observed this to be the case in practice. > >When > >I do observe this, it gives me some reason for optimism. When I do not, it > >can frequently be said that pride has gone before the fall. > > > >To be blunt: Given the reality that forensic scientists and those posing as > >such without any forensic background or training (including forensic > >experts > >for the state who are cultivated when lab personnel do not fall in line > >with > >case theories) routinely provide overly confident testimony on weak > >evidence, I think that there is not a lot of support for the kind of > >assuredness that we are reading here. That and given what DNA is teaching > >us > >about the certainty of past conclusions. > > > >I think that there is much support for the public to be skeptical, > >disheartened, and even angry with this community given the conduct it > >endorses by act or omission of act. We should think about that and start > >having some honest conversations about what is going on around us in this > >community, dispensing with our various righteousnesses before sitting down > >at that table. Like an annual ethics conference or something (unaffiliated > >with and unbound to any individual, group or agency). > > > >Two quotes, for those who care for such things: > > > >".it not infrequently happens that judges and jury, counsel for the > >prosecution and experts, all too sure of their logic and reason, are guided > >by invisible powers that have already decided the question of guilt or > >innocence." - Theodor Reik, The Unknown Murderer, (Prentice-Hall, 1945) > > > >"This over-estimation of comprehensibility, of logical sequence, and the > >reasonable character of a chain of thoughts has delayed the progress of > >science as well as that of justice. It is not true that people do not want > >to learn the truth. The greatest obstacle to the attainment of new > >knowledge > >is rather the firm conviction that the truth is already known." - Theodor > >Reik, The Unknown Murderer, (Prentice-Hall, 1945) > > > >Brent > >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > >Secretary, ABP > >bturvey@profiling.org > > > >Knowledge Solutions, LLC > >http://www.corpus-delicti.com > >Academy of Behavioral Profiling > >http://www.profiling.org > > > >************************************************************************ > >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Smith, Stephanie L > >To: ; ; ; > > > >Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:14 AM > >Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > > > > Barbara, > > > > > > Do you have some specific experience that has made you so jaded about > > > Forensic Scientists? What is your connection with the list if you don't > >mind > > > me asking? > > > > > > Stephanie L. Smith > > > Senior Forensic Chemist > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:49 AM > > > To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Knarfgerg@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > > Subject: Re: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 1/3/00 7:00:59 PM, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > > > > > > << Regardless of the frequency, I of course agree it is totally > > > reprehensible > > > and utterly inexcusable conduct for any forensic scientist to behave in > >a > > > partisan, biased, dishonest or unprofessional manner in relation to > >their > > > work. >> > > > > > > I sincerely wish that they all believed as you do. > > > Barbara Jean McAtlin > > > 703.352.8140 > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 02:47:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA14801 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe27.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.247]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA14796 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:45:14 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 257 invoked by uid 65534); 5 Jan 2000 05:58:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000105055805.256.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.171.74] To: References: <00a601bf5718$83523e20$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Subject: Blatant Posturing and Self-Aggrandizment? Say it isn't so? Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 23:58:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is almost like getting a late Kwanza present! ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Turvey > Bob; > > As usual you've provided a clear and cogent response. But to clarify, my > positions are neither cherished, or beliefs. You're kidding, right? http://www.forensic-science.com/instructors.html The guy whose name is listed part way down, Peter Kasler. Part of your staff, is he? Let's take a look at this website here: http://nobadcops.org/ Same guy, right? I've read enough of your allegations about law enforcement and labs that compared to any minor errors you may have found on their part, the theories you offer are so poorly founded in contrast as to suggest that you abandon all science or reason to reach your conclusions. If you'd like me to be specific, I'd be delighted to discuss publically your opinions concerning Melissa Byers. >Some quick thoughts: > > 1) The poll of this list referred to in your post represents forensic > scientists who are, or feel, able to respond to such a poll-- not > surprisingly this included a majority of those from labs not run by > prosecutors. I wonder what the actual count is. No doubt there is a huge conspiracy forcing them into an oath of silence as a condition of employment. > > 2) I think that it is disingenuous for one person to presume to speak for > the entire forensic community on matters involving the nature and influences > of individual professional relationships (which this subject includes), no > matter who they are. Never seems to have stopped you in the past if the legal records are any indication. > Each of us are really only experts of our own > experience and professional relationships. Since you have a bachelors in history, another in psychology, what hard science do you actually have sufficient knowledge in that it would help obtain employment for you by some legitimate lab, Brent? For instance, could you be hired to run DNA tests with your MS from UNH? When I spoke with the Dean of the school you graduated from he indicated that the advanced investigation concentration was not geared for lab personnel, but for investigators. Which are you? An investigator? Or a legitimate scientist? > > 3) It is good to hear someone saying publicly what you have said below, and > for that I am grateful. You have added to my experience. If past performance indicates future results I suspect it will turn up on a CV somewhere. >And on a personal note we could use you in California. Don't forget Arkansas, Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma and Alabama. You've alleged gross incompetence in all those states too. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > Secretary, ABP > bturvey@profiling.org > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Robert Parsons > To: FORENS-L > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:05 PM > Subject: RE: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > > > > > > To Brent: > > > > I know it's hard to let go of long-held cherished beliefs, but you have > > really got to get over your obsessive delusion that crime lab personnel > live > > in fear of the almighty prosecutor. No, we aren't particularly anxious to > > alienate them, but neither are we particularly concerned about alienating > > them - we are completely indifferent to the possibility of alienating > them. > > As many on this forum have told you before, we don't give a rat's backside > > about the opinion of the prosecutor (or the defense attorney). We're only > > concerned with doing a good job, accurately and completely reporting the > > results, and trying our best to see that the trier of fact gets to hear > > those results. The last time this issue came up, someone did a poll and > the > > results were crystal clear - while a few labs indicated they had to get > > "permission" from prosecutors to talk to defense attorneys, the vast > > majority confirmed that the prosecutor has no control whatsoever over > their > > labs and no influence over their careers. No Brent, we really, really > don't > > care what the prosecutor's reaction to our reports is - because his/her > > opinion doesn't affect us in any way, shape, or form (and even if it did, > > most of us still wouldn't let it bias us). > > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > > Forensic Chemist > > Regional Crime Laboratory > > at Indian River Community College > > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 07:05:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16251 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 06:59:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from usacil2.army.mil (usacil2.forscom.army.mil [160.136.216.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16246 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 06:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by usacil2.forscom.army.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 07:00:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: Lynn Henson To: "'Brent Turvey'" Cc: "'forens-l'" Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 07:00:00 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Brent, The most obvious reason these cases are not discussed is that they are still an "open investigation". Crime lab examiners help to eliminate suspects while the investigation is ongoing and are not free to discuss the cases while the investigation is ongoing. By the time it is "solved" and charges are formally made, no one cares about the suspects who were eliminated (except of course the investigator trying to solve the crime and the suspects who were eliminated). Lynn Henson PS: How about them Noles! > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Turvey [SMTP:bturvey@profiling.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:26 PM > To: FORENS-L > Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > Lynn; > > Interesting post. Response below: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lynn Henson > To: 'Smith, Stephanie L' > Cc: 'forens-l' > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:55 AM > Subject: RE: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. > > > > 1. Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that cops do > clear/eliminate > > people as suspects in an investigation. > > My enthusiasm with these occurances varies based upon the extent to which > the Investigating Officer has made real efforts to remove preconceived > theories and exaggerations from their investigation. That and the grasp > that > they have of the evidence in the case and how it corroborates or > contradicts > any statements that have been made by witnesses, victims, and suspects. > For > example, if a polygraph has been at all involved in this declaration of > elimination (not an infrequent occurance), my enthusiasm is sharply > diminished. > > > > > 2. Do you think the public will ever be aware of the investigative lead > type > > exams we do or the exams we perform that help the police / attorneys > > eliminate a suspect? If we were directly linked to the court system, > would > > we be too far removed from the investigators (Police) to be utilized to > help > > eliminate suspects? (i.e.. sorry guys, he may have been drunk, he may > be > > being elusive and his car may be damaged but that's not the car that > left > > the paint on the hit and run victim's clothing.) > > > > I know the perception is we work for the police but sometimes we help to > > create that perception. We talk about the cases where the physical > evidence > > helps to prove a case. Do we talk about the work we do that helps > > clear/eliminate suspects? We hear about the DNA that is used to help > clear > > the folks who were convicted and are in prison but what about the folks > we > > eliminate daily prior to any trial? > > > > I wonder if there are not some very obvious reasons why it is unpopular to > discuss cases involving forensic scientists that helped clear or eliminate > suspects. 1) It does not play well to the media; 2) It may involve a clash > with a law enforcement agency that really liked a suspect for the crime -- > and may have been kicked in its pride by the forensic elimination; 3) It > may > involve having helped defense at trial, which involves alienating oneself > from the DA, which few forensic scientists working for the state are eager > to do, arguably. > > For myself, I think that this is perhaps the most important effort that a > forensic scientist can aid in. More to think about, to be sure. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > Secretary, ABP > bturvey@profiling.org > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 08:26:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA16791 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:23:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA16786 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:23:15 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.0.89557f76 (3983); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:22:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.89557f76.25a49f88@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:22:16 EST Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: billo@radix.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Billo You know we have all engaged in this same discussion on this list for quite some time now. It seems to hit a raw nerve every time it comes up. Every time the discussion reemerges we have a few new faces added to the list who apparently have not heard the discussion in the past and some old faces who have gone on to happier hunting grounds. I continue to stay looking for solutions. I remember my own emergence into this discussion just about eighteen months ago. A fellow full of ideas about how to solve the problem. Folks like you gave me new direction, new ways of thinking about getting to the solution. The Forens-l "steering committee" can be somewhat harsh at times and I remember being stung by the reactions here to my "solutions" to this problem. But learning hurts at times. The Forensic Justice Project continues to move along looking for answers, finding examples of obvious and not so obvious injustice and witnessing real efforts by government entities to properly fix this problem. I believe that the government agencies are also continuing to move along in the same direction. Making mistakes, just like I do, as we move to solution. For folks like Barbara, who is as angry at apparent injustice as I have been in the past, this forum acts as a sounding board, a healthy sounding board, and a place to learn. From this board and my efforts I have learned that we are engaged in a human enterprise which will have an error rate. This human enterprise is engaged in a war on crime. In every war there is collateral damage. Tragic loss of human potential. None of us discounts the value of any innocent lives lost to error in this war. None of us. We continue to look for better answers. While looking we can not shut down, go home, allow crime to fluorish. We have to keep at it. And we will continue to make mistakes. I suggest to Barbara that you look at all the good that comes from the forensic science community while you are seeing the errors. There is a lot of good. I've been there, criticized the system from within while having a first hand knowledge of the kinds of folks who are engaged in this enterprise, most very good folks. Help us to make it better if you will but do yourself a favor and do not become bitter about our failures. That bitterness will only make you useless. Frederic Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 09:50:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17987 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:49:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17982 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:49:54 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.0.9214d37b (7703); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:49:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.9214d37b.25a4b3f0@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:49:20 EST Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/4/00 4:44:31 PM, Cfwhiteh writes: << We need to improve on the system, not destroy it. I think what we need is a system of audit for forensic labs just as there is in every testing laboratory environment in this country. Clinical labs and environmental labs already have such systems in place. Why not use those labs as models for future audit? And leave the forensic labs that are attached to law enforcement organizations right where they are. As very valuable tools of agencies dedicated to finding truth but prone to error just like you and I. >> Why not have labs overseen by a special, forensic science-qualified committee of the judicial system instead of the enforcement section? What if labs were to be privately owned? There's no reason why they couldn't be receiving government money to bear some of the costs of running it. I think the idea of having a mandatory accredation system is a wonderful idea. <> You stand out above the rest. I've read your story. How many of the people you were working with WEREN'T scientists but agents working as scientists??? How many of these people called themselves "experts" in any given field while they weren't even trained in the field that they were testifying for the prosecution as "experts"??? How many Fred Zains do you think there were - and (hopefully not) still are? How many of these people take it upon themselves to throw away evidence? Expecially exculpatory evidence? As a taxpayer, I'd like to know these things. (You know, the older you get the more you want to 'get involved.') Believe it or not, I'm not basing my opinion on only Tommy Zeigler's case. There are plenty of examples out there if you look for them. I'm not trying to be nasty or any kind of a name-caller. I just want to know. Barbara Jean McAtlin 703.352.8140 From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 10:36:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18452 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:36:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18447 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:36:25 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.0.300443a5 (4353); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:35:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.300443a5.25a4beda@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:35:54 EST Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, billo@radix.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/5/00 9:46:17 AM, Cfwhiteh@aol.com writes: << I suggest to Barbara that you look at all the good that comes from the forensic science community while you are seeing the errors. There is a lot of good. >> Oh, I've read a lot about forensic science being used to help exonerate people that were wrongfully convicted lately (unfortunately, it's almost always after quite a period of incarceration - better late then never, huh? I realize it's a 'new' science). It's in the papers as well as many books. DNA evidence has released wrongfully convicted prisoners as well as helped women get child support for children that men said weren't theirs. It does do great good. I'm not knocking it - really. I guess that it's kind of difficult to tell by e-mail and not voice. I read both sides of everything. While I was reading pro-death penalty books, I followed-up with anti-death penalty books and formed my own opinions after researching both sides. When I read a case history, I find out any new facts by researching after I've read the book for any new evidence or questions regarding the case. (I'm a prosecutor's nightmare. lol. They won't ever call me for jury duty again.) Once again, I'm not trying to slam anyone, I'm just trying to find answers. Thanks, Barbara Jean From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 12:23:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19452 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19442 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:22:45 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001051722.MAA19442@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:24:16 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Eliminated Suspects Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:01:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Lynn Henson has pointed out that names cannot be released in connection with an open investigation. However, the ethic that would deter me from ever discussing an eliminated suspect is that I would not want to taint someone's name who had been exonerated. Seems to me that just having your name associated with a crime like murder or rape is humiliating and if you have been eliminated as a suspect your name should be eliminated as being associated with the charge in any way. Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 12:23:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19447 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19431 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:22:41 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001051722.MAA19431@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:24:16 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Consistent Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:03:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Just curious. What do people think consistent with means in a forensic report? Should it be used in a forensic report? Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 12:56:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19789 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:55:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19783 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [207.229.142.153] (207-229-142-153.d.enteract.com [207.229.142.153]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08510 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:53:50 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from mary.severs@msichicago.org) Message-Id: <200001051753.LAA08510@mail.enteract.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 11:49:49 -0600 Subject: Thank you From: "Mary Severs" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear List, As some of you may remember from back in October and November, I was working on a Forensic Science Teacher's Guide for middle school students. My project is near completion and I want to thank you all for your helpful emails, phone calls, videotapes, and a few articles that I have received about books available. I just received an article this morning, in fact, and I'm not sure who it is from...but I'd like to read the book. I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my questions, and I value this list as a wonderful resource for my research about forensic science. Thank you! Mary ^~^~^~^^~^^^~^~^~^~^~^~^^~^~^~^^~^~^~^~ Mary Severs mary.severs@msichicago.org Science Educator The Museum of Science and Industry 57th Street and Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60637 ph: (773) 684-9844 x3009 fax: (773) 684-5580 http://www.msichicago.org From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 13:11:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA19945 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19940 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:10:35 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.6a.6af62e17 (4232); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:10:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6a.6af62e17.25a4e2fa@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:10:02 EST Subject: Re: Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. To: Sidg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Barbara It sounds like the Forensic Justice Project can use your data. We have a number of stories about forensic failure. We always look for more. As far as my being different from the rest of my colleagues at the FBI, you should know that about 30 of my colleagues came forward with issues and support for the issues that I raised that they agreed with. Four FBI lab managers and/or long time veterans also testified before the Senate hearings in support of the validity of issues that we all had raised. I was no different than most other FBI employees. You would be surprised and happy to know that FBI employees still are raising issues which when not addressed properly within the FBI are going outside the Bureau. This age of information retrieval and communication is leveling the playing field. As for those folks who really weren't experts but thought they were. Well a number of those folks were my close friends. And should still in their own right be called heroes. In their own right. They made mistakes. So did I. We paid for our mistakes. You ought to go to one of those crime scenes that those folks who made mistakes were in charge of. Doing things that I am not capable of. Nor I suspect most folks on this list. I wonder at times how they and their families survived at all under the stress that they found themselves in. But they made serious mistakes. All the way from Director Louie Freeh to individual examiners in the FBI lab. The examiners paid. The Director is beyond accountability. We'll never find perfect folks. But when they do make mistakes we should be able to detect those mistakes. And we have no audit system in that laboratory or a lot of others. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 13:35:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20296 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:34:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA20291 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:34:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 5 Jan 2000 18:29:01 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed Jan 05 10:33:45 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 05 Jan 2000 10:34:28 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 10:33:53 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Subject: Re: Consistent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Helen, I find nothing wrong with using the word consistent as long as a description is included as to what and why it is 'consistent'. For example, "The glass sample is consistent microscopically and in physical characteristics such as refractive index, density, elemental constituents with the known sample, and therefore could share a common source." If one simply says consistent with out explanation, one is leaving the conclusion opent to a variety of interpretations, that may not have been intended by the examiner. Where differences occur, they must be explainable. If a measurement falls with in a range of measurements and it cannot be excluded, then one would use the term consistent. I have always felt that consitent is stronger than the word similar. It connotes a stronger opinion about the liklihood of something being of same type or manufacturer, but less than an identification. Usually, the term consistent applies when the number of class characteristics stronlgy agree between known and unkown or one cannot discern any appreciable differences between two items. Hey, its a criminalist's weasel word and is subject to 'expert' interpretation. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> 1/5/2000 9:03:00 AM >>> Just curious. What do people think consistent with means in a forensic report? Should it be used in a forensic report? Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 13:50:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20426 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:50:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20421 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:44:45 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C212@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Consistent Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:49:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO >From a pathologist's viewpoint, "consistent with" means "looks like and certainly could be but it is not definitive of" whatever was suspected. I'd use it when responding to a hypothetical (or real) history concerning whether findings would be explained by the questioner's scenario. Of course, this is dependent on actually haven gotten such a hypothesis from your submitter. Should you use it? Circumspectly and with at least implied explanation. (My clinicians realize that the phrase means I'm not completely sure.) In tox or other chemistry, I'd suggest using it when testing suggests a particular substance but there is insufficient sample to confirm. In a firearms analysis, it might be used with a bullet that has the right caliber and number and pitch of lands and grooves but insufficient rifling detail for individualization. I think either example ought to be accompanied by a statement about why you couldn't give a definitive answer. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:03 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Consistent Just curious. What do people think consistent with means in a forensic report? Should it be used in a forensic report? Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 14:01:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20516 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:01:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from nfstc.org (server49.aitcom.net [208.234.0.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20511 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from kevin (fwx.spjc.cc.fl.us [207.239.248.66]) by nfstc.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA09300; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:01:24 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Kevin Lothridge" To: "Ascld" , Subject: Forensic Toxicology Certificate Program Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:01:13 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO List Members, The University of Florida is offering a Forensic Toxicology Certificate program which is web based. For more information look at the following site. http://www.nfstc.org/ Kevin Lothridge Director of Strategic Development National Forensic Science Technology Center 3200 34th Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070 www.nfstc.org From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 14:29:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20696 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:28:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from Mail.austin.rr.com (sm2.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.55]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20690 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu ([24.27.39.20]) by Mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:19:33 -0600 From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Consistent Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:27:03 -0600 Message-ID: <002601bf57b2$d837e440$14271b18@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <200001051722.MAA19431@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO "Consistent with" means not offering evidence against or not excluding a proposition. Sometimes it means having a logical connection. For instance, the presence of a rocking chair at the scene of a crime is consistent with the murder having been committed by Whistler's Mother. "Consistent with" is a form of forensic glue which holds a case together when the boss won't let you use the "M" word. In arson investigation the term is used as a substitute for the phrase "I've done over 10,000 fires and I can tell by looking that those burn marks were caused by an accelerant." The more sophisticated investigator will add detail to any observation he plans to make consistent with something. Using the burn pattern scenario, note how much more scientific the following sounds: "The highly irregular pattern with sharp contrast at the edges was consistent with the presence of a liquid accelerant." The nice thing about "consistent with" is its versatility. Almost every case offers numerous opportunities to find something consistent with the prosecution's theory. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@Austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:03 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Consistent Just curious. What do people think consistent with means in a forensic report? Should it be used in a forensic report? Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 14:46:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20950 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20945 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:45:55 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.10.10dc9e36 (4509); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:45:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <10.10dc9e36.25a4f94a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:45:14 EST Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: Sidg@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Barbara Jean We are all looking for the same answers. How do we do this better. Or else this conversation would not even be taking place. I find that folks on this site are more than willing to strongly engage others in these conversations. Keep asking. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 14:55:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA21033 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:55:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21028 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:55:29 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.2f.2f062cbc (4419); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:55:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2f.2f062cbc.25a4fb94@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:55:00 EST Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/5/00 2:45:14 PM, Cfwhiteh writes: << Keep asking. >> I'll do that. Thanks. From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 15:01:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21097 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21092 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:00:55 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id r.c8.c8d993f1 (4419); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:00:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:00:19 EST Subject: Re: Consistent To: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/5/00 1:30:55 PM, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov writes: << What do people think consistent with means in a forensic report? Should it be used in a forensic report? >> As a layperson, albeit well-read on these subjects layperson, I find "consistent" in a forensic report to mean "could be the same, maybe, maybe not." I think that the not quite so well-read on the subject layperson would look at it and see it as law, absolute, without a doubt, positive. I think that if it's to be used in front of a jury -- which you can bet is made up of laypersons, it should be used cautiously, if at all. Or, even better, maybe it could be replaced with "could be or maybe not." That's much simpler and, in reality, means the same thing. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 15:03:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21117 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:03:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21112 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:03:16 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id k.33.33170b3b (4419); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:02:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33.33170b3b.25a4fd63@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:02:43 EST Subject: Re: RE: Consistent To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/5/00 3:00:33 PM, David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL writes: << My clinicians realize that the phrase means I'm not completely sure. >> I like that. Your clinicians do, but...would a jury? Just a thought. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 16:16:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22012 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22007 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:13:57 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.d.d0d5faf (4355); Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:13:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:13:29 EST Subject: This is the kind of case I'm wondering about To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Here is the type of case I'm talking about. This is the type of thing I'm concerned about. I doubt that this is typical, but it certainly seems like it's more widespread then what you may think. This case looks like there's been a wonderful amount of help from the forensic community - of course, it wouldn't have been needed without the damning testimony of the forensic community to begin with...but. If you have a chance, take a look at this page. This frightens me - it's wrong and it could happen to any of us. http://www.truthinjustice.org/sonia4.htm Barbara Jean From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 16:18:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22054 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:18:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22040 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:17:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:12:45 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C213@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: (2) Consistent Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:17:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Probably not, but then I was referring to the way I do surgical pathology reports. I wouldn't expect a jury to understand those without some medical explanation, anyway. If it were an autopsy report, I'd have further explanation of why I wasn't definitive. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Sidg@aol.com [mailto:Sidg@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 2:03 PM To: David.Hause@cen.amedd.army.mil; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Consistent In a message dated 1/5/00 3:00:33 PM, David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL writes: << My clinicians realize that the phrase means I'm not completely sure. >> I like that. Your clinicians do, but...would a jury? Just a thought. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 21:08:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24542 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:07:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from virtual2.microworld.com (qmailr@ip185-139.konnections.com [207.173.185.139]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA24537 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:07:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9012 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2000 02:07:54 -0000 Received: from cityofgrand-wg.grand-rapids.mi.us (HELO grpl53082) (216.202.132.34) by ns.microworld.com with SMTP; 6 Jan 2000 02:07:54 -0000 Message-ID: <001a01bf57ec$06ad9200$bf0710ac@grandrapids.mi.us> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: , References: <200001051753.LAA08510@mail.enteract.com> Subject: Private Hair Testing Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:16:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Does anyone have contact info for labs that do private hair exams? I have a person who is requesting hair testing (exactly what testing I'm not yet sure), in a suspicious death case. Thanks, Daryl W. Clemens From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 21:40:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24715 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:40:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ares.idirect.com (ares.idirect.com [207.136.80.180]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24710 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:39:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from idirect.com (ts7-46t-26.idirect.com [216.154.30.169]) by ares.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA71343; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:41:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3874017F.F1B2E5F2@idirect.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:44:16 -0500 From: Brian and Pat Dixon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Consistent References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Sidg@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/5/00 1:30:55 PM, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov writes: > > << What do people think consistent with means in a forensic > report? Should it be used in a forensic report? >> The topic of report phraseology has been discussed at length in this forum on previous occasions - I wish I had an archive to refer to - but it's an important subject. The list membership keeps changing, so it's well worth raising again, and who knows - perhaps there will be some new insight. The phrase "consistent with" should never, ever, be used alone. The example I always give to trainees is that if I bought a lottery ticket yesterday for last night's draw, I can fairly state "My purchase is consistent with my now being a millionaire". We all know that a much more likely outcome is that "My purchase is consistent with my having wasted a dollar". The problem of course is that an unqualified "consistent with" statement carries no weight. That leaves the interpretation to the reader, which is appallingly dangerous. The same can be said of other ways of phrasing conclusions, but for some reason "consistent with" seems particularly open to varying interpretations. My organization has taken the safest course, which is to ban it entirely from the forensic report writing vocabulary. It's a weasel word, and weasel words are the enemy of accurate report writing. My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be acceptable, BUT only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An example might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is indistinguishable from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the scene having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle painted with the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many turquoise blue automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still having the original manufacturer's finish". In a perfect world one would have information on how many such vehicles there are, and what percentage of the vehicles on the road they represented at the accident location. Much the same objection applies to phrases such as "could have come from" and "similar to" which also carry no weight, unless further qualified with information as to what ELSE it could have come from and what ELSE it might be similar to. A good question was asked I hope I have helped at least a little bit. Brian Dixon CFS Toronto, Canada. From forens-owner Wed Jan 5 23:38:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25762 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:38:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA25757 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:38:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNW003U1CSXCD@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 20:36:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 20:42:42 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Consistent To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <002401bf5800$78745f40$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: <3874017F.F1B2E5F2@idirect.com> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Members; Reading through some of Kirk's work this evening I rediscovered a passage that bears sharing on this issue, which is really one of identification: "In the examination and interpretation of physical evidence, the distinction between identification and individuation must always be clearly made, to facilitate the real purpose of the criminalist: to determine the identity of source. That is, two items of evidence, one known and the other unknown, must be identified as having a common origin. On the witness stand, the criminalist must be willing to admit that absolute identity is impossible to establish. Identity of source, on the other hand, often may be established unequivocally, and no witness who has established it need ever back down in the face of cross-examination. It is precisely here that the greatest caution must be exercised. The inept or biased witness may readily testify to an identity, or to a type of identity, that does not actually exist. This can come about because of his confusion as to the nature of identity, his inability to evaluate the results of his observations, or because his general technical deficiencies preclude meaningful results... To sum up: accurate identification must rest on a proper basis of training, experience, technical knowledge, and skill, and an understanding of the fundamental nature of identity itself. It should not be attempted without this kind of background, either by the police officer or the amateur. Highly experienced professional identification men make errors and overlook many significant matters. How much worse the situation would be if every police officer or amateur were to attempt the same identifications, merely because they had an interest in the matter and an opportunity to indulge their desires! " - Paul Kirk & Thornton, J. (Ed.), Criminal Investigation, 2nd Ed., (John Wiley & Sons, 1974), p.15 And, without question, opportunity abounds on discussion lists such as this. Of significance, Kirk goes on to say on the next page that "...the amount of experience is unimportant beside the question of what has been learned from it." In some cases, forensic scientists have by their experience learned to be cautious and withhold qualification from reports containing equivocal identification language such as "consistent with". One can only speculate as to the reasons. In others, they have learned to use the same terminology only with the appropriate qualifications. In my own report writing, I will not offer any opinions without also providing the facts upon which they are based and sufficient qualifications as to potential interpretations. I have also learned that it is wisest to treat every report as though it is a potential forensic report-- the distinguishing feature of such a document being that it is prepared with the expectation that it may be used in court and read by someone other than a colleague. To give any opinions without a factual foundation is not a legitimate scientific or forensic practice. As someone much wiser than I has said ad naseum, "If there is no science, there can be no forensic science." Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian and Pat Dixon To: ; Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Consistent > Sidg@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/5/00 1:30:55 PM, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov writes: > > > > << What do people think consistent with means in a forensic > > report? Should it be used in a forensic report? >> > > The topic of report phraseology has been discussed at length in this forum on > previous occasions - I wish I had an archive to refer to - but it's an important > subject. The list membership keeps changing, so it's well worth raising again, > and who knows - perhaps there will be some new insight. > > The phrase "consistent with" should never, ever, be used alone. The example I > always give to trainees is that if I bought a lottery ticket yesterday for last > night's draw, I can fairly state "My purchase is consistent with my now being a > millionaire". We all know that a much more likely outcome is that "My purchase > is consistent with my having wasted a dollar". The problem of course is that an > unqualified "consistent with" statement carries no weight. That leaves the > interpretation to the reader, which is appallingly dangerous. The same can be > said of other ways of phrasing conclusions, but for some reason "consistent with" > seems particularly open to varying interpretations. My organization has taken > the safest course, which is to ban it entirely from the forensic report writing > vocabulary. It's a weasel word, and weasel words are the enemy of accurate > report writing. > > My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be acceptable, BUT > only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An example > might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is indistinguishable > from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and > chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the scene > having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle painted with > the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many turquoise blue > automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still having > the original manufacturer's finish". In a perfect world one would have > information on how many such vehicles there are, and what percentage of the > vehicles on the road they represented at the accident location. > > Much the same objection applies to phrases such as "could have come from" and > "similar to" which also carry no weight, unless further qualified with > information as to what ELSE it could have come from and what ELSE it might be > similar to. > > A good question was asked I hope I have helped at least a little bit. > > > Brian Dixon > CFS Toronto, Canada. > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 00:34:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26325 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:33:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe26.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.246]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA26320 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:33:42 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 3240 invoked by uid 65534); 6 Jan 2000 05:33:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000106053312.3239.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.162] To: References: Subject: This is the kind of case I'm wondering about:me too! Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 23:32:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I found this particular portion of the article you linked interesting: "The autopsy was performed by Medical Examiner Robert Bux. According to the autopsy report, Richardson's lungs were not filled with smoke or soot, nor was there excessive carbon monoxide in his blood (his carbon monoxide levels were about 11 percent, consistent with heavy smoking, while two dogs who died in the fire had carbon monoxide levels of about 40 percent and 60 percent.) What Bux did find in his autopsy of Bill Richardson was evidence of stenosis and arteriosclerosis, with up to 80 percent blockage of the left descending artery -- symptoms of a heart attack." With my very slight knowledge of anatomy, I would think that these latter facts related to advanced arteriosclerosis are appropriate to suggest a propensity to have a heart attack, but not enough to conclusively state that the victim did die of a heart attack. Anybody know what the certificate of death said? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; < > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:13 PM Subject: This is the kind of case I'm wondering about > Here is the type of case I'm talking about. This is the type of thing I'm > concerned about. I doubt that this is typical, but it certainly seems like > it's more widespread then what you may think. This case looks like there's > been a wonderful amount of help from the forensic community - of course, it > wouldn't have been needed without the damning testimony of the forensic > community to begin with...but. If you have a chance, take a look at this > page. This frightens me - it's wrong and it could happen to any of us. > > > http://www.truthinjustice.org/sonia4.htm > > Barbara Jean > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 00:56:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26488 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26483 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from netvision.net.il (RAS1-p12.jlm.netvision.net.il [62.0.161.12]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA03229 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:56:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <38742069.5D286318@netvision.net.il> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 06:56:09 +0200 From: biologit Organization: forensic biology lab/Isreali police X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" Subject: silver staining and mixtures Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear List, Does anyone know if validation studies have been carried out for silver stained polyacrylamide STR gels? I am particularly interested in published results on the interpretation of mixtures by silver staining. Such issues as the detection limit of the minor component of a mixture, stutter bands, and multiple mixtures, etc. are of interest in this context. Thank you. Paul Brauner From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 00:59:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA26524 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:59:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA26519 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097046.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.46]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id VAA14242 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:58:29 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001060558.VAA14242@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:38:35 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Consistent In-Reply-To: <3874017F.F1B2E5F2@idirect.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 09:44 PM 1/5/2000 -0500, Brian and Pat Dixon wrote: >My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be acceptable, BUT >only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An example >might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is indistinguishable >from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and >chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the scene >having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle painted with >the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many turquoise blue >automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still having >the original manufacturer's finish". I agree. This is an excellent example of how such a report might be written. Unfortunately, it is the second sentence that is all too frequently seen, without the first and, especially, the last. When presenting evidence that supports the hypothesis of common origin, I believe it is imperative that the scientist give some measure of the strength of that evidence. It is not enough to say that the evidence is "consistent with the submitted comparison sample or any other [source] with the same features." How common are the other such sources? That is really the tough question to answer - and the one that the forensic scientist shouild bend his or her effort to addressing. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 02:29:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27203 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:29:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.242]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA27198 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:29:03 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 24641 invoked by uid 65534); 6 Jan 2000 07:28:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000106072850.24640.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.162] To: References: <3874017F.F1B2E5F2@idirect.com> <002401bf5800$78745f40$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Subject: Objective? Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 01:27:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is very interesting. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Turvey To: FORENS-L Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Consistent > Members; > > Reading through some of Kirk's work this evening I rediscovered a passage > that bears sharing on this issue, which is really one of identification: Cool. > > "In the examination and interpretation of physical evidence, the distinction > between identification and individuation must always be clearly made, to > facilitate the real purpose of the criminalist: to determine the identity of > source. That is, two items of evidence, one known and the other unknown, > must be identified as having a common origin. On the witness stand, the > criminalist must be willing to admit that absolute identity is impossible to > establish. Identity of source, on the other hand, often may be established > unequivocally, and no witness who has established it need ever back down in > the face of cross-examination. Okay. Nice quote. I've got shards from a headlight at a hit and run, and from the suspects car, a headlight into which the shards fit precisely. If you can find a shard that matches any other vehicle on earth so that they fit, I'll eat the glass that fits into it. Remind me again about impossible. > > It is precisely here that the greatest caution must be exercised. The inept > or biased witness may readily testify to an identity, or to a type of > identity, that does not actually exist. This can come about because of his > confusion as to the nature of identity, his inability to evaluate the > results of his observations, or because his general technical deficiencies > preclude meaningful results... > > To sum up: accurate identification must rest on a proper basis of training, > experience, technical knowledge, and skill, and an understanding of the > fundamental nature of identity itself. It should not be attempted without > this kind of background, either by the police officer or the amateur. Highly > experienced professional identification men make errors and overlook many > significant matters. How much worse the situation would be if every police > officer or amateur were to attempt the same identifications, merely because > they had an interest in the matter and an opportunity to indulge their > desires! " - Paul Kirk & Thornton, J. (Ed.), Criminal Investigation, 2nd > Ed., (John Wiley & Sons, 1974), p.15 > > And, without question, opportunity abounds on discussion lists such as this. > > Of significance, Kirk goes on to say on the next page that "...the amount of > experience is unimportant beside the question of what has been learned from > it." > > In some cases, forensic scientists have by their experience learned to be > cautious and withhold qualification from reports containing equivocal > identification language such as "consistent with". One can only speculate as > to the reasons. In others, they have learned to use the same terminology > only with the appropriate qualifications. > > In my own report writing, I will not offer any opinions without also > providing the facts upon which they are based and sufficient qualifications > as to potential interpretations. Great. Tell me a story about lower socio-economic groups and pick-up trucks in Arkansas. What "fact" did you base that opinion on, Brent? In your report in a particular case I am familiar with, a copy of which is available, you infer from some unknown and undisclosed fact that you believed that a pick-up truck was used by the unknown perpetrator. Nowhere in that report do you mention the basis for your opinion. On direct examination by the prosecutor in that case, Brent Davis, you reveal that the demographics of the area in which the bodies were discovered as the foundation on which you build this theory, yet you have no relevant fact which deliberately ties the location of the bodies to some perpetrator who is supposed to be local to tha area. Though I would certainly agree that on less than scientific grounds there's good reason to believe that, it's not exactly the most objective thing on which to hang your hat and probably not the sort of thing that a jury ought to ever see. This then begs the question as to whether or not this is a recently adopted standard of yours or perhaps your earlier work product did not adhere to your now stringent standards. Such a modification to your method of operation is certainly commendable and in the highest standards of 'forensic scientists and criminal profilers', normally a contradiction in terms. > I have also learned that it is wisest to > treat every report as though it is a potential forensic report-- the > distinguishing feature of such a document being that it is prepared with the > expectation that it may be used in court and read by someone other than a > colleague. > > To give any opinions without a factual foundation is not a legitimate > scientific or forensic practice. As someone much wiser than I has said ad > naseum, "If there is no science, there can be no forensic science." You've also variously said "findings should be objective" and then "they are subjective and I have to interpret them". Which of those do you actually subscribe to? Your pal in Arkansas, Shaun - Forensic Proctologist and Duck Hunter > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > Secretary, ABP > bturvey@profiling.org > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brian and Pat Dixon > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 6:44 PM > Subject: Re: Consistent > > > > Sidg@aol.com wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 1/5/00 1:30:55 PM, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov writes: > > > > > > << What do people think consistent with means in a forensic > > > report? Should it be used in a forensic report? >> > > > > The topic of report phraseology has been discussed at length in this forum > on > > previous occasions - I wish I had an archive to refer to - but it's an > important > > subject. The list membership keeps changing, so it's well worth raising > again, > > and who knows - perhaps there will be some new insight. > > > > The phrase "consistent with" should never, ever, be used alone. The > example I > > always give to trainees is that if I bought a lottery ticket yesterday for > last > > night's draw, I can fairly state "My purchase is consistent with my now > being a > > millionaire". We all know that a much more likely outcome is that "My > purchase > > is consistent with my having wasted a dollar". The problem of course is > that an > > unqualified "consistent with" statement carries no weight. That leaves > the > > interpretation to the reader, which is appallingly dangerous. The same > can be > > said of other ways of phrasing conclusions, but for some reason > "consistent with" > > seems particularly open to varying interpretations. My organization has > taken > > the safest course, which is to ban it entirely from the forensic report > writing > > vocabulary. It's a weasel word, and weasel words are the enemy of > accurate > > report writing. > > > > My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be acceptable, > BUT > > only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An > example > > might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is > indistinguishable > > from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and > > chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the > scene > > having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle > painted with > > the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many > turquoise blue > > automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still > having > > the original manufacturer's finish". In a perfect world one would have > > information on how many such vehicles there are, and what percentage of > the > > vehicles on the road they represented at the accident location. > > > > Much the same objection applies to phrases such as "could have come from" > and > > "similar to" which also carry no weight, unless further qualified with > > information as to what ELSE it could have come from and what ELSE it might > be > > similar to. > > > > A good question was asked I hope I have helped at least a little bit. > > > > > > Brian Dixon > > CFS Toronto, Canada. > > > > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 02:36:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27251 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:36:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27246 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 02:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.51.231]) by mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000106073601.YINP1891@worldnet.att.net> for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:36:01 +0000 Message-ID: <38744557.2E18312F@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:33:43 -0800 From: John Bowden Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-WNS2.5 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Consistent References: <200001060558.VAA14242@mail.crl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Peter, I was wondering when we would hear from you on this topic. As I recall you were much involved in the last discussion of the issue. I was just wondering about the original quote from Brian and Pat Dixon, not to find fault, but rather to augment the information. What do you think about actually describing the paint samples as much as possible: the number, color, order, and thickness of the layers; the nature of the chemical tests used, whether organic, inorganic, or both; whether the chemical tests applied to each layer separately or not; and so forth. While comments about the specific comparisons could still be made, it would provide a much stronger basis to the triers of fact. The comments about the possible sources are indeed appropriate and possibly could be augmented by describing the particular paint systems, as well as the manufacturer's designations for the colors. I recall the last turquoise car I owned (a white/turquoise 63-1/2 Ford Fastback with a 390 ci engine and four on the floor). Even then Ford did not refer to the color as "turquoise". Just some food (fodder?) for thought. John P. Bowden (No, I am not related to Bobby but I sure wish I were.) "Dum Spiro Spero" "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > > At 09:44 PM 1/5/2000 -0500, Brian and Pat Dixon wrote: > > >My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be acceptable, BUT > >only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An > example > >might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is > indistinguishable > >from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and > >chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the > scene > >having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle > painted with > >the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many > turquoise blue > >automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still > having > >the original manufacturer's finish". > > I agree. > > This is an excellent example of how such a report might be written. > Unfortunately, it is the second sentence that is all too frequently seen, > without the first and, especially, the last. When presenting evidence that > supports the hypothesis of common origin, I believe it is imperative that > the scientist give some measure of the strength of that evidence. It is > not enough to say that the evidence is "consistent with the submitted > comparison sample or any other [source] with the same features." How > common are the other such sources? That is really the tough question to > answer - and the one that the forensic scientist shouild bend his or her > effort to addressing. > > Pete Barnett > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com > http://www.fsalab.com -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for two free plane tickets: http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/ From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 07:11:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28841 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:10:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28830 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:09:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:09:29 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens-l'" Subject: RE: Private Hair Testing Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:09:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF583E.E1EE4EF2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF583E.E1EE4EF2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Try the following. He is in Pensylvania. I went to school with him and I know he would do a good job for you. David Exline, MSFS RJ Lee Group, Inc. P: 724-325-1776 F: 724-733-1799 www.rjlg.com dexline@rjlg.com Good Luck, Jeff Sailus Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Crime Laboratory, 4th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Ph 704-336-7755 Fax 704-353-0088 Email: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us <>-----Original Message----- <>From: Daryl W. Clemens [mailto:crimec@microworld.com] <>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 9:16 PM <>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; forensic-science@egroups.com <>Subject: Private Hair Testing <> <> <>Does anyone have contact info for labs that do private hair <>exams? I have a <>person who is requesting hair testing (exactly what testing <>I'm not yet <>sure), in a suspicious death case. <> <>Thanks, <> <>Daryl W. Clemens <> ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF583E.E1EE4EF2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Private Hair Testing

Try the following.  He is in Pensylvania.  = I went to school with him and I know he would do a good job for = you.

David Exline, MSFS
RJ Lee Group, Inc.
P: 724-325-1776
F: 724-733-1799
www.rjlg.com
dexline@rjlg.com

Good Luck,

Jeff Sailus
Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department
Crime Laboratory, 4th Floor
Charlotte, NC  28202
Ph  704-336-7755
Fax  704-353-0088
Email:  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us


<>-----Original Message-----
<>From: Daryl W. Clemens [mailto:crimec@microworld.com]<= /FONT>
<>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 9:16 = PM
<>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; = forensic-science@egroups.com
<>Subject: Private Hair Testing
<>
<>
<>Does anyone have contact info for labs that = do private hair
<>exams?  I have a
<>person who is requesting hair testing = (exactly what testing
<>I'm not yet
<>sure), in a suspicious death case.
<>
<>Thanks,
<>
<>Daryl W. Clemens
<>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF583E.E1EE4EF2-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 07:28:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28967 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:28:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28955 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:28:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:27:42 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens-l'" Subject: RE: silver staining and mixtures Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:27:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5841.6D5A9156" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5841.6D5A9156 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Of course, mixture interpretation can only be done in the context and knowledge of the validation work of the individual lab, but here are some general publications. Also, NIST has recently updated STRBase to include 887 references for STR work. You may find some information at http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/tech.htm and from there you can link all around the site. But I will draw your attention to a few silver staining articles. Lygo, J.E., Johnson, P.E., Holdaway, D.J., Woodroffe, S., Whitaker, J.P., Clayton, T.M., Kimpton, C.P. and Gill, P. (1994) The validation of short tandem repeat (STR) loci for use in forensic casework. Int. J. Leg. Med. 107: 77-89. Bassam, et al. (1991) Fast and sensitive silver staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Anal. Biochem. 196: 80-83. Phillips CP, et al. [See Related Articles] Manual electrophoretic methods for genotyping amplified STR loci. Methods Mol Biol. 1998;98:181-92. No abstract available. PMID: 9664563; UI: 98329265. Budowle B, et al. [See Related Articles] Analysis of amplified fragment-length polymorphisms (VNTR/STR loci) for human identity testing. Methods Mol Biol. 1998;98:155-71. No abstract available. PMID: 9664561; UI: 98329263. Budowle B, et al. [See Related Articles] Validation studies of the CTT STR multiplex system. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jul;42(4):701-7. PMID: 9243836; UI: 97387851. Micka KA, et al. [See Related Articles] Validation of multiplex polymorphic STR amplification sets developed for personal identification applications. J Forensic Sci. 1996 Jul;41(4):582-90. PMID: 8754568; UI: 96288932. My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of CMPD or its staff. Jeff Sailus DNA Analyst CMPD Crime Lab Ph 704-336-7755 Fax 704-353-0088 Email: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us <>-----Original Message----- <>From: biologit [mailto:biologit@netvision.net.il] <>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:56 PM <>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu <>Subject: silver staining and mixtures <> <> <>Dear List, <> <>Does anyone know if validation studies have been carried out <>for silver <>stained polyacrylamide STR gels? I am particularly interested in <>published results on the interpretation of mixtures by silver <>staining. <>Such issues as the detection limit of the minor component of <>a mixture, <>stutter bands, and multiple mixtures, etc. are of interest in this <>context. Thank you. <> <>Paul Brauner <> ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5841.6D5A9156 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: silver staining and mixtures

Of course, mixture interpretation can only be done in = the context and knowledge of the validation work of the individual lab, = but here are some general publications.  Also, NIST has recently = updated STRBase to include 887 references for STR work.  You may = find some information at

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/tech.htm

and from there you can link all around the = site.  But I will draw your attention to a few silver staining = articles.

Lygo, J.E., Johnson, P.E., Holdaway, D.J., Woodroffe, = S., Whitaker, J.P., Clayton, T.M., Kimpton, C.P. and Gill, P. (1994) = The validation of short tandem repeat (STR) loci for use in forensic = casework. Int. J. Leg. Med. 107: 77-89.

Bassam, et al. (1991) Fast and sensitive silver = staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Anal. Biochem. 196: 80-83. =

 Phillips CP, et = al.           [See = Related Articles]

Manual electrophoretic methods for genotyping = amplified STR loci.
Methods Mol Biol. 1998;98:181-92. No abstract = available.
PMID: 9664563; UI: 98329265.

 Budowle B, et = al.           [See = Related Articles]

Analysis of amplified fragment-length polymorphisms = (VNTR/STR loci) for human identity testing.
Methods Mol Biol. 1998;98:155-71. No abstract = available.
PMID: 9664561; UI: 98329263.

 Budowle B, et = al.           [See = Related Articles]

Validation studies of the CTT STR multiplex system. =
J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jul;42(4):701-7.
PMID: 9243836; UI: 97387851.

Micka KA, et = al.           [See = Related Articles]

Validation of multiplex polymorphic STR amplification = sets developed for personal identification applications.
J Forensic Sci. 1996 Jul;41(4):582-90.
PMID: 8754568; UI: 96288932.

My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of = CMPD or its staff.

Jeff Sailus
DNA Analyst
CMPD Crime Lab
Ph  704-336-7755
Fax  704-353-0088
Email:  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us


<>-----Original Message-----
<>From: biologit [mailto:biologit@netvision.net.= il]
<>Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:56 = PM
<>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
<>Subject: silver staining and mixtures
<>
<>
<>Dear List,
<>
<>Does anyone know if validation studies have = been carried out
<>for silver
<>stained polyacrylamide STR gels? I am = particularly interested in
<>published results on the interpretation of = mixtures by silver
<>staining.
<>Such issues as the detection limit of the = minor component of
<>a mixture,
<>stutter bands, and multiple mixtures, etc. = are of interest in this
<>context. Thank you.
<>
<>Paul Brauner
<>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5841.6D5A9156-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 09:20:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00066 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:19:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00061 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:19:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:14:39 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C217@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: This is the kind of case I'm wondering about:me too! Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:18:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO No access to the original DC, but on the language (probably the reporter's): symptoms are things the patient reports, like weakness, pain, etc and in my experience, the dead are usually silent. What the examiner finds are SIGNS of diseases, conditions, etc. Most places would call the cause of death with these findings "ASCVD" or Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease; this is frequently associated with heart attacks but isn't synonymous. Heart attacks (myocardial infarctions) are usually interpreted as death of a portion of heart muscle due to lack of blood supply. This takes several hours survival for the pathologist to be able to see it grossly. Electrical rythym disturbances of the heart, also associated with ASCVD, commonly have no acute changes visible at autopsy and pathologists then usually list the associated ASCVD or enlargement of the heart as the cause of death, except for those cases which happen to be on an electrocardiographic monitor or recorder during their terminal event. I'd suggest that the key finding is the lack of smoke and soot in the airway, as flash fires do commonly give only a very low carbon monoxide level because the decedent didn't remain alive long enough to equilibrate. The CO in the dogs argues that this was a run-of-the-mill slowly starting housefire. And yes, Richardson's CO level is adequately explained by heavy smoking; some years ago when I was smoking reasonably heavily, my level ran 9%. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com [mailto:shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 11:33 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: This is the kind of case I'm wondering about:me too! I found this particular portion of the article you linked interesting: "The autopsy was performed by Medical Examiner Robert Bux. According to the autopsy report, Richardson's lungs were not filled with smoke or soot, nor was there excessive carbon monoxide in his blood (his carbon monoxide levels were about 11 percent, consistent with heavy smoking, while two dogs who died in the fire had carbon monoxide levels of about 40 percent and 60 percent.) What Bux did find in his autopsy of Bill Richardson was evidence of stenosis and arteriosclerosis, with up to 80 percent blockage of the left descending artery -- symptoms of a heart attack." With my very slight knowledge of anatomy, I would think that these latter facts related to advanced arteriosclerosis are appropriate to suggest a propensity to have a heart attack, but not enough to conclusively state that the victim did die of a heart attack. Anybody know what the certificate of death said? Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; < > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:13 PM Subject: This is the kind of case I'm wondering about > Here is the type of case I'm talking about. This is the type of thing I'm > concerned about. I doubt that this is typical, but it certainly seems like > it's more widespread then what you may think. This case looks like there's > been a wonderful amount of help from the forensic community - of course, it > wouldn't have been needed without the damning testimony of the forensic > community to begin with...but. If you have a chance, take a look at this > page. This frightens me - it's wrong and it could happen to any of us. > > > http://www.truthinjustice.org/sonia4.htm > > Barbara Jean > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 09:28:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00112 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00107 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:27:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:22:49 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C218@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Consistent Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:27:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I'd suggest, rather than this elaborate detail which seems unlikely to be actually read by anyone but another subject matter expert, if this needs to be referred to in the report at all, is something like "Details of anlytical methods are available in the bound laboratory notebook." Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: John Bowden [mailto:jaybow@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 1:34 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Consistent Peter, I was wondering when we would hear from you on this topic. As I recall you were much involved in the last discussion of the issue. I was just wondering about the original quote from Brian and Pat Dixon, not to find fault, but rather to augment the information. What do you think about actually describing the paint samples as much as possible: the number, color, order, and thickness of the layers; the nature of the chemical tests used, whether organic, inorganic, or both; whether the chemical tests applied to each layer separately or not; and so forth. While comments about the specific comparisons could still be made, it would provide a much stronger basis to the triers of fact. The comments about the possible sources are indeed appropriate and possibly could be augmented by describing the particular paint systems, as well as the manufacturer's designations for the colors. I recall the last turquoise car I owned (a white/turquoise 63-1/2 Ford Fastback with a 390 ci engine and four on the floor). Even then Ford did not refer to the color as "turquoise". Just some food (fodder?) for thought. John P. Bowden (No, I am not related to Bobby but I sure wish I were.) "Dum Spiro Spero" "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > > At 09:44 PM 1/5/2000 -0500, Brian and Pat Dixon wrote: > > >My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be acceptable, BUT > >only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An > example > >might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is > indistinguishable > >from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and > >chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the > scene > >having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle > painted with > >the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many > turquoise blue > >automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still > having > >the original manufacturer's finish". > > I agree. > > This is an excellent example of how such a report might be written. > Unfortunately, it is the second sentence that is all too frequently seen, > without the first and, especially, the last. When presenting evidence that > supports the hypothesis of common origin, I believe it is imperative that > the scientist give some measure of the strength of that evidence. It is > not enough to say that the evidence is "consistent with the submitted > comparison sample or any other [source] with the same features." How > common are the other such sources? That is really the tough question to > answer - and the one that the forensic scientist shouild bend his or her > effort to addressing. > > Pete Barnett > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com > http://www.fsalab.com -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for two free plane tickets: http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/ From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 09:33:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00158 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00153 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:32:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08121; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:32:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:32:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <008301bf5714$a0035a80$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > [me] > > Well, for once, Fred, we seem to be on the same wavelength. I must > > say, though, that the character assassination sub-committee of the > > forens-L mailing list actually has more to fear from a *real* QA and a > > *real* audit than any laboratory does. One of the first principles of > > quality assurance and quality auditing is that 99.999% of problems are > > structural and not due to individuals. People do not want to go to > > work and do a bad job. They are most often forced into doing a "bad" > > job by structural constraints. > > This much I understand conceptually, but the practical reality is that there > must be some kind of accountability (This is one of the reasons that I post > my own courtroom testimony on my website-- for others to read and > criticize). To say nothing of the responsibility that a professional has > when confronted between the choice of agreeing to do bad work and doing no > work. What is the ethical choice? What you have to ask yourself is whether you want to fix the problem, or whether you want to enjoy a nice burning at the stake. You can't do both. The bottom line is that in essentially all studies of quality assurance, an adversarial and blame-promoting approach is uniformly *counterproductive*. That is why, in Demming's 14 points of quality management, the 8th is to drive out fear. Both Demming and Juran note that the atmosphere of blame *causes* error, it does not cure it. It causes error in a number of ways. First and foremost, it inhibits the reporting of problems. If every time there is a problem a person gets blamed or some bad punitive action is taken, folk stop reporting problems until a crisis ensues. Unfortunately, this is a favorite tactic of US governmental policy, under the aegis of "accountability," regulatory agencies set up various metrics (usually bad) and then put in draconian punitive measures. The results of this are absolutely predicticable. Aircraft near-misses go woefully underreported because people would rather call air controllers incompetent and blame them than actually fix the structural problems that make these things inevitable. The EPA is a four-star violator for these kinds of approaches because it is wedded to punitive actions tied to arbitrary limits and bad metrics. A wonderful example this principle in medicine is one I was taught during my blood-banking rotation as a resident. A researcher (at Duke, as I remember) took a bunch of blood bank technologists and had them copy patient id numbers from one set of papers to another set of papers. He found that there was an irreducible error rate -- the number 3% sticks in my mind. He then took the group and told them that they would be punished for their mistakes. The error rate increased dramatically -- because stress and fear decrease the quality of performance. Fear also sacrifices long-term improvement for the short-term appearance of improvement. The classic example in production work is the foreman who is judged on the metric of units output who declines to shut down the line for a short time in order to do preventive maintenance or to investigate a small problem. The result, of course, is a major malfunction down the road. However, a punitive atmosphere would punish the foreman for taking that extra time, since it would mean he didn't make his quota, while a major malfunction would likely put the "blame" elsewhere. Juran points out that the atmosphere of blame is one of the better ways to *increase* conscious error rather than reduce it -- by decreasing open communication, by causing people to color reports, by introducing bias in evaluations, and by creating a sense of futility(2). Thus, the atmosphere of blame is counterproductive for many reasons, the primary two being that it *in and of itself* causes error and then compounds the error by inhibiting open discussion and correction. The *correct* way of dealing with ID problems in the blood bank is not to run around calling blood bank technologists "incompetent" and "unethical" for mislabeling blood, or to run around and call nurses "unethical" and "incompetent" for giving blood to the wrong person. The *correct* way is to recognize that they are neither, but that there needs to be systematic corrections to systematic problems. In the case of ID errors in blood banking, the answer is to use barcodes (which removes the transcription error) and redundant procedures (which ameliorates the common problems of limited attention by individuals). There are, it turns out, good ways to design systems and management to reduce errors. Unfortunately, it is work and involves nontrivial up-front overhead. As Demming points out to those who like the blame approach, the claim that the problems lie with the fact that workers are incompetent, unreliable, and don't want to do a good job is nothing more than a "pleasant dream" to managment. He lables this attitude as one of the "Deadly Diseases" of management that inhibits quality. In his words, ".. workers are handicapped by the system, and the system belongs to management.(1)" With all of this excellent work that shows that the penchant for blame and fear is absolutely counterproductive, why, one wonders, do folk like the members of the character assassination club of forens-L take such glee in promoting it in the name of increasing "quality?" The answer is simple, and it's the same answer that is present over and over and over in many, many industries and disciplines. Correcting root causes of error is hard work. Scapegoating is easy. Investigating the *real* systematic errors in intellectually challenging. Blaming people is intellectually lazy. Making systematic changes which actually address these issues is not exciting, but instead is difficult, often slow, and often thankless. Running around crying "crisis," finding evil people to despise, castigating villains, playing the hero, and other such dramatic feats is fun and provides great positive feedback. Everybody loves a crusader. Everybody despises a wonk. One of the few things worse for quality than this adversarial approach is one of the tools favored by the people who enjoy it -- the merit rating. As Demming points out, the numerical merit rating is the primary tool of those who manage by fear. He notes that "It nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics." (1). I'll leave the many, many ways in which it does this as an exercise for the reader. So, you ask about "ethics." The "ethical" approach is to find the *real* causes of problems. The "ethical" approach is to fix those problems by doing the real and hard work of modifying the system to provide quality. The "ethical" approach is not to apply adversarial techniques which destroy quality and pretend that one is promoting quality. The adversarial model is explicitly noted as unprofessional behavior within the professional quality community.(4) > > Also, I find the statistic that you cite regarding the percentage of > problems being structural as opposed to individual curious... are you > suggesting that individuals do not participate in the structure and > therefore have no responsibility for the work they perform in it? And from > where is this statistic derived? It is, of course, hyperbole. But not by much. The actual statistic for the general sense is 80% (3), though the remaining "worker error" is rarely conscious error. However, in many specific cases it is much higher. For instance, Juran noted over 90% of the barriers to the development of empowered teams for quality assurance are systematic(3). In fact, most people *are* at the mercy of the systems they work for, and all people are shaped by the policies, rewards, and punishments under which they strive. > > > > Unfortunately, this means that folk who spend their time engaging in > > self-serving self-aggrandizing self-righteous breast-beating by > > stereotyping "forensic scientists" as "corrupt" or "incompetent" or > > whatever will have to find some other way of viewing themselves as > > holier than the rest. > > > > I don't think that asking questions and making factual observations should > be discouraged. Asking the *right* questions and making *complete* factual observations should not be discouraged. Asking the *wrong* questions and making misleading observations, however "factual" in and of themselves should be discouraged. There is a difference between asking "how can this system be improved" and "Is there something here I can find to criticize and run down?" When a young artist asks "Tell me about the Mona Lisa," the response "It's an old picture with cracked paint" is factual, but does not provide a useful or complete characterization. > > > The postings on the list show that many of those who cry for "quality" > > in forensic science have little interest in real quality. They are > > just looking for someone to blame, someone to look down upon, and for > > secondary gain -- an attitude which is, of course, the first "don't" in > > quality assurance management and implementation. Until *that* attitude > > changes, until audits themselves are viewed professionally, and until > > such audits are used as quality tools rather than punitive attempts at > > exorcism, such a call is self-serving and futile. > > Though I understand the point you are trying to make, you have gone over the > edge of reason in making it. The above statement is broad generalization > about motives and attitudes, ironically espousing the logic that is being > decried by this post. On the contrary. The attitudes provided by the character assassination club of forens-L are classic old-style counterproductive approaches to "quality." Quality audits are properly used to evaluate *system* or *process* compliance or *product* comformance. They are not tools for assigning blame or liability. When one attempts to use them to do so, one is perverting both the audit process and working against the quality one pretends to want. Auditors are fact-finders, not fault-finders. Laying of blame, criticizing, covert and secret audits are all defined as unprofessional behaviors by the ASQ/NIST. Audits, essentially, are tools for management to evaluate *itself* or the management of the auditee organization, not to find fault with individual workers. (4,5). >More to the point, forensic science is not an academic > exercise. It involves the life and liberty of real people. The standards > must be set high. We seem to forget that a lot on this list with, for > example, the certainty shown in the verve of the above argument. Pish posh. The difference is that you want to be a crusader. You want to ride in on a white horse, defeat the villain, and walk into the sunset as the hero. In order to do this, you need a villain, a crusade, and an audience. And in order to do this, you work to establish barriers against the very values you claim to espouse. You carry with you the diseases which destroy quality, not build it. You are not Florence Nightengale. You are Typhoid Mary. Yes, this involves "real people." And like most real problems with real people, the solution does not lie in histrionics, scapegoating, running around trying to lay blame, and calling every mother's son "unethical" and "incompetent." The real answer for real people lies in doing the hard intellectual and structural work to provide real quality assurance and real quality management. billo 1) W. Edwards Demming. Out of the Crisis. MIT press 1982, 1986. 505 pp. 2) J.M Juran Juran on Quality by Design. Free Press, 1992. 538 pp. 3) Joseph M Juran and A. Blanton Godfrey. Juran's Quality Handbook. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1998. 4) P. Anderson. CQA Primer. Quality Council of Indiana, American Association for Quality. 1997 5) Charles A. Mills The Quality Audit: A Management Evaluation Tool. American Society for Quality Control Press/McGraw Hill.1989. From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 11:18:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01336 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:17:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfs.state.va.us (dgsgtfo.dgs.state.va.us [159.169.223.252]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01331 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:17:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by DFS-PDC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:25:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Dolan, Julia" To: FORENS-L Subject: RE: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped. ) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:25:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Wow. What a great response. My short & sweet comment regarding quality problems within the structure of an organization is this: Although we're not perfect, we are improving. The implementation and widespread acceptance of things such as laboratory accreditation, examiner certification, and standardization of acceptable methods is a huge step. These are systematic improvements, which are, as Bill so eloquently pointed out, exactly what are needed. This is how we, as a community of hard-working, ethical and involved forensic scientists, are striving for self improvement, and are making progress. We are part of the solution. Julia Ann Dolan Forensic Scientist Supervisor Trace Evidence 703-764-4600 Jdolan@dfs.state.va.us -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [SMTP:billo@radix.net] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:33 AM To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > [me] > > Well, for once, Fred, we seem to be on the same wavelength. I must > > say, though, that the character assassination sub-committee of the > > forens-L mailing list actually has more to fear from a *real* QA and a > > *real* audit than any laboratory does. One of the first principles of > > quality assurance and quality auditing is that 99.999% of problems are > > structural and not due to individuals. People do not want to go to > > work and do a bad job. They are most often forced into doing a "bad" > > job by structural constraints. > > This much I understand conceptually, but the practical reality is that there > must be some kind of accountability (This is one of the reasons that I post > my own courtroom testimony on my website-- for others to read and > criticize). To say nothing of the responsibility that a professional has > when confronted between the choice of agreeing to do bad work and doing no > work. What is the ethical choice? What you have to ask yourself is whether you want to fix the problem, or whether you want to enjoy a nice burning at the stake. You can't do both. The bottom line is that in essentially all studies of quality assurance, an adversarial and blame-promoting approach is uniformly *counterproductive*. That is why, in Demming's 14 points of quality management, the 8th is to drive out fear. Both Demming and Juran note that the atmosphere of blame *causes* error, it does not cure it. It causes error in a number of ways. First and foremost, it inhibits the reporting of problems. If every time there is a problem a person gets blamed or some bad punitive action is taken, folk stop reporting problems until a crisis ensues. Unfortunately, this is a favorite tactic of US governmental policy, under the aegis of "accountability," regulatory agencies set up various metrics (usually bad) and then put in draconian punitive measures. The results of this are absolutely predicticable. Aircraft near-misses go woefully underreported because people would rather call air controllers incompetent and blame them than actually fix the structural problems that make these things inevitable. The EPA is a four-star violator for these kinds of approaches because it is wedded to punitive actions tied to arbitrary limits and bad metrics. A wonderful example this principle in medicine is one I was taught during my blood-banking rotation as a resident. A researcher (at Duke, as I remember) took a bunch of blood bank technologists and had them copy patient id numbers from one set of papers to another set of papers. He found that there was an irreducible error rate -- the number 3% sticks in my mind. He then took the group and told them that they would be punished for their mistakes. The error rate increased dramatically -- because stress and fear decrease the quality of performance. Fear also sacrifices long-term improvement for the short-term appearance of improvement. The classic example in production work is the foreman who is judged on the metric of units output who declines to shut down the line for a short time in order to do preventive maintenance or to investigate a small problem. The result, of course, is a major malfunction down the road. However, a punitive atmosphere would punish the foreman for taking that extra time, since it would mean he didn't make his quota, while a major malfunction would likely put the "blame" elsewhere. Juran points out that the atmosphere of blame is one of the better ways to *increase* conscious error rather than reduce it -- by decreasing open communication, by causing people to color reports, by introducing bias in evaluations, and by creating a sense of futility(2). Thus, the atmosphere of blame is counterproductive for many reasons, the primary two being that it *in and of itself* causes error and then compounds the error by inhibiting open discussion and correction. The *correct* way of dealing with ID problems in the blood bank is not to run around calling blood bank technologists "incompetent" and "unethical" for mislabeling blood, or to run around and call nurses "unethical" and "incompetent" for giving blood to the wrong person. The *correct* way is to recognize that they are neither, but that there needs to be systematic corrections to systematic problems. In the case of ID errors in blood banking, the answer is to use barcodes (which removes the transcription error) and redundant procedures (which ameliorates the common problems of limited attention by individuals). There are, it turns out, good ways to design systems and management to reduce errors. Unfortunately, it is work and involves nontrivial up-front overhead. As Demming points out to those who like the blame approach, the claim that the problems lie with the fact that workers are incompetent, unreliable, and don't want to do a good job is nothing more than a "pleasant dream" to managment. He lables this attitude as one of the "Deadly Diseases" of management that inhibits quality. In his words, ".. workers are handicapped by the system, and the system belongs to management.(1)" With all of this excellent work that shows that the penchant for blame and fear is absolutely counterproductive, why, one wonders, do folk like the members of the character assassination club of forens-L take such glee in promoting it in the name of increasing "quality?" The answer is simple, and it's the same answer that is present over and over and over in many, many industries and disciplines. Correcting root causes of error is hard work. Scapegoating is easy. Investigating the *real* systematic errors in intellectually challenging. Blaming people is intellectually lazy. Making systematic changes which actually address these issues is not exciting, but instead is difficult, often slow, and often thankless. Running around crying "crisis," finding evil people to despise, castigating villains, playing the hero, and other such dramatic feats is fun and provides great positive feedback. Everybody loves a crusader. Everybody despises a wonk. One of the few things worse for quality than this adversarial approach is one of the tools favored by the people who enjoy it -- the merit rating. As Demming points out, the numerical merit rating is the primary tool of those who manage by fear. He notes that "It nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics." (1). I'll leave the many, many ways in which it does this as an exercise for the reader. So, you ask about "ethics." The "ethical" approach is to find the *real* causes of problems. The "ethical" approach is to fix those problems by doing the real and hard work of modifying the system to provide quality. The "ethical" approach is not to apply adversarial techniques which destroy quality and pretend that one is promoting quality. The adversarial model is explicitly noted as unprofessional behavior within the professional quality community.(4) > > Also, I find the statistic that you cite regarding the percentage of > problems being structural as opposed to individual curious... are you > suggesting that individuals do not participate in the structure and > therefore have no responsibility for the work they perform in it? And from > where is this statistic derived? It is, of course, hyperbole. But not by much. The actual statistic for the general sense is 80% (3), though the remaining "worker error" is rarely conscious error. However, in many specific cases it is much higher. For instance, Juran noted over 90% of the barriers to the development of empowered teams for quality assurance are systematic(3). In fact, most people *are* at the mercy of the systems they work for, and all people are shaped by the policies, rewards, and punishments under which they strive. > > > > Unfortunately, this means that folk who spend their time engaging in > > self-serving self-aggrandizing self-righteous breast-beating by > > stereotyping "forensic scientists" as "corrupt" or "incompetent" or > > whatever will have to find some other way of viewing themselves as > > holier than the rest. > > > > I don't think that asking questions and making factual observations should > be discouraged. Asking the *right* questions and making *complete* factual observations should not be discouraged. Asking the *wrong* questions and making misleading observations, however "factual" in and of themselves should be discouraged. There is a difference between asking "how can this system be improved" and "Is there something here I can find to criticize and run down?" When a young artist asks "Tell me about the Mona Lisa," the response "It's an old picture with cracked paint" is factual, but does not provide a useful or complete characterization. > > > The postings on the list show that many of those who cry for "quality" > > in forensic science have little interest in real quality. They are > > just looking for someone to blame, someone to look down upon, and for > > secondary gain -- an attitude which is, of course, the first "don't" in > > quality assurance management and implementation. Until *that* attitude > > changes, until audits themselves are viewed professionally, and until > > such audits are used as quality tools rather than punitive attempts at > > exorcism, such a call is self-serving and futile. > > Though I understand the point you are trying to make, you have gone over the > edge of reason in making it. The above statement is broad generalization > about motives and attitudes, ironically espousing the logic that is being > decried by this post. On the contrary. The attitudes provided by the character assassination club of forens-L are classic old-style counterproductive approaches to "quality." Quality audits are properly used to evaluate *system* or *process* compliance or *product* comformance. They are not tools for assigning blame or liability. When one attempts to use them to do so, one is perverting both the audit process and working against the quality one pretends to want. Auditors are fact-finders, not fault-finders. Laying of blame, criticizing, covert and secret audits are all defined as unprofessional behaviors by the ASQ/NIST. Audits, essentially, are tools for management to evaluate *itself* or the management of the auditee organization, not to find fault with individual workers. (4,5). >More to the point, forensic science is not an academic > exercise. It involves the life and liberty of real people. The standards > must be set high. We seem to forget that a lot on this list with, for > example, the certainty shown in the verve of the above argument. Pish posh. The difference is that you want to be a crusader. You want to ride in on a white horse, defeat the villain, and walk into the sunset as the hero. In order to do this, you need a villain, a crusade, and an audience. And in order to do this, you work to establish barriers against the very values you claim to espouse. You carry with you the diseases which destroy quality, not build it. You are not Florence Nightengale. You are Typhoid Mary. Yes, this involves "real people." And like most real problems with real people, the solution does not lie in histrionics, scapegoating, running around trying to lay blame, and calling every mother's son "unethical" and "incompetent." The real answer for real people lies in doing the hard intellectual and structural work to provide real quality assurance and real quality management. billo 1) W. Edwards Demming. Out of the Crisis. MIT press 1982, 1986. 505 pp. 2) J.M Juran Juran on Quality by Design. Free Press, 1992. 538 pp. 3) Joseph M Juran and A. Blanton Godfrey. Juran's Quality Handbook. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1998. 4) P. Anderson. CQA Primer. Quality Council of Indiana, American Association for Quality. 1997 5) Charles A. Mills The Quality Audit: A Management Evaluation Tool. American Society for Quality Control Press/McGraw Hill.1989. From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 13:58:51 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02825 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02820 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNX00LDQGEKH5@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:51:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 10:58:07 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <003d01bf5877$f88ce900$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill; You have prepared a rather lengthy response which I have no intention of matching as it is both non-responsive and full baseless, redirective name calling that does more to confuse and blow smoke than actually address the substantive issues. As I have repeatedly stated, and you would do well to re-read my posts (rather than responding to the demons of your imagination that apparently govern your keystrokes), I have made no generalizations about the state of all forensic scientists or assassinated anyone's character. In fact I challenge you to cite an instance of this. This is a fiction of your imagination. I have only stated that there are biased individuals in the profession (are you denying this with a straight face?), we don't know how many there are, and they give legitimacy to those in the public who withdraw their trust from the forensic community. And for all of your discussion of quality assurance and quality control, you have avoided the ethical question entirely of who is responsible, dismissing it as a bad question. For all of your attempts to paint it so, the issue of bias is not one of QC. Are you stating that, in your view, forensic scientists have no ethical accountability when they engage in unethical acts? That's what it's beginning to sound like. I find this position to be disingenuous. This line of reasoning didn't work at Nuremberg and it doesn't work here. You may call me a crusader if you like, if that satisfies your logic. But know that this is label based on facts that exist only in your imagination. I think that I have proven time and time again that what I am is an advocate of objectivity and reason. Also, on professional note, I would suggest that it is you, through your zeal to redirect and blame the questioner, with your obvious passion to make ad hominem attacks, who is on some kind of reactionary crusade. You would do well to remove these types of juvenalities from your posts as they deride your station. As such I offer you these words in close from one who was dealing with these very issues before the birth of either of our grandparents: "...in the profession of the criminal expert everything bearing the least trace of exaggeration must be removed in the most energetic and conscientious manner; otherwise, the Investigating Officer will become an expert unworthy of his service and even dangerous to humanity." Hans Gross, Criminal Investigation Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 6:32 AM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > [me] > > > Well, for once, Fred, we seem to be on the same wavelength. I must > > > say, though, that the character assassination sub-committee of the > > > forens-L mailing list actually has more to fear from a *real* QA and a > > > *real* audit than any laboratory does. One of the first principles of > > > quality assurance and quality auditing is that 99.999% of problems are > > > structural and not due to individuals. People do not want to go to > > > work and do a bad job. They are most often forced into doing a "bad" > > > job by structural constraints. > > > > This much I understand conceptually, but the practical reality is that there > > must be some kind of accountability (This is one of the reasons that I post > > my own courtroom testimony on my website-- for others to read and > > criticize). To say nothing of the responsibility that a professional has > > when confronted between the choice of agreeing to do bad work and doing no > > work. What is the ethical choice? > > What you have to ask yourself is whether you want to fix the problem, > or whether you want to enjoy a nice burning at the stake. You can't > do both. The bottom line is that in essentially all studies of > quality assurance, an adversarial and blame-promoting approach > is uniformly *counterproductive*. That is why, in Demming's > 14 points of quality management, the 8th is to drive out fear. > > Both Demming and Juran note that the atmosphere of blame *causes* > error, it does not cure it. It causes error in a number of ways. > First and foremost, it inhibits the reporting of problems. If every > time there is a problem a person gets blamed or some bad punitive > action is taken, folk stop reporting problems until a > crisis ensues. Unfortunately, this is a favorite tactic of US > governmental policy, under the aegis of "accountability," regulatory > agencies set up various metrics (usually bad) and then put in > draconian punitive measures. > > The results of this are absolutely predicticable. Aircraft near-misses > go woefully underreported because people would rather call air controllers > incompetent and blame them than actually fix the structural problems > that make these things inevitable. The EPA is a four-star violator for > these kinds of approaches because it is wedded to punitive actions > tied to arbitrary limits and bad metrics. > > A wonderful example this principle in medicine is one I was taught > during my blood-banking rotation as a resident. A researcher (at Duke, > as I remember) took a bunch of blood bank technologists and had them > copy patient id numbers from one set of papers to another set of > papers. He found that there was an irreducible error rate -- the > number 3% sticks in my mind. He then took the group and told them that > they would be punished for their mistakes. The error rate increased > dramatically -- because stress and fear decrease the quality of > performance. > > Fear also sacrifices long-term improvement for the short-term > appearance of improvement. The classic example in production work is > the foreman who is judged on the metric of units output who declines to > shut down the line for a short time in order to do preventive > maintenance or to investigate a small problem. The result, > of course, is a major malfunction down the road. However, > a punitive atmosphere would punish the foreman for taking > that extra time, since it would mean he didn't make his > quota, while a major malfunction would likely put the "blame" > elsewhere. > > Juran points out that the atmosphere of blame is one of the > better ways to *increase* conscious error rather than > reduce it -- by decreasing open communication, by causing > people to color reports, by introducing bias in evaluations, > and by creating a sense of futility(2). > > Thus, the atmosphere of blame is counterproductive for many reasons, > the primary two being that it *in and of itself* causes error and > then compounds the error by inhibiting open discussion and correction. > > The *correct* way of dealing with ID problems in the blood bank > is not to run around calling blood bank technologists "incompetent" > and "unethical" for mislabeling blood, or to run around and call > nurses "unethical" and "incompetent" for giving blood to the wrong > person. The *correct* way is to recognize that they are neither, > but that there needs to be systematic corrections to systematic > problems. In the case of ID errors in blood banking, the answer > is to use barcodes (which removes the transcription error) and > redundant procedures (which ameliorates the common problems > of limited attention by individuals). > > There are, it turns out, good ways to design systems and management > to reduce errors. Unfortunately, it is work and involves nontrivial > up-front overhead. > > As Demming points out to those who like the blame approach, the claim > that the problems lie with the fact that workers are incompetent, > unreliable, and don't want to do a good job is nothing more than a > "pleasant dream" to managment. He lables this attitude as one of the > "Deadly Diseases" of management that inhibits quality. In his words, > ".. workers are handicapped by the system, and the system belongs to > management.(1)" > > With all of this excellent work that shows that the penchant > for blame and fear is absolutely counterproductive, why, one > wonders, do folk like the members of the character assassination > club of forens-L take such glee in promoting it in the name of > increasing "quality?" The answer is simple, and it's the same > answer that is present over and over and over in many, many > industries and disciplines. Correcting root causes of error > is hard work. Scapegoating is easy. > > Investigating the *real* systematic errors in intellectually > challenging. Blaming people is intellectually lazy. Making systematic > changes which actually address these issues is not exciting, but > instead is difficult, often slow, and often thankless. Running around > crying "crisis," finding evil people to despise, castigating villains, > playing the hero, and other such dramatic feats is fun and provides > great positive feedback. Everybody loves a crusader. Everybody > despises a wonk. > > One of the few things worse for quality than this adversarial > approach is one of the tools favored by the people who > enjoy it -- the merit rating. As Demming points out, the > numerical merit rating is the primary tool of those who > manage by fear. He notes that "It nourishes short-term > performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, > demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics." (1). > I'll leave the many, many ways in which it does this > as an exercise for the reader. > > So, you ask about "ethics." The "ethical" approach is to > find the *real* causes of problems. The "ethical" approach > is to fix those problems by doing the real and hard work > of modifying the system to provide quality. The "ethical" > approach is not to apply adversarial techniques which > destroy quality and pretend that one is promoting quality. > The adversarial model is explicitly noted as unprofessional > behavior within the professional quality community.(4) > > > > > > > Also, I find the statistic that you cite regarding the percentage of > > problems being structural as opposed to individual curious... are you > > suggesting that individuals do not participate in the structure and > > therefore have no responsibility for the work they perform in it? And from > > where is this statistic derived? > > It is, of course, hyperbole. But not by much. The actual statistic for > the general sense is 80% (3), though the remaining "worker error" is rarely > conscious error. However, in many specific cases it is much higher. For > instance, Juran noted over 90% of the barriers to the development of > empowered teams for quality assurance are systematic(3). In fact, > most people *are* at the mercy of the systems they work for, and all > people are shaped by the policies, rewards, and punishments under which > they strive. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this means that folk who spend their time engaging in > > > self-serving self-aggrandizing self-righteous breast-beating by > > > stereotyping "forensic scientists" as "corrupt" or "incompetent" or > > > whatever will have to find some other way of viewing themselves as > > > holier than the rest. > > > > > > > I don't think that asking questions and making factual observations should > > be discouraged. > > Asking the *right* questions and making *complete* factual observations > should not be discouraged. Asking the *wrong* questions and making > misleading observations, however "factual" in and of themselves should > be discouraged. There is a difference between asking "how can this > system be improved" and "Is there something here I can find to > criticize and run down?" > > When a young artist asks "Tell me about the Mona Lisa," the > response "It's an old picture with cracked paint" is factual, but does > not provide a useful or complete characterization. > > > > > > The postings on the list show that many of those who cry for "quality" > > > in forensic science have little interest in real quality. They are > > > just looking for someone to blame, someone to look down upon, and for > > > secondary gain -- an attitude which is, of course, the first "don't" in > > > quality assurance management and implementation. Until *that* attitude > > > changes, until audits themselves are viewed professionally, and until > > > such audits are used as quality tools rather than punitive attempts at > > > exorcism, such a call is self-serving and futile. > > > > Though I understand the point you are trying to make, you have gone over the > > edge of reason in making it. The above statement is broad generalization > > about motives and attitudes, ironically espousing the logic that is being > > decried by this post. > > On the contrary. The attitudes provided by the character assassination > club of forens-L are classic old-style counterproductive approaches to > "quality." Quality audits are properly used to evaluate *system* or > *process* compliance or *product* comformance. They are not tools for > assigning blame or liability. When one attempts to use them to do so, > one is perverting both the audit process and working against the > quality one pretends to want. Auditors are fact-finders, not fault-finders. > Laying of blame, criticizing, covert and secret audits are all defined > as unprofessional behaviors by the ASQ/NIST. Audits, essentially, > are tools for management to evaluate *itself* or the management of > the auditee organization, not to find fault with individual workers. > (4,5). > > > >More to the point, forensic science is not an academic > > exercise. It involves the life and liberty of real people. The standards > > must be set high. We seem to forget that a lot on this list with, for > > example, the certainty shown in the verve of the above argument. > > Pish posh. The difference is that you want to be a crusader. You > want to ride in on a white horse, defeat the villain, and walk > into the sunset as the hero. In order to do this, you need a > villain, a crusade, and an audience. And in order to do this, > you work to establish barriers against the very values you > claim to espouse. You carry with you the diseases which > destroy quality, not build it. You are not Florence Nightengale. > You are Typhoid Mary. > > Yes, this involves "real people." And like most real problems > with real people, the solution does not lie in histrionics, > scapegoating, running around trying to lay blame, and calling > every mother's son "unethical" and "incompetent." The real > answer for real people lies in doing the hard intellectual > and structural work to provide real quality assurance and > real quality management. > > > > billo > > > 1) W. Edwards Demming. Out of the Crisis. MIT press 1982, 1986. 505 pp. > 2) J.M Juran Juran on Quality by Design. Free Press, 1992. 538 pp. > 3) Joseph M Juran and A. Blanton Godfrey. Juran's Quality Handbook. > 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1998. > 4) P. Anderson. CQA Primer. Quality Council of Indiana, American > Association for Quality. 1997 > 5) Charles A. Mills The Quality Audit: A Management Evaluation Tool. > American Society for Quality Control Press/McGraw Hill.1989. > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 15:51:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA03719 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:48:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA03714 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:48:40 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.66.66cf7c13 (6932) for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:48:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <66.66cf7c13.25a65983@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:48:03 EST Subject: Fwd: Another case To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_66.66cf7c13.25a65983_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_66.66cf7c13.25a65983_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_66.66cf7c13.25a65983_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: Sidg@aol.com From: Sidg@aol.com Full-name: Sidg Message-ID: <49.4938ddb0.25a65315@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:20:37 EST Subject: Another case To: KJohn39679@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 DNA Tests Are Freeing Scores of Prison Inmates April 19, 1999=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=20 By BILL DEDMAN=20 =A0OKLAHOMA CITY -- It was a gruesome slaying. Debra Sue Carter, a 21-year-o= ld=20 barmaid, was found on the floor of her garage apartment in December 1982 in=20 Ada, a town of 16,000 people southeast of Oklahoma City. She had been raped,= =20 and words were written on her nude body in ketchup and fingernail polish.=A0= =20 Five years later, two men were charged with murder in the case. They were=20 well known in Ada: one was a junior high school science teacher and coach,=20 Dennis Fritz; the other, Ronald Williamson, was a local hero who had played=20 minor league baseball for the Oakland Athletics and the New York Yankees.=A0= =20 Scientific evidence helped convict them: 17 hairs found on the victim's body= =20 and analyzed under a microscope. At their trials in 1988, an expert from the= =20 state crime laboratory testified that some of the hairs were an exact=A0 mat= ch=20 to Fritz, and the others to Williamson. The expert also said that semen foun= d=20 on the body could have come from them.=A0=20 Fritz received a life sentence, and Williamson was sentenced to die. At one=20 point, Williamson came within five days of being executed.=A0=20 Last week they were freed by newer scientific evidence, DNA analysis that wa= s=20 not available 12 years ago. DNA analysis showed that the hairs and semen=20 could not have come from either of the two men.=A0=20 The DNA tests were done by five laboratories, including one at the Oklahoma=20 State Bureau of Investigation, the same agency that had done the microscopic= =20 tests in the 1980's. Now the labs say the DNA matches that of a convicted=20 kidnapper who testified against the two men.=A0=20 Defense lawyers say the Oklahoma case calls into question unproven science=20 that has led to criminal convictions for a century. The men are the 61st and= =20 62d inmates in the nation to be exonerated by DNA evidence, according to the= =20 Justice Department. Williamson is the 78th person in the country since 1970=20 to be cleared after being on death row, says the Death Penalty Information=20 Center, an anti-death penalty group.=A0=20 "We will get thousands of people out," said Barry Scheck, a lawyer for Fritz= =20 and director of the Innocence Project atthe Benjamin Cardozo School of Law i= n=20 New York.=A0=A0 Scheck was a lawyer in the O. J. Simpson murder trial who=20 attacked DNA evidence against the former football star because, Scheck said,= =20 the methods used to collect and analyze that evidence were flawed.=A0=20 "Juries eat it up when someone says 'expert' and 'science,'" said Mark=20 Barrett, who along with Sara Bonnell represents Williamson for the State of=20 Oklahoma's Indigent Defense System. "Hair analysis, handwriting analysis,=20 bite-mark analysis -- unproven science has no place in the courtroom,"=20 Barrett continued. "Everyone who's ever been=A0 convicted on microscopic=20 evidence ought to have their case reopened."=A0=20 The lawyers are pushing for Federal legislation to guarantee inmates an=20 opportunity to require DNA testing. Only New York and Illinois have such=20 laws. Fritz, for example, had=A0 exhausted his appeals and would not be free= =20 now if his DNA had not been tested as part of Williamson's case.=A0=20 The evidence against Fritz and Williamson included the testimony of two=20 jailhouse informers and a witness who was a felon. One informer said that sh= e=20 had heard Williamson threaten to kill his mother as he had killed Ms. Carter= .=20 A witness at the bar where Ms. Carter worked said he had seen Williamson=20 there the night of the killing. And prosecutors made much of a dream that=20 Williamson said he had had about the murder.=A0=20 "This case had all the building blocks of a wrongful conviction," Barrett=20 said. "Unproven science, a jailhouse snitch, a dream and a tainted=20 eyewitness."=A0=20 That witness is now the suspect. The DNA tests show that the genetic materia= l=20 of the witness, Glen Gore, 38, matches the semen. Gore, who was serving thre= e=20 40-year sentences for kidnapping and other charges unrelated to Ms. Carter's= =20 murder, walked away from a prison work crew on=20 Wednesday and remained at large today. He has not been charged in the=20 murder.=A0=20 Fritz and Williamson, at a fund-raising picnic by the local chapter of=20 Amnesty International this afternoon, said they were angry and wanted to be=20 compensated. Fritz, 49, who became something of a jailhouse lawyer, plans to= =20 move back to Kansas City to be with his mother and to spend=20 time with his daughter, 25, here. He said he might work for the Innocence=20 Project.=A0=20 "I've got some student loans to pay off -- they've been charging me interest= =20 all this time," Fritz said.=A0=20 Williamson's brown hair has turned gray. Now 46, he has recently been=20 hospitalized for a pre-existing mental illness, bipolar disorder. He said=20 that playing the guitar made life tolerable in the state's death-row cells,=20 which are underground.=A0=20 He said he considered suicide before his new trial was ordered in 1997.=A0=20 "I'm getting out of this state," Williamson said. "A lot of people still=20 think we must have been guilty or we wouldn't have been charged."=A0=20 On Friday, the two men visited with an aide to Gov. Frank Keating, seeking=20 compensation for the time they served.=A0=20 Williamson's lawyer, Barrett, said that most Oklahomans favor the death=20 penalty, all the more since the bombing, four years ago on Monday, that=20 killed 168 people at the Federal building here. The state has executed 15=20 inmates since 1990, when executions resumed after a 24-year gap; it has abou= t=20 150 prisoners on death row, out of 3,500 nationwide.=A0=20 "With one case, people think that it could just be a mistake," Barrett said.= =20 "But with 78 cases, they start to see that there's an epidemic of wrongful=20 convictions. The error rate in the death penalty is not one that would be=20 acceptable in most people's lines of work."=A0=20 =A0 --part1_66.66cf7c13.25a65983_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 18:11:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05228 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:06:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05223 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA09157; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:06:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:06:17 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <003d01bf5877$f88ce900$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Bill; > [blah blah blah] > > > Also, on professional note, I would suggest that it is you, through your > zeal to redirect and blame the questioner, with your obvious passion to make > ad hominem attacks, who is on some kind of reactionary crusade. You would do > well to remove these types of juvenalities from your posts as they deride > your station. The bottom line, Brent, it that you jumped in to defend the actions of those who I originally challenged. That you now want to distance yourself from them is laudable. However, you cannot have it both ways -- you cannot be a fellow traveller with the character assassins and distance yourself from them. You cannot jump to their defense and at the same time claim no part in it. You are not the first to denigrate a professional approach to improving quality, but it is this approach which will provide the solutions you claim to desire. billo From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 18:45:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA05501 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:44:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (mta4.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.142]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05496 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:44:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNX00ELETWLD4@mta4.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 15:43:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 15:49:47 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <021e01bf58a0$b6d3aac0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill; Citizens have a right to express their anger and distrust of the forensic community. We, as professionals, have an obligation to listen as there are those among us who have earned their distrust (Howard Ollick, Ralph Erdmann, Fred Zane, Claus Speth, etc, etc, etc...). I am eager to see this right defended. I am in no way eager to distance myself from that position. What I am eager to see is accountability for forensic scientists who allow by act or omission of act unethical conduct. I am not sure, again, how a QA/ QC discussion is relevant (QA/QC assumes the desire to do good work). Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:06 PM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > Bill; > > > [blah blah blah] > > > > > > Also, on professional note, I would suggest that it is you, through your > > zeal to redirect and blame the questioner, with your obvious passion to make > > ad hominem attacks, who is on some kind of reactionary crusade. You would do > > well to remove these types of juvenalities from your posts as they deride > > your station. > > > The bottom line, Brent, it that you jumped in to defend the actions > of those who I originally challenged. That you now want to distance > yourself from them is laudable. However, you cannot have it both > ways -- you cannot be a fellow traveller with the character assassins > and distance yourself from them. You cannot jump to their defense and > at the same time claim no part in it. > > You are not the first to denigrate a professional approach to improving > quality, but it is this approach which will provide the solutions you > claim to desire. > > billo > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 20:01:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06062 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:00:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop06.iname.net (pop06.iname.net [165.251.8.76]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06057 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:00:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from vesselofhonor (dialup-209.244.176.163.NewYork2.Level3.net [209.244.176.163]) by pop06.iname.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA09060 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:00:38 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "The Berean" To: "FORENS-L" Subject: RE: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:00:29 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01bf58aa$97649820$cc6ffea9@vesselofhonor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003d01bf5877$f88ce900$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill; You have prepared a rather lengthy response which I have no intention of matching as it is both non-responsive and full baseless, redirective name calling that does more to confuse and blow smoke than actually address the substantive issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how people accuse others of the very acts they themselves are guilty of. Life's a funny old dog :) Frank Pagano (The Berean) ICQ#: 2052068 Fax Number: (630) 214-9076 ----------------------------------------- "...They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." -- Acts 17:11 From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 20:25:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA06192 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from virtual2.microworld.com (qmailr@ip185-139.konnections.com [207.173.185.139]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA06187 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:25:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 30886 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2000 01:25:13 -0000 Received: from cityofgrand-wg.grand-rapids.mi.us (HELO grpl53082) (216.202.132.34) by ns.microworld.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2000 01:25:13 -0000 Message-ID: <001d01bf58af$36e8a2c0$bf0710ac@grandrapids.mi.us> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: "'forens-l'" References: Subject: Re: Private Hair Testing Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 20:33:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF5885.4CAA7F40" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF5885.4CAA7F40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Private Hair TestingThanks to all who replied to my request. I have = passed the relevant information along. They are looking for someone to = do tox screening as they suspect poisoning. Thanks again, Daryl ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF5885.4CAA7F40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Private Hair Testing
Thanks to all who replied to my = request.  I=20 have passed the relevant information along.  They are looking for = someone=20 to do tox screening as they suspect poisoning.
 
 
Thanks again,
 
Daryl
 
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF5885.4CAA7F40-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 21:29:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06600 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:29:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06594 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:29:11 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.27.275870d4 (4322) for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:28:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <27.275870d4.25a6a957@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:28:39 EST Subject: Fwd: Post Editorial To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_27.275870d4.25a6a957_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_27.275870d4.25a6a957_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_27.275870d4.25a6a957_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: Sidg@aol.com From: Sidg@aol.com Full-name: Sidg Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:40:52 EST Subject: Re: Post Editorial To: KJohn39679@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 A Penalty She Can Live With By Richard Cohen Thursday, January 6, 2000; Page A19=20 Hillary Clinton was on the cover of a recent National Review=20 magazine--pictured in profile, her hair long, her demeanor stern. "The=20 Perfect Liberal," the conservative magazine headlined. Wrong, as usual. The=20 Perfect Liberal, if there were such a thing, would have the guts to oppose=20 capital punishment. Mrs. Clinton does not. The death penalty has her "unenthusiastic support,"=20 she recently said. This is scant cheer to the condemned, some of whom--it is= =20 now apparent--are innocent. They are probably doomed anyway, a prospect that= =20 undoubtedly leaves them even less enthusiastic than Mrs. Clinton about the=20 death penalty. Almost everyone else, though, seems serenely untroubled. Among them, presumably, are the boys from the National Review. The founding=20 editor, William F. Buckley, quit Amnesty International in 1978 because it=20 condemned the death penalty. But that was back when capital punishment was a= =20 mere moral issue. Permit me to say that the question is no longer just about= =20 morality. It's about numbers. Since 1973, 79 persons have been freed from death row on account of DNA=20 testing. Some of them had been positively identified by eyewitnesses. Others= =20 had confessed. All of them, though, were innocent to a scientific certainty. It stands to reason, therefore, that among the nation's 3,563 death row=20 inmates are some innocent men. After all, the usual murder produces no=20 relevant DNA. A person is shot and the killer flees, leaving behind none of=20 his own blood, tissue, hair or semen. In that case, the wrongly convicted is= =20 plain out of luck. He will go to his death protesting his innocence while th= e=20 rest of us cynically utter, "Sure, sure," and go on with our lives. I don't know how to define liberalism anymore, and I don't blame the Clinton= s=20 for the occasional zigzag. But I do blame them--particularly Bill=20 Clinton--for championing the death penalty and attaching it to many of the=20 administration's criminal-justice measures, a transparent attempt to show=20 that Democrats could be hard on crime. On this issue, Bill Clinton has been=20= a=20 masterful politician. He has also been a shameless opportunist. Now it is Hillary's turn. She might, as her opportunistic husband did, turn=20 to the clergy for moral permission to take a life. Such clergymen are always= =20 available. They will cite this or that passage of the Bible--"an eye for an=20 eye" usually suffices--permitting the craven politician to go where the vote= s=20 are. This is what Gov. Bill Clinton did, breaking off campaigning in New=20 Hampshire in 1992, consulting with a clergyman and then permitting the=20 execution of a retarded killer who, as the police cornered him, had blown=20 away part of his own brain. Nowadays, though, a politician ought to ask his clergyman about the morality= =20 of executing an innocent person. He ought to have him balance that=20 eventuality against the fact that capital punishment deters no one. Life=20 without parole will do just fine. What is gained by the death penalty?=20 Nothing. What is lost? Innocent life, among other things. National Review is wrong about Mrs. Clinton, but understandably so. Liberals= =20 have been amazingly uncritical of the Clintons, embracing them both. Even th= e=20 First Couple's support of the death penalty has elicited little more than a=20 yawn. After all, the condemned are often animals. Questions about the death=20 penalty's morality, even its efficacy, get put aside. If some killer is to=20 die so liberalism can live, then so be it. Now, though, it is no longer enough to ask whether a certain prisoner=20 deserves to die. We must also ask whether the system that kills the guilty=20 will also kill someone innocent. Once, capital punishment proponents could=20 argue that the system was foolproof. No more. The criminal-justice system is= =20 flawed, occasionally corrupt, sometimes downright bizarre: O. J. walks.=20 Innocent people sometimes get death sentences. Ronald Jones spent eight years on Illinois' death row until DNA tests proved= =20 he could not have been the man who raped and murdered a Chicago woman. When=20 he was finally freed last year, he became the 12th Illinois man in 12 years=20 to have been exonerated after being condemned to die. Jones had confessed,=20 later recanted and alleged he had been beaten by the cops. I don't expect Hillary Clinton to change her position. Her likely Senate=20 opponent, Rudolph Giuliani, is pro-death penalty, but no hypocrite. I don't=20 get that sense with Mrs. Clinton. Her "unenthusiastic support" sounds=20 discordant, out of whack with the rest of her ideology--a squalid compromise= =20 with political reality, an attempt to have it both ways. But for the=20 condemned, there is no middle ground. The guilty will die for the crimes the= y=20 committed, the innocent for the cowardice of politicians such as Hillary=20 Clinton.=20 =A9 Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company --part1_27.275870d4.25a6a957_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 21:57:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA06749 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:57:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (mta3.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.141]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA06744 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta3.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNY0008K2V2B5@mta3.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:57:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 19:03:10 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <002001bf58bb$bafdff40$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: <000f01bf58aa$97649820$cc6ffea9@vesselofhonor> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Frank; This is not an accusation-- it is an observation. And Mr. Oliver for all his words has not once addressed the issues laid out before him, or made a single citation to support his attacks on my motives. Have you anything of substance to add? Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: The Berean To: FORENS-L Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 5:00 PM Subject: RE: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Bill; > > You have prepared a rather lengthy response which I have no intention of > matching as it is both non-responsive and full baseless, redirective name > calling that does more to confuse and blow smoke than actually address the > substantive issues. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Interesting how people accuse others of the very acts they themselves are > guilty of. > > Life's a funny old dog :) > > > Frank Pagano (The Berean) > ICQ#: 2052068 > Fax Number: (630) 214-9076 > ----------------------------------------- > "...They received the word with all readiness > of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, > whether those things were so." -- Acts 17:11 > From forens-owner Thu Jan 6 23:18:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07377 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from oak.cats.ohiou.edu (root@oak.cats.ohiou.edu [132.235.8.44]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07365 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from otis (s4111.south-green.ohiou.edu [132.235.156.111]) by oak.cats.ohiou.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03862 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:18:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000b01bf58c6$5a498600$6f9ceb84@southgreen.ohiou.edu> From: "Elisa Weckerling" To: "FORENS-L" References: <000f01bf58aa$97649820$cc6ffea9@vesselofhonor> <002001bf58bb$bafdff40$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Subject: determination of time since discharge of a firearm Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:19:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO List, Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time since discharge of a firearm? I have one paper from a Russian study which used a spectrophotometer to test for nitric oxide levels from the bore but have had trouble finding more sources. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Elisa From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 00:15:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07716 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07711 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:48 -0500 (EST) From: Scotsmam@aol.com Received: from Scotsmam@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.23.2314ae77 (3873) for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <23.2314ae77.25a6d029@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:17 EST Subject: Slamming To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 35 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO OK, I for one have had enough. This is supposed to be a list for professionals, future professionals, and, one would presume, adults as opposed to children. The continual bickering, name-calling, slandering, and badmouthing that goes on is truly reprehensible, not to say sickening. It puts the professions represented into a poor light, and may do untold harm in the respective fields in the areas of credibility and public trust. Each of us may hold different credentials, work in different fields, and have varying degrees of experience and education. This does not preclude the civility of speaking to another with respect. We each have a unique opportunity to enlighten one another, learn from one another, improve our level of experience and information, to educate and inform, to further our respective fields as well as other fields. This cannot be done through Neanderthal techniques, but rather through wisdom, guidance, questioning with the intent to understand, and an open mind. Anyone care to give it a try?? Fiona L. scotsmam@aol.com "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things" - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 00:23:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07817 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:23:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu02.email.msn.com [207.46.181.18]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07812 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:23:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from default - 63.17.172.227 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Jan 2000 21:21:24 -0800 Message-ID: <000b01bf58ce$a4411860$e3ac113f@default> From: "dave_vonminden" To: , References: <23.2314ae77.25a6d029@aol.com> Subject: Re: Slamming Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:18:30 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Well said!!! David L. von Minden ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 11:14 PM Subject: Slamming > OK, I for one have had enough. This is supposed to be a list for > professionals, future professionals, and, one would presume, adults as > opposed to children. The continual bickering, name-calling, slandering, and > badmouthing that goes on is truly reprehensible, not to say sickening. It > puts the professions represented into a poor light, and may do untold harm in > the respective fields in the areas of credibility and public trust. Each of > us may hold different credentials, work in different fields, and have varying > degrees of experience and education. This does not preclude the civility of > speaking to another with respect. We each have a unique opportunity to > enlighten one another, learn from one another, improve our level of > experience and information, to educate and inform, to further our respective > fields as well as other fields. This cannot be done through Neanderthal > techniques, but rather through wisdom, guidance, questioning with the intent > to understand, and an open mind. Anyone care to give it a try?? > > Fiona L. > scotsmam@aol.com > > > "If you would be a real seeker after truth, > it is necessary that at least once in your life > you doubt, as far as possible, all things" > - Rene Descartes > (1596-1650) From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 00:37:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07926 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:37:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe27.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.247]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA07914 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:37:06 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 28508 invoked by uid 65534); 7 Jan 2000 05:36:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000107053639.28507.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.174] To: References: <021e01bf58a0$b6d3aac0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 23:36:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Whatever are they teaching in post-secondary institutions these days? ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Turvey To: FORENS-L Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 5:49 PM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > Bill; > > Citizens have a right to express their anger and distrust of the forensic > community. Nothing in his post was even remotely suggestive that it wasn't. What is unreasonable are unfounded and specious allegations by people who ought to know better. If you will refer to your earlier post I think you quoted someone who had a slightly better grasp of that concept than you apparently do. Perhaps their reasoning that experience is that item that incurs additional culpability so much as the many other less desirable aspects. As to the remainder of his indictment of you, it is based on fact rather than fiction. You indicted my commentary to Tina Keller in this forum by way of accusing me of being a 'wiccan male' as though this had some bearing on anything. In responding to my comments and posts from Barbara Corey-Boulet, against whom you filed an utterly baseless ethics charge, you alleged she had been demoted on the second hand remarks furnished you by that notarious (sandal wearing?) abolitionist Fred Leatherman, when as a professional, you should have at least checked your facts. You further indict her character by inferring fraud and conspiracy on her part because her husband, from whom she had separated nearly a month earlier, had been charged with a crime. I asked you then if you thought that we ought to hold spouses accountable for the deeds of their partner. You never answered, but I'll remind you of the question again tonite. Finally, your remarks at times are indicative of a lack of tolerance of peoples beliefs and belie any real objectivity on your part. I don't judge somebody's veracity on the basis of what religion they practice. A real scientist, forensic or otherwise, would not do so either. Finally in an online chat with members of the West Memphis Three Organisation you made very pointed remarks about "mail order cult cop Dale Griffis" because his degree was from Columbia Pacific University, yet didn't discuss the evidence or testimony that advanced the theory about which his testimony centered was based. Perhaps you ought to heed your own advice before you dispense it? > We, as professionals, have an obligation to listen as there are > those among us who have earned their distrust (Howard Ollick, Ralph Erdmann, > Fred Zane, Claus Speth, etc, etc, etc...). I am eager to see this right > defended. I am in no way eager to distance myself from that position. It is funny that you should mention Howard Ollick. Ollick's fraud was discovered when prosecutor when prosecutor Tony Loe noticed that Ollick's resume listed two different degrees from Ohio State University. Much like Peter Kaslers (a member of your staff at Knowledge Solutions) possession of a Juris Doctorate from New California College of Law (your website) and Columbia Pacific University (his website). Can't say I've heard much about New California College of Law. CPU is....well I think you've already covered that ;-) > > What I am eager to see is accountability for forensic scientists who allow > by act or omission of act unethical conduct. But lying during a deposition is okay, right? In your words "it wasn't sworn testimony", that sound about right? >I am not sure, again, how a QA/ > QC discussion is relevant (QA/QC assumes the desire to do good work). Actually you have no idea what it's for. It makes no presumptions as to desire "to do good work". The exact example that Billo pointed out for you, and you misapprehend, is that processes do not improve of their own accord no matter what the motivation or level of interest on the part of the person engaged in production. In terms of improving quality, a properly motivated worker can not improve the results of the use of an identical process over a completely shiftless worker with almost no motivation. You would be wise to read Demming as Billo suggested. > > Brent > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > Secretary, ABP > bturvey@profiling.org > > Knowledge Solutions, LLC > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > Academy of Behavioral Profiling > http://www.profiling.org > > ************************************************************************ > "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." > -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Oliver > To: Brent Turvey > Cc: FORENS-L > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 3:06 PM > Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > > > > > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > > > Bill; > > > > > [blah blah blah] > > > > > > > > > Also, on professional note, I would suggest that it is you, through your > > > zeal to redirect and blame the questioner, with your obvious passion to > make > > > ad hominem attacks, who is on some kind of reactionary crusade. You > would do > > > well to remove these types of juvenalities from your posts as they > deride > > > your station. > > > > > > The bottom line, Brent, it that you jumped in to defend the actions > > of those who I originally challenged. That you now want to distance > > yourself from them is laudable. However, you cannot have it both > > ways -- you cannot be a fellow traveller with the character assassins > > and distance yourself from them. You cannot jump to their defense and > > at the same time claim no part in it. > > > > You are not the first to denigrate a professional approach to improving > > quality, but it is this approach which will provide the solutions you > > claim to desire. > > > > billo > > > > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 02:25:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08814 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 02:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from urix13.uni-muenster.de (root@URIX13.UNI-MUENSTER.DE [128.176.189.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08805 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 02:24:07 -0500 (EST) From: hohoff@uni-muenster.de Received: from mail1.uni-muenster.de (MAIL1.UNI-MUENSTER.DE [128.176.188.91]) by urix13.uni-muenster.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA35376 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:24:07 +0100 Received: from uni-muenster.de (RAS01-026.UNI-MUENSTER.DE [128.176.232.27]) by mail1.uni-muenster.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28656 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:24:06 +0100 Message-ID: <38759494.28858879@uni-muenster.de> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 08:24:04 +0100 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: US states & DNA databases X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear (US) experts, how many US states have passed legislation for DNA databases ? In a manuscript from 1998 the number '48' was given - is this number still true ? Best regards Carsten *************************************** Carsten Hohoff Institut fuer Rechtsmedizin Muenster Germany *************************************** From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 03:31:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09220 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09215 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:27:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097029.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.29]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id AAA10610 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:27:30 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001070827.AAA10610@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 00:28:59 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Consistent In-Reply-To: <38744557.2E18312F@worldnet.att.net> References: <200001060558.VAA14242@mail.crl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 11:33 PM 1/5/2000 -0800, John Bowden wrote: >What do you >think about actually describing the paint samples as much as possible: >the number, color, order, and thickness of the layers; the nature of the >chemical tests used, whether organic, inorganic, or both; whether the >chemical tests applied to each layer separately or not; and so forth. >While comments about the specific comparisons could still be made, it >would provide a much stronger basis to the triers of fact. I think a reasonable amount of analytical data should be included. This should include the techniques used, the material identified, and certain other details that are relevant. Just ask yourself the question "What would I do with such a sample, and what would I expect to determine?" If that question cannot be answered from the report, the report is then incapable of even a minimal level of technical review. I think all reports should be capable of, at least, a minimal level of technical review. and Dave Hause wrote: >I'd suggest, rather than this elaborate detail which seems unlikely to be >actually read by anyone but another subject matter expert, if this needs to >be referred to in the report at all, is something like "Details of anlytical >methods are available in the bound laboratory notebook." I think the report should be written so that another technical expert can understand what was done and determine if what was done is what should have been done. That is not to say it was done correctly (the only way that can be answered is to review the data and redo the procedure). I think one SHOULD assume that a report is being read by another subject matter expert who has to decide if it is necessary to request a bunch of discovery information, request the samples to redo the analysis, or simply assume the analysis has been done correctly. I would always prefer to take as the starting point for my work on a case that all of the work previously done was done correctly. But if the report merely says "the Q and K samples have similar physical and chemical properties and are consistent with being of common origin" I have no choice but to request the samples and redo the analysis. A much more effective way to proceed would be to conclude that the analysis already done does not disprove the hypothesis being tested, and try to conjure up a different experiment to test the same hypothesis. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 03:58:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA09392 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (mta1.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.122]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA09387 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 03:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta1.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNY005MAJFK6G@mta1.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:54:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 01:01:04 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Slamming To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <001d01bf58ed$bac17fc0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: <23.2314ae77.25a6d029@aol.com> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Fiona & and Prof. vonMinden; I couldn't agree more. However, this is all some individuals have to post, absent being actual participants in the forensic science community or having something genuine to contribute to the dialogue. In the absence of legitimate arguments, proofs, or insight they levy anonymous personal attacks, vitriol, and contrivances to buttress otherwise weak positions. It is sadly telling. But my experience with this discussion group, which is going on six years now, is that many of the participants are critical thinkers and able to separate out this type of nonsense. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:14 PM Subject: Slamming > OK, I for one have had enough. This is supposed to be a list for > professionals, future professionals, and, one would presume, adults as > opposed to children. The continual bickering, name-calling, slandering, and > badmouthing that goes on is truly reprehensible, not to say sickening. It > puts the professions represented into a poor light, and may do untold harm in > the respective fields in the areas of credibility and public trust. Each of > us may hold different credentials, work in different fields, and have varying > degrees of experience and education. This does not preclude the civility of > speaking to another with respect. We each have a unique opportunity to > enlighten one another, learn from one another, improve our level of > experience and information, to educate and inform, to further our respective > fields as well as other fields. This cannot be done through Neanderthal > techniques, but rather through wisdom, guidance, questioning with the intent > to understand, and an open mind. Anyone care to give it a try?? > > Fiona L. > scotsmam@aol.com > > > "If you would be a real seeker after truth, > it is necessary that at least once in your life > you doubt, as far as possible, all things" > - Rene Descartes > (1596-1650) > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 07:24:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10629 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:20:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10624 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:20:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:19:42 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens-l'" Subject: RE: US states & DNA databases Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:20:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF5909.793B418C" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5909.793B418C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" All of them currently have legislation, though not all are yet on line. My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of CMPD or its staff. Jeff Sailus DNA Analyst CMPD Crime Lab Ph 704-336-7755 Fax 704-353-0088 Email: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us <>-----Original Message----- <>From: hohoff@uni-muenster.de [mailto:hohoff@uni-muenster.de] <>Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 2:24 AM <>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu <>Subject: US states & DNA databases <>Importance: High <> <> <>Dear (US) experts, <> <>how many US states have passed legislation for DNA databases ? In a <>manuscript from 1998 the number '48' was given <>- is this number still true ? <> <>Best regards <> <>Carsten <> <> <> <>*************************************** <>Carsten Hohoff <>Institut fuer Rechtsmedizin Muenster <>Germany <>*************************************** <> ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5909.793B418C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: US states & DNA databases

All of them currently have legislation, though not all are yet on line.

My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of CMPD or its staff.

Jeff Sailus
DNA Analyst
CMPD Crime Lab
Ph  704-336-7755
Fax  704-353-0088
Email:  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us


<>-----Original Message-----
<>From: hohoff@uni-muenster.de [mailto:hohoff@uni-muenster.de]
<>Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 2:24 AM
<>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
<>Subject: US states & DNA databases
<>Importance: High
<>
<>
<>Dear (US) experts,
<>
<>how many US states have passed legislation for DNA databases ? In a
<>manuscript from 1998 the number '48' was given
<>- is this number still true ?
<>
<>Best regards
<>
<>Carsten
<>
<>
<>
<>***************************************
<>Carsten Hohoff
<>Institut fuer Rechtsmedizin Muenster
<>Germany
<>***************************************
<>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF5909.793B418C-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 07:27:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10694 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhub.unibe.ch (mailhub.unibe.ch [130.92.254.109]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA10689 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by mailhub.unibe.ch (PMDF V5.2-29 #33079) id <0FNY00E01T3M8Y@mailhub.unibe.ch> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (ORCPT rfc822;forens%statgen.ncsu.edu@ubecx.unibe.ch); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:23:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from ubecx01 (ubecx01.unibe.ch [130.92.6.40]) by mailhub.unibe.ch (PMDF V5.2-29 #33079) with ESMTP id <0FNY00DGAT3MO6@mailhub.unibe.ch> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (ORCPT rfc822;forens%statgen.ncsu.edu@ubecx.unibe.ch); Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:23:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.92.244.252] (irm-dmz2.unibe.ch [130.92.244.252]) by ubecx01.unibe.ch (PMDF V5.2-32 #33079) with ESMTP id <0FNY00BI4T6ZPG@ubecx01.unibe.ch> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (ORCPT rfc822;forens%statgen.ncsu.edu@ubecx.unibe.ch); Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:25:49 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:25:41 +0100 From: Wolf Schweitzer Subject: Re: Consistent In-reply-to: <200001060558.VAA14242@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: wschweitzer@pop.access.ch To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200001060558.VAA14242@mail.crl.com> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO consistent with - thread: how would i use the word "consistent", in clinical forensic medicine and forensic pathology: i try it the bayesian way. i try to figure out, whether a piece of evidence, or a pathological finding, occurs (a) ONLY in context of one hypothesis, (b) OFTEN in context of one hypothesis, (c) SOMETIMES in context of one hypothesis, (d) RARELY in context of one hypothesis, or (e) NEVER in context of one hypothesis. then i try to do that with probably the one hypothesis offered by the prosecution as well as the defense, or other hypothesis that "offer themselves" (which they sometimes do). i then make it dependent on the COMPARISON of the occurences of the findings for each hypothesis, and the COMPARISON then makes it easier to say "certain", or "highly likely", or "unlikely", or "impossible". when someone dies as a consequence of a fire, presence of soot, or carbondioxide poisoning, and combination with cardiac disease in cases of lower levels of CO would be LIKELY findings, while the absence of these make it so unlikely that the person died as a consequence of a fire, that i would ask the police officer for alternate hypotheses, such as a rapid and very hot fire, and, think about the possibility (another alternate hypothesis) that the person might have been dead before. this then creates a need for further evidence. if a certain bruise RARELY occurs when an elderly person falls, but OFTEN occurs when an elderly person is attacked (such as bruises located at the neck), then the quotient OFTEN : RARELY gives a likelihood, that then indicates what might be more probable. this is the tendency we attach to our interpretation. and to make another example, from my knowledge there is no decent way ("defense hypothesis") that a 7 year old girl could acquire sperma from a 30 year old man, later found on a deep vaginal swab, together with vaginal lacerations. so here, we tend to use "highly likely". but "consistent with" is a nice wording, if one hypothesis is discussed, and there are really no other hypotheses at hand (maybe this is what they call "null hypothesis" ?). for example, a woman who tells a story of abduction, and abuse, and has a small number of bruises on different body parts that all also have a yellow and brown discolouration (see langlois' paper on bruises), and there are neither witnesses or suspects, we would start off with issuing a report that says "the findings are consistent with the circumstances.., but not specific for it" (because, and that we would not write in the report, maybe she just had a great time with her boyfriend a week before, but who is to tell). usually, they get back to us about such a case when they find more evidence, or when they have another story. then you can go again and look at the likelihood for each evidence in the context of a hypothesis, make a table, look at all things, and discuss them. so i would use "consistent with" for first reports in cases with only one hypothesis, when the findings are neither specific for it, nor would they be unlikely under the light of such a hypothesis. we do not issue reports so early in the process of investigation, however, because obviously, the district attorney should not be given a report that does not help him, so it is much more worthwhile for us, to wait until alternative stories have been found by the police investigation. otherwise, i think it would be appropriate to stratify the report into (a) significant findings that distinguish between hypotheses, and (b) findings that are not helpful. maybe you write a finding sheet including (a) and (b), and additionally, an expert statement detailing the more interesting part (a) explaining why and how much. i hope this was not too much off topic, wolf schweitzer md institut fuer rechtmedizin, bern At 21:38 Uhr -0800 5.1.2000, Peter D. Barnett wrote: >At 09:44 PM 1/5/2000 -0500, Brian and Pat Dixon wrote: > > >My personal view is that "consistent with" may sometimes be >acceptable, BUT > >only if alternative scenarios are given with some weight attached. An >example > >might read in part:: "The paint found at the accident scene is >indistinguishable > >from the paint from the suspect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence, and > >chemical composition. This finding is consistent with the paint at the >scene > >having come either from the suspect vehicle, or from another vehicle >painted with > >the same combination of layers. Such vehicles would include many >turquoise blue > >automobiles manufactured by General Motors between 1992 and 1995 and still >having > >the original manufacturer's finish". > >I agree. > >This is an excellent example of how such a report might be written. >Unfortunately, it is the second sentence that is all too frequently seen, >without the first and, especially, the last. When presenting evidence that >supports the hypothesis of common origin, I believe it is imperative that >the scientist give some measure of the strength of that evidence. It is >not enough to say that the evidence is "consistent with the submitted >comparison sample or any other [source] with the same features." How >common are the other such sources? That is really the tough question to >answer - and the one that the forensic scientist shouild bend his or her >effort to addressing. > >Pete Barnett > > >Peter D. Barnett >Forensic Science Associates >Richmond CA >510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com >http://www.fsalab.com wolf schweitzer, md institute of legal medicine, bern, switzerland mailto:wschweitzer@access.ch http://www.access.ch/private-users/wschweitzer/welcome.html From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 09:09:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11491 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:09:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11486 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:09:11 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 6.c4.c4457ece (4557); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:08:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:08:09 EST Subject: Re: determination of time since discharge of a firearm To: ew639398@ohiou.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/7/00 12:46:14 AM, ew639398@ohiou.edu writes: << Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time since discharge of a firearm? >> You may actually be able to get an answer for this question from NRA (www.nra.org). If they don't know, they may be able to point you in the right direction. Any of the gun manufacturers may be able to answer it also. Try www.smith-wesson.com. They'll probably send you to their research department. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 09:13:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11588 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11583 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25125; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:12:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:12:45 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <021e01bf58a0$b6d3aac0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Bill; > > > What I am eager to see is accountability for forensic scientists who allow > by act or omission of act unethical conduct. I am not sure, again, how a QA/ > QC discussion is relevant (QA/QC assumes the desire to do good work). Exactly. You just don't get it. And until you understand that what you are *really* talking about is quality, and until you understand that the hard-won lessons in other disciplines apply here just as well, you never will. Frankly, your attitude about quality is essentially that of conventional 1970s and 1980s management, and that's why we got our ass kicked by the Japanese back then. Listening to you is like listening to a middle management car exec of two decades ago. Further, your high-sounding declamations about how I don't realize that lives are at stake is also silly, Here's a hint. When airplanes fall out of the sky, innocent people die. When cars blow up on impact, innocent people die. When nurses inject the wrong blood into patients, innocent people die. Criminalists, forensic pathologists, legal folk, and all of us involved in this system produce a product, and the ultimate question is of the quality of that product. Until you realize this, and until you realize that a professional approach to improving the quality of that product is the only thing that will work, you will be part of the problem, not part of the solution. You also need to realize that "accountability" and blame are different things. And, finally, you will have to realize that *solving* these problems is not a matter of blame and inquisition, it's a matter of changing the structure to prevent and ameliorate. A forensic pathologist in an office who is forced to do 1200 autopsies (as has been the case in some offices) a year will perforce cut corners. He or she will not cut corners because he or she is "incompetent" or "unethical." He or she will cut corners because that is five times as many autopsies as any forensic pathologist should do, and it is physically impossible to do an adequate job under those circumstances. The physician *is* working ethically in that he or she is doing the best that he or she can in the circumstances he or she is in. The solution is not to lay blame on him or her for doing her best. The "accountability" you are talking about (or should be talking about) will recognize and measure the decrease in quality of the product and will identify the *root* cause of the problem. A claim of "Well, he or she should just refuse to do the work," is untenable, simple-minded, and silly. The *answer* is to turn attention to structural problems that are the *root* causes. It's not quite the emotional quick-fix as is the ego boost one gets from getting to call others "unethical" and "incompetent," but the ultimate result is the quality you claim to desire. billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 09:15:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11642 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11632 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:15:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA25506; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:15:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:15:20 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <002001bf58bb$bafdff40$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Frank; > > This is not an accusation-- it is an observation. Hee hee. billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 09:23:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11837 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:22:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11824 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:22:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26758; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:22:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:22:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <002001bf58bb$bafdff40$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Frank; > > This is not an accusation-- it is an observation. And Mr. Oliver for all his > words has not once addressed the issues laid out before him, or made a > single citation to support his attacks on my motives. Sorry, I don't archive your posts. However, as Fred Whitehurst has pointed out, this is an old discussion. Fred knew what and who I was talking about, and my response was to Fred. You stepped in to defend the folk I was talking about -- it's disengenuous to then jump back and claim not to be a fellow traveller. I don't archive your posts, and claims that I should are pretty silly. My memory is that you have not been hesitant to make exactly the kinds of accusations that you jumped up to defend. However, if you point me to a six-year archive of this mailing list which is easily searchable, I will be happy to search it for incriminating quotes. billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 09:54:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12444 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:53:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from deimos.idirect.com (deimos.idirect.com [207.136.80.182]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12437 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:53:38 -0500 (EST) From: bmdixon@idirect.com Received: from idirect.com ([207.136.80.80]) by deimos.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA95949; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:53:23 -0500 (EST) Reply-to: bmdixon@idirect.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:51:30 +500 Subject: Re: consistent Message-id: <3875fd72.7daf.0@idirect.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO As often, I concur with Peter Barnett's level headed comments about the amount of information that should be included in a report. Over the years occasionally I have encountered massive reports that threw in appendices covering everything short of the name of the laboratory architect's girlfriend. Far more common is the minimalist report covering the barest of facts. The argument for that sometimes runs along these lines: "The information is for a lawyer or police investigator. They are not scientists, and want unadorned facts they can work with. If counsel wishes another scientist to review the work, that can't be done adequately from the report but the file will be made available if it's necessary". I reject this argument. I think a compromise is possible, very much along the lines that Peter suggests. We attempt in our laboratory reports to provide a clear explanation of the evidence and what it means or does not mean, and to provide some weight to alternative explanations. For example, some information may be given on paint composition: "The blue smear on the metal trim was identified as a single layer melamine modified alkyd paint". A note to the report indicates the techniques used - FTIR, pyrolysis gc or whatever it happens to be. An outsider, reading the report, should at least be able to determine that a thorough job has been done. In addition, we are working on generic technical notes, to be attached to reports, that provide some additional background to the type of examination conducted. These fact sheets, which have been used by the FSS in the UK for some time, were very well received when tried out on a sample of our clients, who are mostly corwn attorneys and lawyers. They are not yet part of "official policy" but really are coming soon. Brian Dixon CFS Toronto "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: At 11:33 PM 1/5/2000 -0800, John Bowden wrote: >What do you >think about actually describing the paint samples as much as possible: >the number, color, order, and thickness of the layers; the nature of the >chemical tests used, whether organic, inorganic, or both; whether the >chemical tests applied to each layer separately or not; and so forth. >While comments about the specific comparisons could still be made, it >would provide a much stronger basis to the triers of fact. I think a reasonable amount of analytical data should be included. This should include the techniques used, the material identified, and certain other details that are relevant. Just ask yourself the question "What would I do with such a sample, and what would I expect to determine?" If that question cannot be answered from the report, the report is then incapable of even a minimal level of technical review. I think all reports should be capable of, at least, a minimal level of technical review. From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 11:38:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13328 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13323 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097044.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.44]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id IAA19907 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:35:50 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001071635.IAA19907@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 08:37:27 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: consistent In-Reply-To: <3875fd72.7daf.0@idirect.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 09:51 AM 1/7/2000 +0500, bmdixon@idirect.com wrote: >As often, I concur with Peter Barnett's level headed comments My comments are only level-headed when I follow Dillon's suggestions and take my medication. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 11:47:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13394 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:45:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13389 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:45:53 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001071645.LAA13389@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:47:28 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: FW: Consistent Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:40:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am in Trace and tend to write lengthy reports. My interactions with the Firearms people have for the most part led to alienation. Is Firearms exempt from writing this type of report? Their reports and notes passed ASCLD with flying colors, which indicates to me that it is normal for Firearms not to report or document many details of their procedures. These opinions are my own and do not reflect those of the management or employees of the Washington State Patrol. Helen Griffin ---------- From: Peter D. Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Consistent Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 12:28AM At 11:33 PM 1/5/2000 -0800, John Bowden wrote: >What do you >think about actually describing the paint samples as much as possible: >the number, color, order, and thickness of the layers; the nature of the >chemical tests used, whether organic, inorganic, or both; whether the >chemical tests applied to each layer separately or not; and so forth. >While comments about the specific comparisons could still be made, it >would provide a much stronger basis to the triers of fact. I think a reasonable amount of analytical data should be included. This should include the techniques used, the material identified, and certain other details that are relevant. Just ask yourself the question "What would I do with such a sample, and what would I expect to determine?" If that question cannot be answered from the report, the report is then incapable of even a minimal level of technical review. I think all reports should be capable of, at least, a minimal level of technical review. and Dave Hause wrote: >I'd suggest, rather than this elaborate detail which seems unlikely to be >actually read by anyone but another subject matter expert, if this needs to >be referred to in the report at all, is something like "Details of anlytical >methods are available in the bound laboratory notebook." I think the report should be written so that another technical expert can understand what was done and determine if what was done is what should have been done. That is not to say it was done correctly (the only way that can be answered is to review the data and redo the procedure). I think one SHOULD assume that a report is being read by another subject matter expert who has to decide if it is necessary to request a bunch of discovery information, request the samples to redo the analysis, or simply assume the analysis has been done correctly. I would always prefer to take as the starting point for my work on a case that all of the work previously done was done correctly. But if the report merely says "the Q and K samples have similar physical and chemical properties and are consistent with being of common origin" I have no choice but to request the samples and redo the analysis. A much more effective way to proceed would be to conclude that the analysis already done does not disprove the hypothesis being tested, and try to conjure up a different experiment to test the same hypothesis. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 12:18:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13753 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13748 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:18:20 -0500 (EST) From: Pidaua@aol.com Received: from Pidaua@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.3c.3c6f9a8c (2706) for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:17:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3c.3c6f9a8c.25a779bf@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:17:51 EST Subject: Forensic Entomologist question To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I was wondering if there is a forensic entomologist on this list that can help me with a few qestions. First: What is the pH of a decomposing body? Can a maggot survive in an acidic environment (between 2-5 pH)? Second: Does a maggot have a citric acid cycle? If maggots ingested a large amount of citric acid would it cause the maggot to dehydrate, or produce too much carbon dioxide? Last: How durable / tough is the maggots integumental system? I thank you for your time. Shawnee A. Vasquez Research Associate From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 12:37:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13905 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:37:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13900 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:37:04 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001071737.MAA13900@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:38:39 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Consistent With - Thank You Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:07:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I want to thank everyone who has responded to my query. I plan on making a file from the answers to help with training on report writing. Helen Griffin From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 13:01:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14180 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:00:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14175 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:00:55 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id q.be.be47e6c6 (4409); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:00:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:00:14 EST Subject: Re: consistent To: pbarnett@crl.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/7/00 12:55:14 PM, pbarnett@crl.com writes: << My comments are only level-headed when I follow Dillon's suggestions and take my medication. >> I needed that laugh! Thanks! It was getting just a little tense around here... Barbara Jean From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 13:53:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14832 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:52:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14827 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:52:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNZ00FD5ARZO7@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:45:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 10:51:49 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <006601bf5940$413c19a0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill; I understand all too well. And no matter how you divert the issue, rational argument cannot be made that the secret to curbing unethical conduct is a feel good management philosophy. Though you are entitled to your opinion. If you want to be Coveyistic about it, what is need is a paradigm shift among those doing the work away from the paradigm of sides. Several mechanisms have been suggested recently for accomplishing this which I think it would be interesting to try. Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 6:12 AM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > Bill; > > > > > > What I am eager to see is accountability for forensic scientists who allow > > by act or omission of act unethical conduct. I am not sure, again, how a QA/ > > QC discussion is relevant (QA/QC assumes the desire to do good work). > > > Exactly. You just don't get it. And until you understand that what you > are *really* talking about is quality, and until you understand that > the hard-won lessons in other disciplines apply here just as well, > you never will. Frankly, your attitude about quality is essentially > that of conventional 1970s and 1980s management, and that's why > we got our ass kicked by the Japanese back then. Listening to you > is like listening to a middle management car exec of two decades ago. > > Further, your high-sounding declamations about how I don't realize that > lives are at stake is also silly, Here's a hint. When airplanes fall > out of the sky, innocent people die. When cars blow up on impact, > innocent people die. When nurses inject the wrong blood into patients, > innocent people die. Criminalists, forensic pathologists, legal folk, > and all of us involved in this system produce a product, and the > ultimate question is of the quality of that product. > > Until you realize this, and until you realize that a professional > approach to improving the quality of that product is the only thing > that will work, you will be part of the problem, not part of the > solution. You also need to realize that "accountability" and blame are > different things. And, finally, you will have to realize that > *solving* these problems is not a matter of blame and inquisition, > it's a matter of changing the structure to prevent and ameliorate. > > A forensic pathologist in an office who is forced to do 1200 autopsies > (as has been the case in some offices) a year will perforce cut > corners. He or she will not cut corners because he or she is > "incompetent" or "unethical." He or she will cut corners because that > is five times as many autopsies as any forensic pathologist should do, > and it is physically impossible to do an adequate job under those > circumstances. The physician *is* working ethically in that he or > she is doing the best that he or she can in the circumstances he > or she is in. > > The solution is not to lay blame on him or her for doing her best. The > "accountability" you are talking about (or should be talking about) > will recognize and measure the decrease in quality of the product and > will identify the *root* cause of the problem. A claim of "Well, he or > she should just refuse to do the work," is untenable, simple-minded, > and silly. The *answer* is to turn attention to structural problems > that are the *root* causes. > > It's not quite the emotional quick-fix as is the ego boost one gets > from getting to call others "unethical" and "incompetent," but the > ultimate result is the quality you claim to desire. > > > billo > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 13:55:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14856 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14850 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNZ00FKYB13O7@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:51:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 10:57:17 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <006701bf5941$04bffae0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill; You and I had this conversation long before Fred Whitehurst came along. It began over Howard Ollick and Ralph Erdmann. You seem to get angry any time anyone points out these kinds of people and asks what can be done. And, again, what I am defending is the right of the public to question, and the reality that there is often a legitimate basis for such anger on a case by case basis. And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this list, which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be accountable for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the posts is curious). Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 6:22 AM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > Frank; > > > > This is not an accusation-- it is an observation. And Mr. Oliver for all his > > words has not once addressed the issues laid out before him, or made a > > single citation to support his attacks on my motives. > > Sorry, I don't archive your posts. However, as Fred Whitehurst has > pointed out, this is an old discussion. Fred knew what and who I was > talking about, and my response was to Fred. You stepped in to defend > the folk I was talking about -- it's disengenuous to then jump back and > claim not to be a fellow traveller. > > I don't archive your posts, and claims that I should are pretty silly. > My memory is that you have not been hesitant to make exactly the kinds > of accusations that you jumped up to defend. However, if you point me > to a six-year archive of this mailing list which is easily searchable, > I will be happy to search it for incriminating quotes. > > > billo > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 14:02:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14940 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1604.mail.yahoo.com (web1604.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.204]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA14935 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:02:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28029 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Jan 2000 19:02:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000107190205.28028.qmail@web1604.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [156.29.73.19] by web1604.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:02:05 PST Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:02:05 -0800 (PST) From: Patricia Lough Subject: Benzoylecgonine Effects To: CAT Forum , forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Does anyone have info/references for the effects of benzoylecgonine? Pattie Lough __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 14:11:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15077 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15059 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA18569; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:10:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:10:31 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <006701bf5941$04bffae0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Bill; > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this list, > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be accountable > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > posts is curious). Not curious, just physically impossible. If you want to ftp that archive to me, I will search it. billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 14:25:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15197 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15191 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNZ00FUCCHPO7@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:22:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:28:44 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <001901bf5945$69d44e00$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill; So, failing to have any examples to cite to support a position that you've already taken with some vehemence, you wish to go back through an archive of posts in hopes of finding something which corroborates your statements? The term for this practice is reductive reasoning. I hope that your use of it is confined to the internet. A more reasonable and acceptable practice is to have examples and proofs before you form your conclusions. Best of luck, Brent ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > Bill; > > > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this list, > > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be accountable > > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > > posts is curious). > > > Not curious, just physically impossible. If you want to ftp that archive > to me, I will search it. > > billo > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 14:30:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15287 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:30:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15282 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA22183; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:30:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:30:04 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Well, well, I did find a few old posts laying around In-Reply-To: <006701bf5941$04bffae0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this list, > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be accountable > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > posts is curious). > Well, well. I wandered around a few of my old backups and, indeed, you *are* a charter member of the character assassination club here on Forens-L. It *was* you who ran around making gross generalizations a couple of years ago. You want an example? Ok, sure, it turns out that this is easier than I thought, and I have only a few messages inadvertently stuck here and there -- not a full archive. Here we go: In Dec 1998, you opine about how forensic professionals don't have the ethical courage to call their colleagues on issues. I replied: #"*My* colleages in the forensic community seem to have no problem #speaking out to criticize each other. Anybody who has #heard Vince DiMaio, Cyril Wecht, Mike Baden, etc. get on their #respective high horses can easily see they have little problem speaking out about issues -- or people. The problem #is keeping them *off* the Geraldo show, not getting them on. #I don't see such reticence in the forensic pathology community." You replied: >Vince DiMaio, Cyril Wecht, and Mike Baden (Mike's a friend so don't think >I'm slamming him) all enjoy strong reputations for excellence and >competency. They are glowing exceptions, super-experts if you will. They say >things publicly because they can do so without fear of losing their income-- >they do not need a mechanism from which to operate which protects them. In other words, you characterize the entire forensic pathology community as ethical laggards -- and only those way out in front dare say anything. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. As I noted in my response: #"So, DiMaio, Wecht, Baden, et al. are also "exceptions," eh? #It's the hoi polloi forensic pathologists who are the ethical cowards. #You mean folk like *me?* Yep, that's one of my big #problems -- I just can't bring myself to express an opinion. #Billo the wallfower. Oh, let me guess, yet another "exception." # #In spite of your denigration of my professional colleagues and #me, forensic pathogists are generally quite ethically mature. #DiMaio, et al. are not "glowing exceptions" of ethical competence #among a profession made up generally of ethical cowards. # #Even the junior forensic pathologists are quite capable of expressing #opinions and speaking out -- and do so with regularity. Only the "big #name" forensic pathologists take stands? Sorry, it just ain't true. #You forget that those "glowing exceptions" are our mentors. My first #mentor -- when just a medical student -- was Jack Edland. Ask your #friend Dr. Baden if Jack could take a stand. Page Hudson and John Butts #taught me most of what I know -- oh sure, they have more class than I #do, and they are better forensic pathologists than I am, but they #taught every one of their fellows to stand up for what they consider #right. You think these "glowing exceptions" stand up for ethics #and then teach their students to flush it down the toilet? It doesn't #work that way. # #Don't tell *me* what forensic pathologists are "generally" like. #And don't try to tell me that we are incapable of making ethical #judgements about ourselves, or about our colleagues. Don't tell #me that we are incapable of judging our peers without your instruction #on what is right and what is wrong. # #I used those names merely because they are the ones folk recognize. #But fine. Even folk like Bill Oliver, Mike Sullivan, Ed Lieberman, Tom #Clark, OC Smith, and on and on and on are quite happy to take stands #and speak up on ethical issues. The problem is, as you may #have noted, getting me to shut up, not getting me to take a stand. I #present myself as proof by construction, Brent. You are wrong. Your #generalization is wrong when applied to forensic pathologists, just #like it is wrong when applied to criminalists, and just like it is #wrong when applied to the rest of the colleagues you think so little #of." # What I wrote then is true now. That high horse of yours is starting to look a little like a jackass. billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 15:11:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15682 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15671 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:08:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNZ00JYTDVYUY@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:52:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:58:54 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Fw: Discussion of expert testimony To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <01d101bf5949$a084b6c0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO A portion of the original discussion that Bill Oliver refers to in his previous post. Again, about having open dialogues in the forensic sciences. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brent Turvey To: Forensic Science Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Discussion of expert testimony > Peter; > > You raise an important issue that each of us votes on every day by virtue of > what we discuss here and what we do not. > > Response below: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter D. Barnett > To: Forensic Science > Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 11:13 AM > Subject: Discussion of expert testimony > > > >Bill Oliver has been particularly vociferous, if not vitriolic, in his > >criticism of the discussion that has gone on about the testimony of Dr. > >DiMaio in the Murray case. Through the flames there is a dim view of a > >important point - How can we discuss the work that we (forensic scientists) > >do? Do we need to have full transcripts available for review? > > I do not think that we need to limit our discussions to cases only where > each of us has reviewed all of the testimony and all of the evidence. > However having said that we each need to appreciate the limitations of what > we do know about a case and avoid specificity when we do not have the > specifics. > > >Do we need to > >keep the person who did the work anonymous during such discussions? > > In my own view, it is counter productive, almost, to leave the identity of > the person who did the work out of the discussion. The only reason to leave > out such information is to protect oneself from liability. And if one is > speaking in a libelous fashion then one probably shouldn't be undertaking > commentary at all. > > >Is it > >appropriate to rely on news accounts? Legal documents such as appellate > briefs? > > Each of these types of documentation has its own limitations. Even court > transcripts don't contain the flavor of the moment which can be crucial to > an interpretation of meaning (who was laughing at what, who was nervous, who > was angry, who was apatehtic, etc...). Again, we must admonish ourselves to > these limitations when citing them as source material. > > > > >If this was a cocktail party, we would be discussing these things in a most > >casual way. We would utilize sources of information that would, in another > >context, be considered highly unreliable, and we would probably make > >personal remarks that we would not want forever memorialized above our > name. > >But such discussions are nonetheless valuable and lead to information and > >thought processes that later come in handy. > > > >If this discussion was taking place in a peer-reviewed scientific journal > >(and such discussions rarely take place there), the rules would be > different. > > > >What is appropriate for the internet? My view: Since most of the work that > >most of us do is in the public domain, it is certainly appropriate to talk > >about the work and who did it. We don't prepare reports or testify in > court > >anonymously, so when discussing our work or our testimony it is entirely > >appropriate that the worker be identified. > > I think this is a healthy view. The problem with the internet is that so > many of us have come to believe that just because email is easy we shouldn't > have to put the requisite thought into our posts. Cheap shots and ascerbity > abound where as many of us would be less likely to behave in such a manner > in person. > > So ultimately this is not a problem with the internet, or with email, but a > problem with how we conduct ourselves as professionals. If we show each > other the same respect that we would in person, this could have an affect on > the type of conversations that many might be willing to engage in. As it is, > this list and others like it can be a virtual bed of sharks for the > unsuspecting. > > > > >The source of the information about the work being discussed should be > >stated. Most of us can determine if the source is credible and can > evaluate > >the nature of the source in whatever way is necessary. > > This I agree with. > > > > >I am not sure that any forensic scientist has an obligation to defend his > >work against the assaults or insults of a bunch of raggamuffins on > forens-l. > >Likewise, there is no obligation to inform that person of the fact that > >there is such a discussion. > > This I also a gree with, though it might be a matter of professional > courtesy. > > > > >Ascribing motives to what people do or say is always a risky business. I > >believe you can only assume that a person means to say, in a report or in > >testimony, is what was said, and that all expert witnesses an affirmative > >obligation not be be misleading. > > True enough. But as I think we agree this does not diminish the value of > having the conversation. > > For myself, I am greatly curious to watch how the ability to have these open > conversations assists in the changing face that is Forensic Science. > > Brent > > Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science > Criminal Profiler > bturvey@corpus-delicti.com > KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS; > Online Forensic Science Bookstore > & Online Forensic Science curriculum > http://www.corpus-delicti.com > > ************************************************************************ > "No one acts without motivation." > --------Vernon Geberth, Practical Homicide Investigation, 3rd Ed. > > > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 15:11:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15681 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:08:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15666 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:08:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNZ00M5FDR7XJ@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:49:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:56:03 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Well, well, I did find a few old posts laying around To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <01d001bf5949$3a5fba20$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill; Your gift for mischaracterization is almost unparalleled. See below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 11:30 AM Subject: Well, well, I did find a few old posts laying around > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this list, > > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be accountable > > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > > posts is curious). > > > > Well, well. I wandered around a few of my old backups and, indeed, > you *are* a charter member of the character assassination club > here on Forens-L. It *was* you who ran around making gross > generalizations a couple of years ago. > > You want an example? Ok, sure, it turns out that this is easier > than I thought, and I have only a few messages inadvertently > stuck here and there -- not a full archive. > > Here we go: > > > In Dec 1998, you opine about how forensic professionals don't have > the ethical courage to call their colleagues on issues. > I replied: > > #"*My* colleages in the forensic community seem to have no problem > #speaking out to criticize each other. Anybody who has > #heard Vince DiMaio, Cyril Wecht, Mike Baden, etc. get on their > #respective high horses can easily see they have little > problem speaking out about issues -- or people. The problem > #is keeping them *off* the Geraldo show, not getting them on. > #I don't see such reticence in the forensic pathology community." > > > You replied: > > >Vince DiMaio, Cyril Wecht, and Mike Baden (Mike's a friend so don't think > >I'm slamming him) all enjoy strong reputations for excellence and > >competency. They are glowing exceptions, super-experts if you will. They say > >things publicly because they can do so without fear of losing their income-- > >they do not need a mechanism from which to operate which protects them. > > In other words, you characterize the entire forensic pathology > community as ethical laggards -- and only those way out in > front dare say anything. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit > now. How you have made the above statement into a generalization about the entire forensic pathology community is truly amazing. We were talking, if you recall, about the Murray case, the willingness to speak publicly about injustice (not making findings) and your ascerbity even back then. I will post the email in its entirety, because I think it raised some still legitimate issues. > > As I noted in my response: > > #"So, DiMaio, Wecht, Baden, et al. are also "exceptions," eh? > #It's the hoi polloi forensic pathologists who are the ethical cowards. > #You mean folk like *me?* Yep, that's one of my big > #problems -- I just can't bring myself to express an opinion. > #Billo the wallfower. Oh, let me guess, yet another "exception." > # > #In spite of your denigration of my professional colleagues and > #me, forensic pathogists are generally quite ethically mature. > #DiMaio, et al. are not "glowing exceptions" of ethical competence > #among a profession made up generally of ethical cowards. > # > #Even the junior forensic pathologists are quite capable of expressing > #opinions and speaking out -- and do so with regularity. Only the "big > #name" forensic pathologists take stands? Sorry, it just ain't true. > #You forget that those "glowing exceptions" are our mentors. My first > #mentor -- when just a medical student -- was Jack Edland. Ask your > #friend Dr. Baden if Jack could take a stand. Page Hudson and John Butts > #taught me most of what I know -- oh sure, they have more class than I > #do, and they are better forensic pathologists than I am, but they > #taught every one of their fellows to stand up for what they consider > #right. You think these "glowing exceptions" stand up for ethics > #and then teach their students to flush it down the toilet? It doesn't > #work that way. > # > #Don't tell *me* what forensic pathologists are "generally" like. > #And don't try to tell me that we are incapable of making ethical > #judgements about ourselves, or about our colleagues. Don't tell > #me that we are incapable of judging our peers without your instruction > #on what is right and what is wrong. > # > #I used those names merely because they are the ones folk recognize. > #But fine. Even folk like Bill Oliver, Mike Sullivan, Ed Lieberman, Tom > #Clark, OC Smith, and on and on and on are quite happy to take stands > #and speak up on ethical issues. The problem is, as you may > #have noted, getting me to shut up, not getting me to take a stand. I > #present myself as proof by construction, Brent. You are wrong. Your > #generalization is wrong when applied to forensic pathologists, just > #like it is wrong when applied to criminalists, and just like it is > #wrong when applied to the rest of the colleagues you think so little > #of." > # > > What I wrote then is true now. That high horse of yours is starting > to look a little like a jackass. > > > billo I think that anyone who uses as much profanity as you do needs to take a refresher course on professional conduct. Additionally, your mischaracterization of the conversation speaks volumes. Brent From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 15:12:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15706 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.usit.net (SMTP1.USIT.NET [199.1.48.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15700 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from usit.net (DIALUP205.TNNAS2.USIT.NET [216.80.153.207]) by smtp1.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA14721; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:10:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3876483A.C115152F@usit.net> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:10:34 -0600 From: David Yates Reply-To: davidy@usit.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scotsmam@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Slamming References: <23.2314ae77.25a6d029@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I certainly agree. My recourse is ample use of the Delete function. Don't even have to read them first! Dave Yates, MD Nashville, TN Scotsmam@aol.com wrote: > OK, I for one have had enough. This is supposed to be a list for > professionals, future professionals, and, one would presume, adults as > opposed to children. The continual bickering, name-calling, slandering, and > badmouthing that goes on is truly reprehensible, not to say sickening. It > puts the professions represented into a poor light, and may do untold harm in > the respective fields in the areas of credibility and public trust. Each of > us may hold different credentials, work in different fields, and have varying > degrees of experience and education. This does not preclude the civility of > speaking to another with respect. We each have a unique opportunity to > enlighten one another, learn from one another, improve our level of > experience and information, to educate and inform, to further our respective > fields as well as other fields. This cannot be done through Neanderthal > techniques, but rather through wisdom, guidance, questioning with the intent > to understand, and an open mind. Anyone care to give it a try?? > > Fiona L. > scotsmam@aol.com > > "If you would be a real seeker after truth, > it is necessary that at least once in your life > you doubt, as far as possible, all things" > - Rene Descartes > (1596-1650) From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 15:17:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA15767 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA15762 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2000 20:10:04 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 07 12:14:54 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:15:40 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:15:09 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: bturvey@profiling.org, billo@radix.net Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO It seems curious to me that those responsible for bellyaching about the ethics of forensic scientists are a: not or b: are suspiciously absent from membership lists of "established" forensic science organizations. Then, there are thos with those curious initials behind their names that seem to confer training in the forensic sciences. Yet, they don't appear to have taken the necessary and sufficient hard science courses to be hired as a criminalist or forensic chemist. Some claim they have certifiaction, but from where and by whom? I'm sorry, but if you haven't been to a grizzly crime scene under the most horrid of conditions, trying to collect evidence, make sense of that evidence, testing that evidence with training, education, and experience you have, while other cases some as important, less important or more important are piling up in your cubicle, then having to slip on a tie and jacket to go over to court then sitting outside the courtroom for five or six hours (because they were going to put you on the stand right away) and then have one of those previously described individuals who looked at a lab report and some crime scene photos while smoking God knows what and inhaling a snifter of cognac tell a court that your conclusions are all wet because they read something in a book is beyond me! There, I've vented. I can now go back to my backlog of cases, do some work for the people, then come back to this list and look for some more inane insinuations! These opinions are my own and don't necessarliy reflect those of my agency ( but I bet those in this agency and maybe some others would give them an AMEN. >>> Bill Oliver 01/07 11:10 AM >>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Bill; > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this list, > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be accountable > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > posts is curious). Not curious, just physically impossible. If you want to ftp that archive to me, I will search it. billo Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 15:45:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16112 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16104 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:44:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu ([24.27.39.20]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:45:17 -0600 From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:39:26 -0600 Message-ID: <004101bf594f$49bee940$14271b18@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Being overworked and underpaid, having to cut corners and devoting only 20% of the proper amount of time to a project may be unavoidable. The big question is whether the harried forensic worker is careful to point out to the jury that the work was "inadequate" and hasty. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@Austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 8:13 AM To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) [snip] A forensic pathologist in an office who is forced to do 1200 autopsies (as has been the case in some offices) a year will perforce cut corners. He or she will not cut corners because he or she is "incompetent" or "unethical." He or she will cut corners because that is five times as many autopsies as any forensic pathologist should do, and it is physically impossible to do an adequate job under those circumstances. The physician *is* working ethically in that he or she is doing the best that he or she can in the circumstances he or she is in. [Snip] From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 15:56:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16248 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (mta2.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.123]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA16243 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:56:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ADSL.pacbell.net ([63.194.69.59]) by mta2.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FNZ00KOAGGAHK@mta2.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:48:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:54:18 -0800 From: Brent Turvey Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: FORENS-L Reply-to: Brent Turvey Message-id: <020101bf5951$5dcb70a0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Organization: Knowledge Solutions LLC MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 References: X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Greg; More ad hominem attacks and some very unfortunately misinformed (and in some cases dangerously inaccurate) generalizations. You've just insulted every criminalist whose doesn't go to crime scenes, and you've suggested (inaccurately) that there are accusations being made at this point toward all forensic scientists. I recommend you read more carefully in the future, study up on a subject or person before you comment on them, and not let your passions and zeal get the better of you, lest you become an apologist like Mr. Oliver. As for the ad hominem attacks clearly directed at myself-- This would be the reason that I keep a CV online and archive my own expert testimony (and that of some others) on my website. So much for sticking to the issues... if you feel you cannot adequately attack the soundness of my reason, then feel free to attack my character. That does appear to be the logic that you and Mr. Oliver (and others) subscribe to. This practice tells much about the quality of the experience you are so proud of, and what has been learned by you in the achievement of your position. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Laskowski To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > It seems curious to me that those responsible for bellyaching about the > ethics of forensic scientists are a: not or b: are suspiciously absent from > membership lists of "established" forensic science organizations. Then, > there are thos with those curious initials behind their names that seem to > confer training in the forensic sciences. Yet, they don't appear to have > taken the necessary and sufficient hard science courses to be hired as a > criminalist or forensic chemist. Some claim they have certifiaction, but > from where and by whom? > > I'm sorry, but if you haven't been to a grizzly crime scene under the most > horrid of conditions, trying to collect evidence, make sense of that > evidence, testing that evidence with training, education, and experience you > have, while other cases some as important, less important or more important > are piling up in your cubicle, then having to slip on a tie and jacket to go > over to court then sitting outside the courtroom for five or six hours > (because they were going to put you on the stand right away) and then have > one of those previously described individuals who looked at a lab report and > some crime scene photos while smoking God knows what and inhaling a snifter > of cognac tell a court that your conclusions are all wet because they read > something in a book is beyond me! There, I've vented. I can now go back to > my backlog of cases, do some work for the people, then come back to this > list and look for some more inane insinuations! > > These opinions are my own and don't necessarliy reflect those of my agency > ( but I bet those in this agency and maybe some others would give them an > AMEN. > >>> Bill Oliver 01/07 11:10 AM >>> > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > Bill; > > > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this > list, > > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be > accountable > > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > > posts is curious). > > > Not curious, just physically impossible. If you want to ftp that archive > to me, I will search it. > > billo > > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 16:42:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16610 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:41:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA16605 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:41:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15539; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:41:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:41:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Brent Turvey cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) In-Reply-To: <020101bf5951$5dcb70a0$3b45c23f@pacbell.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > From: Brent Turvey > > Greg; > > More ad hominem attacks and some very unfortunately misinformed (and in some > cases dangerously inaccurate) generalizations. You've just insulted every > criminalist whose doesn't go to crime scenes, and you've suggested > (inaccurately) that there are accusations being made at this point toward > all forensic scientists. I recommend you read more carefully in the future, > study up on a subject or person before you comment on them, and not let your > passions and zeal get the better of you, lest you become an apologist like > Mr. Oliver. > That's Dr. Oliver, to you. billo- proud to be an apologist for quality in forensics From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 17:04:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16863 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16858 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2000 21:58:23 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 07 14:03:13 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:03:59 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:03:32 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: glhurst@onr.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Jerry, I assure you with all sincerety the work will stand on its own merits. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "Gerald L. Hurst" 01/07 12:39 PM >>> Being overworked and underpaid, having to cut corners and devoting only 20% of the proper amount of time to a project may be unavoidable. The big question is whether the harried forensic worker is careful to point out to the jury that the work was "inadequate" and hasty. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@Austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 8:13 AM To: Brent Turvey Cc: FORENS-L Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) [snip] A forensic pathologist in an office who is forced to do 1200 autopsies (as has been the case in some offices) a year will perforce cut corners. He or she will not cut corners because he or she is "incompetent" or "unethical." He or she will cut corners because that is five times as many autopsies as any forensic pathologist should do, and it is physically impossible to do an adequate job under those circumstances. The physician *is* working ethically in that he or she is doing the best that he or she can in the circumstances he or she is in. [Snip] From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 17:14:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16947 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from Medisun.UCSFresno.edu (medisun.ucsfresno.edu [198.175.158.130]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16942 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (burnett@localhost) by Medisun.UCSFresno.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA20520; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:17:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:17:29 -0800 (PST) From: Lynn Burnett To: Patricia Lough cc: CAT Forum , forensl Subject: Re: Benzoylecgonine Effects In-Reply-To: <20000107190205.28028.qmail@web1604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Have a look at the chapter on Toxicity, Cocaine in the eMedicine Textbook of Emergency Medicine: http://eMedicine.com/topic102.htm Hope this helps. LBBurnett On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Patricia Lough wrote: > Does anyone have info/references for the effects of > benzoylecgonine? > > Pattie Lough > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 17:47:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17183 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu01.email.msn.com [207.46.181.26]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17178 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer - 63.24.240.47 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:47:00 -0800 From: "Wayne Neighbors" To: "LIST FORENS" Subject: RE: Benzoylecgonine Effects Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <20000107190205.28028.qmail@web1604.mail.yahoo.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO SEE BELOW - possibly of interest? ============================ -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Patricia Lough Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 2:02 PM To: CAT Forum; forensl Subject: Benzoylecgonine Effects Does anyone have info/references for the effects of benzoylecgonine? Pattie Lough ============================ NOW YOUR ARE "BELOW" Pattie, I see one helpful reply has already been posted. The following came in on the most recent "Scout Report" and I thought I would try it. First, here is their quote. === begin quote === 4. Beilstein Abstracts -- ChemWeb http://chemweb.com/databases/beilstein Recently added to ChemWeb, Beilstein Abstracts is a free database of titles and abstracts of approximately 600,000 articles from 140 journals in organic and related chemistry. The articles run from 1980 to the present. After free registration with ChemWeb, users may browse or search the database by author, title, abstract, and several modifiers. Search returns include title, author, source, document type, language, and an abstract. === end of their quote === Using "benzoylecgonine" in the title and abstract fields, it produced five results - upon which one could click to read an *abstract*. Yes, there are many other tools, but this one apparently was recently converted to a new service (from an older location?) and I thought I would give it a try. If any of the below look interesting, take a look. However, it only produces ABSTRACTS. Warm regards, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wayne Neighbors, Ph.D. President, Vee Ring Ltd neighbors@email.msn.com http://anthro.org/index.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ === the titles ONLY for five results === === use the service to read more === Prediction of Stability in Pharmaceutical Preparations XX: Stability Evaluation and Bioanalysis of Cocaine and Benzoylecgonine by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Publication date 1983 Beilstein Abstracts Regioselective hydrolysis of cocaine and a convenient acylation procedure by benzoylecgonine Publication date 1997 Beilstein Abstracts Matrix and Modifier Effects in the Supercritical Fluid Extraction of Cocaine and Benzoylecgonine from Human Hair Publication date 1998 Beilstein Abstracts Convenient Synthesis of Benzoylecgonine Ethyl Ester, A Homolog of Cocaine Publication date 1992 Beilstein Abstracts Radioimmunoassay of benzoylecgonine in samples of forensic interest Publication date 1984 Beilstein Abstracts From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 18:06:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17309 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:06:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA17304 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 7 Jan 2000 23:00:39 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 07 15:05:28 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:06:15 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:05:10 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: bturvey@profiling.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Brent: I didn't realize that I specifically identified you in my post nor was I pointing to one individual. However, since you feel that I did perhaps you can see why one's credibility would be called into question when there is no professional peer review. I've followed these threads ad nauseum.I simply noticed that there were individuals making accusations or decrying yhe profession but did not belong to a professional organization where these grievances coult be addressed. As to my remarks being dangerous, who is maligned or hurt. A good rigorous cross examination by counsel would make these remarks pale by comparison. As for me insulting criminalists, nothing could be further from the truth! It's the bench criminalist, who puts in the time, does the proficiency test, initials every page of his notes, testifies honestly to the BEST of their ability, and then has to wade through the aforementioned drivel of baseless attacks while trying to find something of interest or educational on this list that I am addressing and defending. I am not making excuses for those that are dishonest, blatantly biased or incompetent. And there are those cases where experts can honestly disagree over the interpretation of data. Yes, I am proud of my education, experience and training. My cases are peer reviewed and my testimony in court has been accepted. Professional Associations have bestowed honors on me and allowed me participation in some form or another. I will take there recognition, humbly. I by no means am an apologist for you or Dr. Oliver. You have your opinions and I have mine. The horse is dead! Its time to get off. >>> Brent Turvey 01/07 12:54 PM >>> Greg; More ad hominem attacks and some very unfortunately misinformed (and in some cases dangerously inaccurate) generalizations. You've just insulted every criminalist whose doesn't go to crime scenes, and you've suggested (inaccurately) that there are accusations being made at this point toward all forensic scientists. I recommend you read more carefully in the future, study up on a subject or person before you comment on them, and not let your passions and zeal get the better of you, lest you become an apologist like Mr. Oliver. As for the ad hominem attacks clearly directed at myself-- This would be the reason that I keep a CV online and archive my own expert testimony (and that of some others) on my website. So much for sticking to the issues... if you feel you cannot adequately attack the soundness of my reason, then feel free to attack my character. That does appear to be the logic that you and Mr. Oliver (and others) subscribe to. This practice tells much about the quality of the experience you are so proud of, and what has been learned by you in the achievement of your position. Brent Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science Secretary, ABP bturvey@profiling.org Knowledge Solutions, LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com Academy of Behavioral Profiling http://www.profiling.org ************************************************************************ "To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail." -Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Laskowski To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) > It seems curious to me that those responsible for bellyaching about the > ethics of forensic scientists are a: not or b: are suspiciously absent from > membership lists of "established" forensic science organizations. Then, > there are thos with those curious initials behind their names that seem to > confer training in the forensic sciences. Yet, they don't appear to have > taken the necessary and sufficient hard science courses to be hired as a > criminalist or forensic chemist. Some claim they have certifiaction, but > from where and by whom? > > I'm sorry, but if you haven't been to a grizzly crime scene under the most > horrid of conditions, trying to collect evidence, make sense of that > evidence, testing that evidence with training, education, and experience you > have, while other cases some as important, less important or more important > are piling up in your cubicle, then having to slip on a tie and jacket to go > over to court then sitting outside the courtroom for five or six hours > (because they were going to put you on the stand right away) and then have > one of those previously described individuals who looked at a lab report and > some crime scene photos while smoking God knows what and inhaling a snifter > of cognac tell a court that your conclusions are all wet because they read > something in a book is beyond me! There, I've vented. I can now go back to > my backlog of cases, do some work for the people, then come back to this > list and look for some more inane insinuations! > > These opinions are my own and don't necessarliy reflect those of my agency > ( but I bet those in this agency and maybe some others would give them an > AMEN. > >>> Bill Oliver 01/07 11:10 AM >>> > > > On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Brent Turvey wrote: > > > From: Brent Turvey > > > > Bill; > > > > And I do keep an archive of every conversation that I have had on this > list, > > which goes back six years (arguing that you do not have to be > accountable > > for the positions you accuse me of taking of because you didn't keep the > > posts is curious). > > > Not curious, just physically impossible. If you want to ftp that archive > to me, I will search it. > > billo > > > Gregory E. Laskowski > Supervising Criminalist > Kern County District Attorney > Forensic Science Division > e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us > From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 18:10:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17335 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:10:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17323 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00071; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:10:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 18:10:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Gerald L. Hurst" cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: Quality and autopsies, was RE: Agents not scientists In-Reply-To: <004101bf594f$49bee940$14271b18@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Gerald L. Hurst wrote: > From: "Gerald L. Hurst" > > Being overworked and underpaid, having to cut > corners and devoting only 20% of the proper > amount of time to a project may be unavoidable. > > The big question is whether the harried forensic > worker is careful to point out to the jury that > the work was "inadequate" and hasty. > > > Jerry > > Gerald L. Hurst > ghurst@Austin.rr.com > That's an interesting question, and it points out how systemic quality problems are. In fact, not *all* of those autopsies will be inadequate in the sense of making the wrong diagnosis. In fact, most will be fine -- only the challenging cases will get fouled up. And here's the kicker -- you won't know on any *individual* case unless you actually do the part of the workup that was skipped, and you won't do it because, well, you skipped it. Because, on most of these cases you really *did* an "adequate" job in all except some abstract and likely non-existant SOP way, and on the ones you missed you'll never know, it's seductively easy to convince yourself that you're puttering along pretty good. And, of course, the statehouse or city council only looks at the monetary bottom line, so they are complacent as long as there's no obvious scandal. The performance of an autopsy is not a mindless lockstep SOP kind of thing. Of course, there are certain steps that should be present in most, if not all, autopsies, but for the most part the depth of examination is driven by the findings themselves. One does not, for instance, do the million-dollar tox workup on an 80-year-old man with terminal colon cancer and advanced heart disease found dead collapsed in the bathroom with no evidence of trauma. You open him up, find the metastatic disease eroding into a vessel and a belly full of blood, or the midbrain lesion, or the MI, or whatever. And that's that. You do your minimal tox screen, if anything (for instance, when I was trained in NC, only ETOH was routine). Even more, what is legal varies from place to place. I know that Dr. Arden in DC often makes extensive cuts into the skin of the trunk, arms, and legs in cases of suspected child abuse to look for subcutaneous contusions that may not be obvious from external examination of the skin. In NC, on the other hand, there have been a couple of successful lawsuits by families who felt that MEs were too aggressive in their workups, which made open-casket funerals impossible, causing emotional disturbance in the families resulting in huge settlements. The MEs there are very conservative about doing anything that will make a corpse look less pretty. So, we don't do the million-dollar workup on that old man in the bathroom. Does that mean that we miss the rare suicide that leaves no trace or some contrived circumstance of homicide? Yeah, once in a million. The problem is that unless you want to budget your ME office at a trillion dollars, you simply can't spend a million dollars per case. But we all know that, and it's the same for any office in any discipline. So, what about that poor guy in this hypothetical office? Well, you have a number of possible dynamics going on, all of which I have seen second-hand. The first is the frog in the pot. You know, it's the old wife's tale that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will jump out, but if you put a frog in cool water and slowly raise the temperature it will stay there until it dies -- the change is so incremental the frog never notices the increase. That happens in places with quality problems, too. You work in an office that does 250 cases a year per doc, then 260, then 290, then 310. Then somebody quits and it's 500, but only "temporary", then it's 600 then 700... At each step along the way, the compromises in quality are trivially small and seemingly inconsequential. Then, 10 years down the line, all hell breaks loose and there's a scandal and nobody knows how it happened. The second is the young guy walking into the busted office. A jurisdiction hires some guy to come work because the old guy finally had his CVA. The young guy walks in, with or without a mandate for reform, and starts to try to change things. The guy is overwhelmed, and the city council/state house/freeholders/local crime boss/fairy-godmothers who have all been happy with the status quo turn out to be very, very resistant to change. So the young Turk starts massaging the system and at the same time does the best he can do with what he has. In this case, the guy *knows* he is cutting corners, but often justifies things to himself that he is doing it in some rational way, and, of course, it's temporary. So, for instance, with that 80-year-old guy, he not only doesn't do the million-dollar tox screen, but *also* doesn't take any pictures or do any microscopic exam. That saves a hundred or two bucks or a couple of hours, and he moves on to the next case. This is where it gets a little dicey. The guy is using pretty good judgement in how he is allocating his resources -- the bottom line is that full photos and microscopic of the 80-year-old are probably *not* absolutely necessary even though they *should* be in any SOP. And, in a child abuse case, if you demonstrate 20 contusions from different times, so what if you miss another four or five because you didn't open the skin?After all, from a manner of death point of view, the only *really* important thing is that the guy died a natural death -- not which particular kind of cancer did him in. Twenty contusions is "good enough" to demonstrate child abuse -- 25 is guilding the lily. Of course any jurisdiction wanting to use this data for public health purposes is hosed, but this jurisdiction doesn't care. So, here we have a case where the investigation is "adequate" for determination of manner of death, but "inadequate" for public health or research purposes. But, given the circumstances, it's probably good enough for "real" forensic cases. Even worse, even if the ME gets on the horn to the local press and says "hey, I'm underfunded and understaffed, and I really can't do an adequate job," he likely *can't* point to a case where the workup was demonstrably inadequate -- he didn't do the test that would have demonstrated it. And then it continues. At any point along the way, the pathologist can probably convince himself that he or she is actually doing a pretty good job. Folk in any profession have an almost infinite capacity to convince themselves that they are, in fact, adequate. In the above two cases, the pathologist really can't stand up and say "I can't do an adequate job." Not only has he or she likely convinced himself or herself that he or she *has* done a good job, but more importantly, the response from his or her superiors is that espoused by the character assassination club here -- "Oh, you're just incompetent -- a *good* forensic pathologist could do the job. Old Doc Smith did just fine for 20 years. Shut up and work." Finally, of course, you have the burned out cases, which make the news. In these cases you have a ME who has given up, and considers 99% of the effort futile anyway. He's (or she's) fought the battles with the state house and lost, he's lost control of hiring and firing to political bosses, he's funded at a ridiculously low level, and he just doesn't give a shit any more. These are the guys who start burying "natural" cases without even opening them up first. And they are the ones who end up looking like fools when an exhumation is done. The problem is that you really *can't* count on a person to say "Yeah, I did an inadequate job" most of the time. Most of the time they really don't think so. I bet if you asked the guy in that last scenario, he would sit there and claim that, really, overall, he really *did* a good job. And he'd believe it of himself. The *only* solution to this problem are third-party audits and formal quality assessment. This serves two purposes. First, it *allows* the person on the spot to stand up and say "I *cannot* do an adequate job." A panel of four or five professionals who comes in and reviews the work from outside can say "in 300 cases, microscopics were not done when they should have been done," or "Tox studies were not ordered in 400 cases in which it would have been appropriate." An *external* board can say "This office should have at least three more pathologists, and failure to hire them will compromise quality," or in a professional audit, publish a Finding and Corrective Action Request, which will *require* a formal response, finding of root cause and corrective action by the auditee. Most importantly, if the response from the statehouse is that "the pathologist is a lazy doofus," the external auditor is not required to accept that response. At that point, there is a formal external finding that the statehouse declines to provide systematic fixes to systematic problems. Suddenly, the pathologist actually has some real ammunition to go to the press with and to take the other lobbying actions appropriate for the problem. Without that ammunition, the pathologist can only whine, and will likely be ignored. It's one thing for a given ME to whine about being underfunded, understaffed, given inadequate control over hiring/firing, given inadequate continuing training, whatever. It's another for the press to be able to go to a board of four or five external auditors from out of the jurisdiction and have *them* say it. And, of course, there are often SOPs in offices that are just bad -- usually because they are behind the times. In those cases, the ME and staff often don't know or don't communicate adequately. An external audit that publishes a finding which does not call anybody incompetent or unethical can provide the impetus to make the structural changes that will fix that problem. Or, of course, one can just call the ME "incompetent" and "unethical" or even figure out a way to destroy that ME's career, and walk away feeling good about oneself. That won't fix the problem. It will do more damage than good. But it's cheaper, less work, and still leaves one with a feeling of accomplishment. billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 19:18:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17781 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:18:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA17776 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:18:02 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.c5.c591f1df (4589) for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:17:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:17:33 EST Subject: New York Times January 7, 2000/Page 1 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ON THE RECORD Texas' Busy Death Chamber Helps Define Bush's Tenure ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Florida Lawmakers Reject Electric Chair * Campaigns: White House 2000 -- George W. Bush (R) Forum * Join a Discussion on The Republican Party and the Presidential Campaign ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By JIM YARDLEY OUSTON, Jan. 6 -- George W. Bush had not quite finished his second week as governor of Texas in 1995 when the first death penalty cases of his administration landed on his desk. They would make for quite an initiation: Two executions were scheduled for Jan. 31, a rarity known on death row as a doubleheader. Because he would be out of Texas at the time of the execution, Mr. Bush reviewed the inmates' clemency appeals with his legal staff, approved the executions and instructed the lieutenant governor to proceed in his absence. The two convicted murderers, Clifton Russell and Willie Williams, became the first inmates put to death under Mr. Bush, though hardly the last. In his five years as governor, Mr. Bush has presided over the executions of 111 men and 1 woman, far more than any other governor in any other state since the Supreme Court in 1976 allowed reinstatement of the death penalty. Texas leads the nation in putting inmates to death; in 1997 it executed 4 inmates in one week, 8 in one month and 37 for the year, all modern records. For governors in most states, the job of approving an execution is a rare exercise. For Mr. Bush, the death penalty has helped define him as a politician. By any measure, his commitment to capital punishment is unquestioned. But as he campaigns for president, his death penalty record offers insight into his distinct views of mercy and justice. In his two most controversial cases, Mr. Bush allowed the execution of a repentant born-again Christian, despite appeals from religious leaders, and stayed the execution of a confessed serial killer who appeared to have been wrongly convicted of the slaying for which he was to die. Mr. Bush's admirers say both decisions show his willingness to make difficult choices based on principle. In Texas, which led the nation in executions before Mr. Bush took office, public support for capital punishment is wide and deep. By law, the governor cannot unilaterally commute a death sentence. But Mr. Bush has appointed every member of the parole board that can make that decision. He signed a law speeding the appeals process -- and, therefore, executions -- and resisted efforts to change Texas' much-criticized clemency process. The governor's critics describe the Texas system for capital crimes as the most unfair and merciless of the 38 states with a death penalty, saying it deprives the accused of adequate legal aid and appeals. But other states, including Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother Jeb is governor, see Texas as a model of efficiency. The Texas governor's own actions and statements have made clear a firm philosophy on death row justice: with almost no exceptions, the punishment must be meted out. "All I can tell you," Mr. Bush said in 1998, "is that for the four years I've been governor, I am confident we have not executed an innocent person, and I'm confident that the system has worked to make sure there is full access to the courts." This month, as Mr. Bush campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, seven Texas inmates are scheduled to be put to death, including one who committed his crime as a 17-year-old. Another, whose lawyers tried but failed to have declared incompetent for execution, will be put to death on the night of the full moon, at his request. Whether the steady beat of executions will cause disquiet for the Bush campaign is far from certain. The potential for distasteful headlines became apparent last month when Texas officials chose to remove a hospitalized inmate from intensive care, where he had been taken after a suicide attempt, and fly him directly to the death chamber, rather than stay his execution. "The death penalty is certainly popular in Texas, but as it's practiced, it seems extreme compared to the rest of the country," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, a group often critical of the way capital punishment is administered. But conventional political wisdom holds that a politician cannot be too supportive of the death penalty, when polls say nearly 3 out of 4 Americans favor it. In the 1992 Democratic primaries, Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, interrupted campaigning to approve the execution of a brain-damaged murderer. This year, every presidential candidate supports capital punishment. Eric E. Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation in Washington, says politicians know that the public's sympathy for convicts is very limited. The public, he said, also pays little attention to the problems faced by many poor defendants, most notably in getting adequate representation. "I don't think voters care," said Mr. Sterling, whose group studies criminal justice issues. "The public, I think, feels that accused defendants get the benefit of all kinds of 'rights.' " The executions, he predicted, would not cost Mr. Bush votes or undermine his campaign theme of "compassionate conservatism." In analyzing the Bush strategy, Mr. Sterling said, "Compassionate means that the role of government is to help those who are innocent and deserving." THE PROCESS A Smoother Path to Death Chamber n the 23 years since the Supreme Court allowed reinstatement of capital punishment, states have executed 598 people, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Texas, which uses lethal injection, has accounted for 199. Virginia is next with 73 and then Florida with 44. The rate of executions in Texas has increased since Mr. Bush took office, for several reasons. A handful of Supreme Court rulings began to curb appeals and break the backlog on death row. In 1996, President Clinton signed a federal law further streamlining the appeals process while a year earlier, Mr. Bush signed a similar state law, which some lawmakers described as the "speed up the juice" law. This law did require the state, for the first time, to pay for lawyers appealing convictions of indigent people in capital cases. Texas' governor, unlike those in some other states, is limited in granting clemency. The 18-member Board of Pardons and Paroles approves or denies all clemency applications, and the governor can grant clemency only if the board recommends it. Otherwise, he must either approve the execution or grant a 30-day stay. But the governor does appoint the parole board and set a tone. "Bush has maintained a relatively removed posture," said Jim Mattox, a former attorney general of Texas and a Democrat. "The paroles board stands between him and the process, but there's no doubt if the governor tells the paroles board what he wants done, they do it." Mr. Bush's first general counsel, Al Gonzales, said his legal staff assessed each death penalty case to brief the governor. Then, as now, Mr. Bush had two criteria for considering clemency: Is there any doubt about guilt? Has the inmate had full access to the courts? Some inmates did not seek clemency, and their briefings might take only 15 minutes. Usually, Mr. Gonzales said, they took half an hour. Mr. Bush has been out of state for 16 executions over the past five years, and the highest-ranking state official presided, with the governor's approval. "It's difficult to say those kinds of things were routine, but we had become quite efficient," said Mr. Gonzales, now a State Supreme Court justice. "Many of them were pretty cut and dried." Mr. Bush campaigned as a law-and-order conservative, and he has called the death penalty a deterrent to crime. He has often said the rights of the victims should also be remembered, and his stance has brought him praise from the relatives of many victims. The governor's first year in office ended with a record 19 executions, more than a third of the national total. The number dropped to 3 in 1996 because of a lawsuit challenging the Texas system. In 1997, after the challenge failed, the death chamber in Huntsville established the current yearly record of 37. Executions became so common that the public and much of the news media ceased to pay much attention. That changed in 1998 with Karla Faye Tucker and Henry Lee Lucas. The Pressure Toughest Calls On Clemency In his recent autobiography, "A Charge to Keep," Mr. Bush describes decisions about executions as "by far the most profound" that a governor can make. He had approved 58 before Karla Faye Tucker, but it was Ms. Tucker, he wrote, who "put a face" on the death penalty for him. Convicted for her role in two killings, Ms. Tucker had undergone a death row conversion to Christianity, married the prison chaplain and become a model inmate. Evangelical Christians seized on her story as proof of the transforming power of God, and religious leaders from Pat Robertson to Pope John Paul II called on the governor to grant clemency. The calls for forgiveness, particularly from religious leaders, touched a familiar theme for Mr. Bush. He had frequently cited his own religious reawakening in helping him swear off alcohol and right the course of his own life. In a recent Republican debate, he named Jesus as the political philosopher who had most influenced his life. Ms. Tucker did not argue that she was innocent or that she had been deprived of her legal rights. She asked for mercy as reward for a life redeemed through faith. Her advocates said that a life sentence would allow her to minister to others in prison and reinforce the message that even the worst prisoners can be rehabilitated. In an appearance on CNN with Larry King that Mr. Bush watched, Ms. Tucker asked the governor to spare her. He did not. In a tense news conference before the scheduled execution, Mr. Bush cited his duty to carry it out, saying, "My responsibility is to ensure our laws are enforced fairly and evenly without preference or special treatment." He also hinted at more spiritual issues. Saying he had prayed before reaching his decision, Mr. Bush suggested that he did not regard mercy or rehabilitation as cause for relief. "I have concluded judgments about the heart and soul of an individual on death row are best left to a higher authority," he said. The Tucker case resurfaced unexpectedly in the early stages of the presidential campaign. In an interview in Talk magazine, Mr. Bush was portrayed as mocking Ms. Tucker's appearance with Mr. King, imitating her in a whimpering voice. Bush aides said the reporter misread the governor's comments; the magazine stood by the article. In his autobiography, published after the Talk article, Mr. Bush described feeling "like a huge piece of concrete was crushing me" as he waited with aides for Ms. Tucker's execution. He described it as "the longest 20 minutes of my tenure as governor." The case of Henry Lee Lucas a few months later presented a different challenge. A drifter, Mr. Lucas had been arrested in the 1980's and confessed to more than 600 killings across the country. One was the 1979 slaying of a woman found near Austin, naked except for orange socks. Based on Mr. Lucas's confession, which he tried to recant before trial, a jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. With the execution set for summer 1998, Mr. Mattox, the former attorney general, who was running for the office again, wrote a newspaper opinion piece calling on Mr. Bush to spare Mr. Lucas. A decade earlier, Mr. Mattox's investigators had determined that Mr. Lucas was guilty of only three slayings and that the rest of the confessions had been lies encouraged by law-enforcement officials. Mr. Mattox said his investigators had established that Mr. Lucas was in Florida at the time of the "orange socks" murder. Other newspaper articles raised more questions, even as prosecutors vehemently maintained Mr. Lucas's guilt. At a June 15 news conference, Mr. Bush said his office and the paroles board would have to give the case a very thorough review -- a comment some interpreted as a signal to the board. Ten days later, the board voted to recommend clemency for the first time under Mr. Bush, and the governor commuted Mr. Lucas's sentence to life in prison. "I take this action so that all Texans can continue to trust the integrity and fairness of our criminal justice system," the governor said. His admirers said Mr. Bush's decisions on the Tucker and Lucas cases confirmed that he was an unconventional politician who would act on principle in the face of outside pressure. Mr. Mattox, who supports the death penalty and is not a political ally of Mr. Bush, credits the governor with acting "as a matter of conscience" on the Lucas case. "He could have allowed the execution, and if he did, he probably wouldn't have offended very many people," Mr. Mattox said. "The last thing a governor wants to do, particularly one who has executed so many people, is to execute someone who is not guilty," he added. THE DEBATE Indigent Defendants Focus of Attention ne thing that became clear from the Tucker and Lucas cases was how unclear Texas' clemency process was. For years, death penalty opponents and capital defense lawyers had criticized the system without eliciting much sympathy or support. In 1997, Amnesty International had declared that it violated international human rights standards. But after the Tucker and Lucas cases, newspapers across the state editorialized for change. As it turned out, one obstacle to change would be Mr. Bush. The Dallas Morning News, the state's leading newspaper, noted that the clemency process was shrouded in secrecy. The 18-member paroles board did not meet to discuss applications. Instead, members reviewed cases separately and faxed in their votes from across the state. The board operated without guidelines and offered no explanation for its decisions. Early last year, Judge Sam Sparks of Federal District Court in Austin found that the Texas clemency system met the "minimal procedural safeguards" required by the United States Supreme Court. But in his opinion, Judge Sparks criticized the process, writing: "It is abundantly clear the Texas clemency procedure is extremely poor and certainly minimal. Legislatively, there is a dearth of meaningful procedure. Administratively, the goal is more to protect the secrecy and autonomy of the system rather than carrying out an efficient legally sound system. The board would not have to sacrifice its conservative ideology to carry out its duties in a more fair and accurate fashion." Before the 1999 legislative session, State Representative Elliott Naishstat, an Austin Democrat, filed two bills that would have required the paroles board to consider clemency appeals in public meetings and to consider issues like rehabilitation. In an interview with The Austin American-Statesman, however, Mr. Bush said, "It's going to have to take an awfully compelling argument for me to support the change." Public clemency meetings, he warned, might create "a chance for people to rant and rail, a chance for people to emotionalize the process beyond the questions that need to be asked." Both Naishstat bills died in the legislative session. "The governor's office did not want the clemency procedure in Texas changed," Mr. Naishstat said in a recent interview. In the same session, Mr. Bush also spoke out against a bill offered by State Senator Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, that would ban executions of the mentally retarded. That bill ultimately died, as well. A bill the legislature did pass, unanimously, would have given county governments more authority to establish public defender systems, to be operated independently of local judges, and required that lawyers for indigent defendants be appointed within 20 days. Unlike some other states, Texas does not have a statewide public defender system; normally, elected judges in each county appoint lawyers, including campaign contributors, to represent poor defendants. Mr. Bush vetoed the Ellis bill. He said that it would not improve legal counsel for the poor and that the 20-day limit could allow someone to be released from jail improperly . A few months later, a Houston Chronicle investigation found that defendants with appointed lawyers in Harris County, which includes Houston, were twice as likely to go to jail as those who could afford to hire lawyers. Harris County also has more inmates on death row than any other Texas county. In October, a federal district judge set aside a death sentence against Calvin Jerold Burdine because his lawyer slept throughout much of the trial, in Harris County. From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 19:28:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA17859 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f90.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.90]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17854 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22670 invoked by uid 0); 8 Jan 2000 00:27:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000108002726.22669.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.156.86.13 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Jan 2000 16:27:26 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.156.86.13] From: "Michelle Thompson" To: Scotsmam@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Slamming Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:27:26 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Ms. Fiona, I have never responded to this forum (or whatever you call it) but I have to respond to you...I can't agree more about what you are saying and there have been so many times when I have wanted to say something so bad. I am a Law Student and I subscribed to this because I have always been curious about this profession, and at one point I had even thought of changing my major. But I don't know now, I think maybe I will stick with my Corporate Business Law courses and stay right away from forensics. It just seems as if it is all about 'seeing who is right first'. I hope I am wrong, and I just want those of you out there that take your jobs seriously to know that I, along with a lot of other Americans say "thank-you" for all your efforts in finding the truth. You are truly talented and great people. Michelle Thompson shelby0176@prodigy.net >From: Scotsmam@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Slamming >Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:17 EST >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBA3ECAB00029D82197DD98015F24A5F30; Thu Jan 06 21:55:02 2000 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07716for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:52 >-0500 (EST) >Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9])by >brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07711for >; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:48 -0500 (EST) >Received: from Scotsmam@aol.comby imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id >y.23.2314ae77 (3873) for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 >00:14:17 -0500 (EST) >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Thu Jan 06 21:55:52 2000 >Message-ID: <23.2314ae77.25a6d029@aol.com> >X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 35 >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Precedence: bulk > >OK, I for one have had enough. This is supposed to be a list for >professionals, future professionals, and, one would presume, adults as >opposed to children. The continual bickering, name-calling, slandering, and >badmouthing that goes on is truly reprehensible, not to say sickening. It >puts the professions represented into a poor light, and may do untold harm >in >the respective fields in the areas of credibility and public trust. Each of >us may hold different credentials, work in different fields, and have >varying >degrees of experience and education. This does not preclude the civility of >speaking to another with respect. We each have a unique opportunity to >enlighten one another, learn from one another, improve our level of >experience and information, to educate and inform, to further our >respective >fields as well as other fields. This cannot be done through Neanderthal >techniques, but rather through wisdom, guidance, questioning with the >intent >to understand, and an open mind. Anyone care to give it a try?? > >Fiona L. >scotsmam@aol.com > > >"If you would be a real seeker after truth, > it is necessary that at least once in your life > you doubt, as far as possible, all things" > - Rene Descartes > (1596-1650) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 7 20:49:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18334 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:49:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18329 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:49:13 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001080149.UAA18329@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:50:48 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: FW: Fwd: Re: Consistent (fwd) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:51:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I just want to clarify that the "My purchase is consistent with my now being a millionaire" quote belongs to a posting by Brian and Pat Dixon. I am the one who posted the initial query about using the term "consistent with". I believe I used this term a long time ago and got shot down by some of my co-workers in Trace. After much discussion, I bowed to their assessment that the term was too misleading for a forensic report. It re-surfaced recently in regards to a recent ASCLD decision that blood cannot be identified based on its appearance and a presumptive test. A proposal was made to say that if it looks like blood and gives a positive presumptive test then it is consistent with blood. I was curious about how the people in forens-L land viewed the use of the term. Helen Griffin ---------- From: David Stephens To: BicigoD.MSP-BPLB.MSP-Sandusky@state.mi.us Cc: bmdixon@idirect.com; forens@stagen.ncsu.edu; BRATTONR.MSP-BPLB.MSP-Sandusky@state.mi.us; HoskinsK.MSP-BPLB.MSP-Sandusky@state.mi.us; MooreGM.MSP-GRLB.MSP-Newaygo@state.mi.us; WatkinsT.MSP-BPLB.MSP-Sandusky@state.mi.us; hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Subject: Fwd: Re: Consistent (fwd) Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 2:01PM I would disagree with the logic of the argument in the e-mail from hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov in the message dated 1/5/00 1:30:55 PM, when she states: "I can fairly state "My purchase is consistent with my now being a millionaire"" and then in the very next sentence she states "We all know that the much more likely outcome is that "My purchase is consistent with my having wasted a dollar."" Well, if we all know it (the likely outcome), then it necessarily can't be a fair statement! Given the preceding statements of the author, if we all know it (sic), then it would actually be a fair statement that the first sentence should be "I can fairly state "My purchase is inconsistent with my now being a millionaire." In any case, I'm not aware of anyone simply reporting "consistent with." All reports where I've seen this phraseology gives some reference or perspective, such as ' The Q is consistent in this, that and the other thing, with the K.' Indeed, all reports should include this reference or perspective. I see no problem with either "....consistent with...." or "....similar to...." as long as the analyst is comfortable with the wording and can explain what they mean when asked or when called to court. The fact remains that each of us as individuals sometimes have a slight or large difference in what a particular word or phrase (or symbol, for that matter) means to us versus another person. The key is to recognize that this variation exists and then to be able to communicate further about the topic at hand so that two or more persons can understand and follow what the conversation is about and what the use of the words and phases mean, not necessarily to make others only write or speak like you. Finally, no matter how an examiner or group of examiners decide how to word their reports, attorneys will still try to nit-pick both the wording in your report and in your testimony. That's their job! You're not going to eliminate them or their cross examinations based upon only using a particular phraseology of this word or that word. If they want to 'try and get in your knickers,' then they will, even if your phraseology was copied directly from one of the 10 commandments. In this regard, I think its great to bounce your choice of words off of another fellow analyst at you lab or within your department, but make sure you give them the leeway to word their reports in a manner comfortable that they're with (within reason). --David Stephens, Michigan State Police, Bridgeport Laboratory, Trace Unit. >>> David Bicigo 01/07 3:29 PM >>> Glenn Robin Bratton sent this to me. She was telling this type of argument is used by defense council. I was just reviewing a report where Dave Stephens had an impression with no scale in the photographs. He enlarged the impression to near the size of the shoe he received. He said they impression was consistent in pattern and wear to the shoe. Since there was no scale in the picture I asked him to include a statement about the fact that there was no scale. He then added that the comparison was limited because there was no scale in any of the photographs of the impression. Dave and I thought maybe this would be a possible area to discuss during our next unit meeting. Should we us wording like consistent with or similar to? How to defend it in court if we do? Just something for you to ponder. DPB From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 00:09:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19605 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:09:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA19600 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24684 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2000 05:09:06 -0000 Received: from access-8-36.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.86) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 8 Jan 2000 05:09:06 -0000 Message-ID: <006701bf5996$7c279ac0$560d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: "Michelle Thompson" , , References: <20000108002726.22669.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Slamming Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 23:09:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hang with us for a while, use the delete key liberally. We have this same basic argument from time to time, usually with the same players. We'll get back to actual technical discussions eventually. A few have even slipped in recently. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michelle Thompson" To: ; Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Slamming Dear Ms. Fiona, I have never responded to this forum (or whatever you call it) but I have to respond to you...I can't agree more about what you are saying and there have been so many times when I have wanted to say something so bad. I am a Law Student and I subscribed to this because I have always been curious about this profession, and at one point I had even thought of changing my major. But I don't know now, I think maybe I will stick with my Corporate Business Law courses and stay right away from forensics. It just seems as if it is all about 'seeing who is right first'. I hope I am wrong, and I just want those of you out there that take your jobs seriously to know that I, along with a lot of other Americans say "thank-you" for all your efforts in finding the truth. You are truly talented and great people. Michelle Thompson shelby0176@prodigy.net >From: Scotsmam@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Slamming >Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:17 EST >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBA3ECAB00029D82197DD98015F24A5F30; Thu Jan 06 21:55:02 2000 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07716for forens-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:52 >-0500 (EST) >Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9])by >brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07711for >; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 00:14:48 -0500 (EST) >Received: from Scotsmam@aol.comby imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id >y.23.2314ae77 (3873) for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2000 >00:14:17 -0500 (EST) >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Thu Jan 06 21:55:52 2000 >Message-ID: <23.2314ae77.25a6d029@aol.com> >X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 35 >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Precedence: bulk > >OK, I for one have had enough. This is supposed to be a list for >professionals, future professionals, and, one would presume, adults as >opposed to children. The continual bickering, name-calling, slandering, and >badmouthing that goes on is truly reprehensible, not to say sickening. It >puts the professions represented into a poor light, and may do untold harm >in >the respective fields in the areas of credibility and public trust. Each of >us may hold different credentials, work in different fields, and have >varying >degrees of experience and education. This does not preclude the civility of >speaking to another with respect. We each have a unique opportunity to >enlighten one another, learn from one another, improve our level of >experience and information, to educate and inform, to further our >respective >fields as well as other fields. This cannot be done through Neanderthal >techniques, but rather through wisdom, guidance, questioning with the >intent >to understand, and an open mind. Anyone care to give it a try?? > >Fiona L. >scotsmam@aol.com > > >"If you would be a real seeker after truth, > it is necessary that at least once in your life > you doubt, as far as possible, all things" > - Rene Descartes > (1596-1650) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 00:50:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA19800 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:50:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from node15.cwnet.frontiernet.net (node15.frontiernet.net [209.130.129.205]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19795 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:50:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by node15.cwnet.frontiernet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA53462 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:50:07 -0500 Received: from 209-130-140-3.nas2.MON.gblx.net(209.130.140.3), claiming to be "jbaeza" via SMTP by node15.frontiernet.net, id smtpdOvgsUa; Sat Jan 8 00:50:02 2000 Message-ID: <004701bf599c$4ff527a0$8eb482d1@jbaeza> From: "John Baeza" To: Subject: Ethics allegations Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 00:50:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF5972.65E7D820" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF5972.65E7D820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List Members; After reading the libelous postings to this discussion made by the individual who refers to himself under the name Shaun Wheeler (I have no idea who this person really is or anything else about them, for that matter), I am obligated to make the following information public, with = the permission of Mr. Turvey. The allegations of unethical conduct, regarding an interview that Mr. = Turvey participated in on October 14th, 1998 in re: the State of Washington v. = Guy Rasmussen, have been investigated thoroughly by myself. I have = determined that they are entirely without any substance or foundation. Listmembers should feel free to contact me privately if they have any questions regarding the matter. Det. John J. Baeza Ethics Chair Academy of Behavioral Profiling ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF5972.65E7D820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List Members;

After reading the = libelous=20 postings to this discussion made by the
individual who refers to = himself=20 under the name Shaun Wheeler (I have no
idea who this person really = is or=20 anything else about them, for that
matter), I am obligated to make = the=20 following information public, with the
permission of Mr. = Turvey.

The=20 allegations of unethical conduct, regarding an interview that Mr.=20 Turvey
participated in on October 14th, 1998 in re: the State of = Washington=20 v. Guy
Rasmussen, have been investigated thoroughly by myself. I have = determined
that they are entirely without any substance or=20 foundation.

Listmembers should feel free to contact me privately = if they=20 have any
questions regarding the matter.

Det. John J. = Baeza
Ethics=20 Chair
Academy of Behavioral Profiling
------=_NextPart_000_0044_01BF5972.65E7D820-- From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 06:15:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21778 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:14:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe49.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.85]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA21772 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 06:14:27 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 17633 invoked by uid 65534); 8 Jan 2000 11:14:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000108111424.17632.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.171.118] To: References: <004701bf599c$4ff527a0$8eb482d1@jbaeza> Subject: Re: Ethics allegations Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 05:14:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear John and List: Arguing libel on the basis of a statement referencing a notarized deposition is a stretch. I would advise against offering retainers to graduates of either Columbia Pacific University or New California College of Law, though their accumen as consultants on boxes of adult toys is both highly regarded and well established. Either Turvey's work is as he says, "subjective and I have to interpret it", in the deposition mentioned herein, or it "should be objective and based on facts". I am merely unsure as to which particular values Brent subscribes to, as it is clear that he could not recall for at least the five month span between his two statements which most accurately describes his method. I can't think of a better way to do that than an open discussion of his case work in Guy Rasmussen. As recently as this week he has stated that he includes the facts on which he bases his opinions in his reports. What better way to prove my comments without merit than post his report? I've got a copy, but I'm certain it would mean more coming from him. In the meantime I am certain that your statement, as a member of a police department with a conspicuous reputation for fair and even handed treatment of suspects in custody and strict observance of only the minimum force necessary to apprehend unarmed street merchants gives us closure on this issue at last. But my suggestion is more likely to be more compelling to one point of view or the other. In the meantime, you haven't address the question regarding the obvious dichotomy in his viewpoints. Cheers, Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: John Baeza To: Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 11:50 PM Subject: Ethics allegations List Members; After reading the libelous postings to this discussion made by the individual who refers to himself under the name Shaun Wheeler (I have no idea who this person really is or anything else about them, for that matter), I am obligated to make the following information public, with the permission of Mr. Turvey. The allegations of unethical conduct, regarding an interview that Mr. Turvey participated in on October 14th, 1998 in re: the State of Washington v. Guy Rasmussen, have been investigated thoroughly by myself. I have determined that they are entirely without any substance or foundation. Listmembers should feel free to contact me privately if they have any questions regarding the matter. Det. John J. Baeza Ethics Chair Academy of Behavioral Profiling From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 13:11:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24025 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24020 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:10:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097008.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.8]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id KAA05762 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 10:10:35 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001081810.KAA05762@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 10:11:00 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: "Consistent with" discussion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message forwarded to the list by Helen Griffin, David Thomas said: >. I see no problem with either >"....consistent with...." or "....similar to...." as long as the analyst >is comfortable with the wording and can explain what they mean >when asked or when called to court. The fact remains that each >of us as individuals sometimes have a slight or large difference in >what a particular word or phrase (or symbol, for that matter) means to us >versus another person. I see two problems with this statement. In the first place, essentially all of the decisions made based on laboratory reports are made BEFORE the analyts ever gets to explain the meaning of the report in court, and if the reader of the report thinks it is understandable (or can argue a point that he wants to make from the report), the author of the report will not be asked to explain it. The pupose of a well written report is not that "the analyst is conmfortable with the wording" but that the report accurately and completely communicate to the reader the opinions of the analyst about the significance of the work that was done, and in a manner that allows at least a minimal review by a competent reader that those opinions are reasonably based on the work that was done. Second, I think that we should strive in writing reports to use words that DO mean the same to all of us. There is a nice series of terms that have been adopted by questioned document examiners to express the strength of their conclusions in handwriting comparison cases. This language has been adopted as an ASTM Standard, and other areas of forensic science could do worse than to adopt, or modify in a way suitable to other specialties, the approach used by the QD folks. One of the features of the QD standard is that the terms used are based on the relevant question, which is "Were the Q and K handwriting samples written by the same author?" Many forensic scientists in other disciplines, firearms and trace evidence being two examples, like to use words like "consistent with" "similar to" or "indistinguishable from" which describe analytical results without particular reference to what this means with respect to the [usually] relevant question of common origin of the two samples. It is important to remember that readers of forensic scientists' reports are reading them having in mind the questions that the READERS are concerned with. Unless the author understands and addresses those questions, or, even better, explicitly states what the questions are that have been addressed in the report, the report may be very misleading. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 14:01:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24327 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24322 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA00732; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:25 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Peter D. Barnett" cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion In-Reply-To: <200001081810.KAA05762@mail.crl.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > From: "Peter D. Barnett" > > > Second, I think that we should strive in writing reports to use words that > DO mean the same to all of us. But that's really the rub, isn't it? Who is "us" and what constitutes "all?" If "consistent with" is a term of art, then its usage can only be argued within that particular art, regardless of how it is used in other disciplines. Moreover, to address a point I know you are not making, the argument I have heard elsewhere that one should write reports using only "common" usage and meaning is much worse than using terms of art -- since "common" usage is much less distinct and much more variable over time, demographic, and immediate situation. This discussion wrt criminalists is particularly interesting to me, since no such confusion seems to exist among the ME's I deal with. Within *that* discipline the use of "consistent with" seems fairly consistent as a term of art. The only criticism I have really heard towards the use by MEs is from folk who dislike the use because it does not conform to the use as they see it as a term of art in their own, different, discipline. billo From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 15:05:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24714 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:04:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24709 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:04:43 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.5b.5bad86f5 (4230) for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:04:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5b.5bad86f5.25a8f23b@aol.com> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:04:11 EST Subject: Misconduct To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id PAA24710 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO January 8, 2000 Front page  Sports Metro Suburban National International Opinion Business Daily Magazine Obituaries Food: Wed | Sun Books Travel tech.life Weekend Real Estate Home & Design Health & Science Arts & Entertainment Life Sunday Review Sunday Magazine Clarifications For video updates throughout the day, visit 6ABC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. reveals identity of informant in AIDS probe Virologist Yong Wu is being sued by Jefferson, which fired him after he alleged that research was flawed. By Joseph A. Slobodzian and Huntly Collins INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS Prosecutors yesterday asked a federal judge to delay a defamation lawsuit filed by Thomas Jefferson University against a former employee turned whistle-blower who exposed alleged irregularities in a highly touted AIDS experiment. In doing so, the government took the unusual step of publicly naming onetime Jefferson researcher Yong Wu as the whistle-blower, and acknowledging that the allegations he had made were being taken seriously by government investigators. The government lawyers said Jefferson's defamation lawsuit was designed to intimidate Wu and to compromise the government's own probe into allegations of research misconduct. The Jefferson research, supported by $800,000 in federal funds, involved a highly novel approach to attacking the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. In a hearing before U.S. District Judge John R. Padova, Assistant U.S. Attorney James G. Sheehan, chief of the Civil Division, said defamation lawsuits such as Jefferson's were designed to quiet would-be whistle-blowers and discourage citizen lawsuits over public-interest issues. Jefferson lawyers, however, said the defamation action against Wu had nothing to do with his role as a whistle-blower but rather with statements the researcher had made. In fact, Jefferson added, it was not aware that Wu had been talking to investigators from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia with allegations that Jefferson was misrepresenting research results. "These allegations of scientific mistakes and phonying-up results are not only damaging but career-destroying," Jefferson lawyer William A. Harvey told Padova, as Roger J. Pomerantz, Jefferson's infectious-diseases chief and director of the virology research center, sat somberly nearby. Padova held the government's request for further study, saying he was concerned that he did not have authority to "bar the courthouse door" to Jefferson. The research in question involves genetic engineering. Scientists at Jefferson inserted into blood cells a gene that was to order up antibodies to an important protein produced by HIV. By binding to that protein, the antibodies, in theory, would prevent any HIV that had invaded the cells from reproducing. If the virus couldn't reproduce, it would not be able to take hold in a person's body and go on to destroy the immune system. The Jefferson scientists reported in medical journals that the approach effectively had stopped reproduction of HIV in cell culture. Until Wu spoke out, the researchers were preparing to begin testing the safety of the approach on AIDS patients. Wu, a Chinese virologist who held a postdoctoral fellowship in the Jefferson AIDS lab, asserted that the gene engineered by the Jefferson scientists could not possibly work because it was missing a critical piece of DNA, preventing the antibodies from binding to the HIV protein. Wu told a faculty committee that he had reported his finding to Lingxun Duan, the Jefferson scientist who engineered the gene, and that Duan had asked him to keep quiet about the problem. Another scientist in the Jefferson lab discovered that at least one vial labeled as containing Duan's gene actually contained a portion of the gene for a toxic enzyme known as aspariginase. The chemical coding for Duan's gene also turned out to be remarkably similar to the genetic code for an antibody to aspariginase. Wu's testimony before the faculty committee called the entire experiment into question as a possible fraud. Jefferson's faculty committee concluded that the research was sloppy and fraught with "an extraordinary number of problems," but stopped short of accusing Duan of research misconduct because it could not prove Duan deliberately misrepresented the gene he engineered or falsified data. Under orders of the faculty committee, however, Jefferson researchers did correct statements about the experiment made in medical journals, and Duan was forced to leave the university. The bloodletting, however, did not stop there. Wu was fired from his Jefferson fellowship in July 1996, and two years later the university terminated Omar Bagasra, director of Jefferson's molecular retrovirology labs. Bagasra was the university official to whom Wu first brought his suspicions about the AIDS project, and he later publicly supported Wu. The university's own study of problems with the research was sent in late 1997 to the Office of Research Integrity, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Under ORI procedures, allegations of scientific misconduct in federally sponsored research are usually first investigated by the institution where they reportedly occurred. The institution's findings are then sent to ORI for review. Negative findings by ORI can lead to a loss of federal grants, and the agency's procedures require that, unless proven correct, charges of scientific misconduct remain confidential. Yesterday's hearing not only publicly confirmed that the ORI investigation was active, but also shed light on a parallel U.S. Attorney's Office investigation initiated through a specialized form of litigation known as a "q ui tam" lawsuit. Qui tam - part of a Latin phase meaning "on behalf of the king" - is a provision of the federal False Claims Act. The law lets an insider or informer file, under seal, a lawsuit alleging fraud. The U.S. Attorney's Office then investigates the allegations and, if warranted, joins the lawsuit and throws its resources and protection behind the whistle-blower. If the qui tam action is successful, the informer is entitled to a share of whatever money the government recovers. What made yesterday's hearing unusual was that the U.S. Attorney's Office identified Wu as the whistle-blower, even though it had not decided whether it would join Wu in his action against Jefferson. In asking for the delay until Wu's suit is settled, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheehan told the judge that the government had to decide by Feb. 1, and added that "based on what I know now, I'd say we'd be inclined to intervene." Until that decision is made, however, Sheehan said the government was faced with a "very difficult" case and a skittish and easily intimidated whistle-blower. Wu once claimed that Duan had threatened him with reprisals when he returned to China. Lawyers said yesterday that Wu was so frightened after his firing that he left his home in the area and moved to Alabama, then to Middlesex County, N.J. Jefferson lawyers located him there recently when they informed him he would be sued for defamation and breach of contract. Jefferson lawyers also filed a notice of an intent to sue Wu in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia. Jefferson attorney Harvey called the lawsuits against Wu "garden-variety state court suits," and told Judge Padova there was no reason for them to be put on hold while prosecutors investigated his qui tam allegations. But Sheehan said that the lawsuits against Wu were similar to Jefferson lawsuits filed in Philadelphia and New Jersey against Bagasra, and noted that Jefferson officials at first had suspected that Bagasra was the whistle-blower. Sheehan said that it was only after Jefferson learned from him that Wu was the source that Jefferson began moving against Wu in court. The Jefferson lawsuits against Bagasra, and Bagasra's own federal lawsuit against Jefferson and Pomerantz, were settled confidentially out of court. Harvey said that as part of the settlement, Bagasra had recanted his allegations and agreed to make no further comment about the controversy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------    Inquirer | Search | Classifieds | Yellow Pages | Money| Technology| HOME team | Health | Philly Life | Headbone Zone | Video | Site Index ------------------------------------------------------------------------   ©2000 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.   From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 15:06:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24728 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from nas2.washingtonpost.com (nas2.washingtonpost.com [206.132.25.75]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24721 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:49 -0500 (EST) From: register@washingtonpost.com Received: from nas2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nas2.washingtonpost.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA20088 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:12:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:12:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001082012.PAA20088@nas2.washingtonpost.com> Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from a friend Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO You have been sent this message from Variables.emailOfSender as a courtesy of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com). To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/A18420-2000Jan7.html FBI Made Wen Ho Lee Think He Failed Polygraph

FBI agents misled physicist Wen Ho Lee into believing that he had failed a Department of Energy polygraph test as they pressed him during a lengthy interrogation last March to confess to passing nuclear weapons secrets to China.

Lee insisted throughout the tape-recorded session that he was telling the truth, unaware that polygraph examiners actually had given him an extremely high score for honesty. "I don't know why I fail," Lee told the agents, according to a transcript obtained by The Washington Post. "But I do know I have not done anything. . . . I never give any classified information to Chinese people."

The interrogation on March 7, 1999, the day before Lee was fired from his job at Los Alamos National Laboratory for violating security rules, was highly adversarial and ended only after Lee repeatedly asked to leave. "I'm an honest person and I'm telling you all the truth, and you don't believe it," he said at one point.

Lee's family and supporters view the transcript as a vivid demonstration that the FBI was unfair and even devious in its investigation of the 60-year-old, Taiwan-born scientist, who is being held without bail on charges of copying a vast trove of classified nuclear data to computer tapes, seven of which are missing.

Prosecutors, however, deny that the investigation was biased or unethical in any way. They say the FBI's skepticism during the interrogation was justified by a series of lies the scientist had told colleagues, superiors and investigators over a period of many years.

Independent legal experts also said it is not uncommon for police or FBI agents to mislead suspects during preliminary questioning.

The March 7 interrogation came at a critical juncture in the FBI's attempt to determine how China might have obtained secrets about the design of the W-88 warhead, America's most sophisticated nuclear weapon.

Lee had become the government's prime suspect, having acknowledged – immediately before taking a Department of Energy polygraph in December 1998 – that Chinese weapons scientists asked him about the W-88 during a trip he made to Beijing 10 years earlier. The DOE polygraph examiners concluded that Lee was telling the truth when he said he had never passed classified information to China during that or any other meeting. But two months later, FBI polygraph examiners concluded that Lee was being deceptive when he was asked the same question.

Throughout the March 7 interrogation, FBI agents pressed Lee to admit that he had passed secrets to the Chinese scientists who visited him at his Beijing hotel in 1988 and asked specific questions about the W-88. The agents suggested that unless he confessed, he would be arrested for espionage and possibly executed.

"Do you know who the Rosenbergs are?" one of the agents asked Lee. "The Rosenbergs are the only people that never cooperated with the federal government in an espionage case. You know what happened to them? They electrocuted them, Wen Ho."

"Yeah, I heard," Lee replied.

In another exchange, an FBI agent told Lee, "Wen Ho, you're in trouble. You are in big trouble."

Lee replied: "I know. But I tell you one thing. I'm the victim. I am innocent."

Lee's attorneys introduced an 82-page, declassified transcript of the interrogation in court at a bail hearing in Albuquerque in late December to bolster their contention that the government, not Lee, had acted deceptively.

The government conceded in a written motion opposing bail that Lee passed the polygraph test given by the Energy Department but noted that he failed the FBI-administered test in February.

At the end of the three-day hearing Dec. 30, U.S. District Judge James A. Parker ruled that Lee must remain in jail pending trial. Lee was charged Dec. 10 with 59 felony counts of mishandling classified information and could, if convicted, be sentenced to life imprisonment.

The government discovered the downloaded data inside Lee's unsecure office computer only after he consented to a search following his March 8 firing from Los Alamos, where he had worked for two decades. Federal authorities have acknowledged that they do not have any evidence that Lee passed secrets to China, and they have not accused him of espionage. But they are pressing him for information about the missing computer tapes.

Lee's attorneys say he destroyed the tapes, but they have not given any details about how, when and where the portable cartridges, similar to VHS videotapes, disappeared.

Mark Holscher, one of Lee's lawyers, said in a telephone interview yesterday that the FBI's false statements and threats of electrocution should make it clear why the scientist "is reluctant to be subjected to further questioning."

"The transcript clearly shows that the FBI on at least a dozen occasions [during the interrogation] pressured Dr. Lee to confess to a death penalty offense, which even the Department of Justice must now concede he did not commit," Holscher said.

At one point during the interrogation, as FBI agents told Lee over and over that no one in the government believed his denials, the scientist replied: "There's nothing I can tell you because I already told you everything, okay? If they want to put me in jail, fine."

Washington lawyer Plato Cacheris, who has been both a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney, said yesterday that although he "does not applaud the practice," it is well known that agents "tell false information to suspects in order to get them to confess without being sanctioned by the court."

Lawyers often go into court, Cacheris said, and argue that FBI agents "lied to my client; they do it all time." But, he added, as long as the suspect is not under arrest, it is a technique that judges generally accept.

From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 15:06:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24734 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:06:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24727 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 15:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097037.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.37]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id MAA06659 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 12:05:53 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001082005.MAA06659@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 12:07:04 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion In-Reply-To: References: <200001081810.KAA05762@mail.crl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 02:01 PM 1/8/2000 -0500, Billo wrote: >> From: "Peter D. Barnett" >> >> >> Second, I think that we should strive in writing reports to use words that >> DO mean the same to all of us. > >But that's really the rub, isn't it? Who is "us" and what constitutes >"all?" If "consistent with" is a term of art, then its usage can only >be argued within that particular art, regardless of how it is used in >other disciplines. Well, yes, the "us" is a problem. In the context of my reply in the above dialog, I assumed the "us" was forensic scientists, but it is certainly the case that the "us" may include a diversity of other people. But is is probably not possible to get everyone to agree, or understand, what particular terms of art mean. That is why (1)reports should be clear as to the questions they address and the significance of the answers the report provides, and (2)telephones exist. > >Moreover, to address a point I know you are not making, the argument I >have heard elsewhere that one should write reports using only "common" >usage and meaning is much worse than using terms of art -- since >"common" usage is much less distinct and much more variable over time, >demographic, and immediate situation. Surely true, Does the"common" meaning imply the common correct meaning (as defined by William Safire), the common usage meaning (as defined by Webster or American Heritage or ???) (and which meaning?), or the common meaning in some subset of the universal "us." One never knows what an author means unless the author explains. >This discussion wrt criminalists is particularly interesting to me, >since no such confusion seems to exist among the ME's I deal with. >Within *that* discipline the use of "consistent with" seems fairly >consistent as a term of art. The only criticism I have really heard >towards the use by MEs is from folk who dislike the use because it does >not conform to the use as they see it as a term of art in their own, >different, discipline. One of the things that the medical profession does extremely well is use terms that have specific meanings, and which usually are totally foreign to people outside the profession. The advantage of this, of course, is that the physicians understand each other fairly precisely, and that "outsiders" know they don't understand what the physician is saying because they don't have a clue what the words mean (perhaps an unintended consequence, but a useful one nevertheless). But when a physician uses a word that SEEMS to be one that is commonly understood, but is being used with a specific and perhaps different meaning than the normal one, people are necessarily confused. Criminalists, on the other hand, tend to use words that are part of the ordinary language in their reports. "Match", "standard", "consistent with", "questioned", "known", "standard", "identical to", "similar to", "presumptive test", "gasoline", "could be" etc. Most people, reading these words is a report, assume they know what they mean (not everyone assumes the same thing of course). Dave Stoney has suggested the terms "crime object" and "suspect object", defined in precise ways, to denote items being compared to determine common origin. The advantage of these terms is that they announce to the reader that the reader better make sure that he or she understands what they mean. If the author used "questioned" and "standard" the reader might assume something different that what the writer intended, and not realize the confusion. This is an example of the development of a terms of art vocabulary for forensic science (specifically criminalistics) which is a worthy effort. Most scientists have such vocabularies in their particular disciplines. The complicating matter, I realize, is that, unlike most other scientists, forensic scientists have the responsibility to communicate with people who are naieve about the subject matter of the communication. This is certainly not a trivial complication. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 16:25:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25462 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:25:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from Medisun.UCSFresno.edu (medisun.ucsfresno.edu [198.175.158.130]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA25457 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 16:24:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (burnett@localhost) by Medisun.UCSFresno.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id NAA29273; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:27:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 13:27:51 -0800 (PST) From: Lynn Burnett To: Patricia Lough cc: CAT Forum , forensl Subject: Re: Benzoylecgonine Effects In-Reply-To: <20000107190205.28028.qmail@web1604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO The URL for the chapter Toxicity, Cocaine in the eMedicine Textbook of Emergency Medicine _should_ have read: http://eMedicine.com/emerg/topic102.htm Apologies for previously leaving out part of the URL. LBBurnett From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 18:05:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26201 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26196 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:05:21 -0500 (EST) From: Sliiide7@aol.com Received: from Sliiide7@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.8a.8a12a513 (4454); Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:04:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8a.8a12a513.25a91c8c@aol.com> Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 18:04:44 EST Subject: Re: Slamming To: shelby1051@hotmail.com, Scotsmam@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Ms. Thompson- Don't let "slamming" keep you from entering the forensic field as it is not limited to this field only. Corporate Business Law will have plenty of it for you but as in everyday life you will have to deal and learn from it. Good luck with your studies! Stacey Wingo ID Technician Plano PD Plano, TX From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 22:06:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27762 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from edvac.idirect.com (edvac.idirect.com [207.136.80.168]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27757 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from rlsitter (ts3-12t-117.idirect.com [209.161.232.245]) by edvac.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA41446 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:06:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008c01bf5a4e$bce77ea0$f5e8a1d1@rlsitter> From: "Rachael Schrijver" To: Subject: Re:Criminal Profiling Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:07:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0089_01BF5A24.D315B180" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01BF5A24.D315B180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, If anyone's interested - > There is a show this Sunday night @ 8:00 on The Learning Channel - = Inside the Minds of Criminal Profilers. Regards, Rachael. :) ------=_NextPart_000_0089_01BF5A24.D315B180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
If anyone's interested - = >
 
There is a show this Sunday night = @ 8:00 on=20 The Learning Channel - Inside the Minds of Criminal = Profilers.
 
Regards,
Rachael. = :)
------=_NextPart_000_0089_01BF5A24.D315B180-- From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 22:18:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27856 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:18:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f158.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.158]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA27851 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 81494 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jan 2000 03:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000109031800.81493.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.156.86.128 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 08 Jan 2000 19:18:00 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.156.86.128] From: "Michelle Thompson" To: billo@radix.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Just a question... Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 22:18:00 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Mr. Oliver, (or Billo as you like to call yourself) I do not usually partake in this forum all that often, but you know, I have seen nothing but negativity from you...I can't seem to understand where your hostility is coming from. You attack others and the replies that you make to them only make you look as if you are trying to make futile attempts to shut others' ideas out...I am not trying to be rude, but as I have stated before, I am a Law student and I only subscribed to this forum because this type of profession really intrigues me and I am sort of fascinated with it. But if I had to work with someone such as the way you portray yourself to be on this forum, I think maybe I would quit my job. Sincerely, Michelle Thompson shelby0176@prodigy.net >From: Bill Oliver >To: "Peter D. Barnett" >CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion >Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:25 -0500 (EST) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBA40D96B0048D82197D198015F248E2F0; Sat Jan 08 11:22:23 2000 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24327for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:31 >-0500 (EST) >Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31])by >brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24322for >; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:01:27 -0500 (EST) >Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40])by >mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA00732;Sat, 8 Jan 2000 >14:01:28 -0500 (EST) >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Sat Jan 08 11:25:47 2000 >In-Reply-To: <200001081810.KAA05762@mail.crl.com> >Message-ID: >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Precedence: bulk > > > >On Sat, 8 Jan 2000, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > > > From: "Peter D. Barnett" > > > > > > Second, I think that we should strive in writing reports to use words >that > > DO mean the same to all of us. > >But that's really the rub, isn't it? Who is "us" and what constitutes >"all?" If "consistent with" is a term of art, then its usage can only >be argued within that particular art, regardless of how it is used in >other disciplines. > >Moreover, to address a point I know you are not making, the argument I >have heard elsewhere that one should write reports using only "common" >usage and meaning is much worse than using terms of art -- since >"common" usage is much less distinct and much more variable over time, >demographic, and immediate situation. > >This discussion wrt criminalists is particularly interesting to me, >since no such confusion seems to exist among the ME's I deal with. >Within *that* discipline the use of "consistent with" seems fairly >consistent as a term of art. The only criticism I have really heard >towards the use by MEs is from folk who dislike the use because it does >not conform to the use as they see it as a term of art in their own, >different, discipline. > > >billo > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Sat Jan 8 23:40:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28402 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 23:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop04.iname.net (pop04.iname.net [165.251.8.69]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28397 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 23:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from vesselofhonor (dialup-209.244.102.185.NewYork2.Level3.net [209.244.102.185]) by pop04.iname.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA23297 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 23:40:09 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "The Berean" To: "Forens-l" Subject: Re: just a question... Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 23:39:57 -0500 Message-ID: <001701bf5a5b$94a183c0$8198fea9@vesselofhonor> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Mr. Oliver, (or Billo as you like to call yourself) I do not usually partake in this forum all that often, but you know, I have seen nothing but negativity from you... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ms Thompson, You'll find in the field of forensics, that there will be quite a few self professed experts whose self-aggrandizing efforts to promote themselves become quite a nuisance, and sometimes result in diluting the credibility of the field of forensic sciences. Mr. Oliver's rugged comments demonstrates that he knows whereas he speaks. To preserve the integrity of the expertise provided by many qualified men and women in this interesting line of week, there needs to be some willing to blow the whistle on those who would dare pass off as competent experts when they in fact do not have a clue as to what the heck they are talking about. It's just a fact of life. Don't shoot Olliver, who is merely the messenger here, nor those on the list who concur with him :) Just my sincere humble opinion, as I claim no credentials or expertise, just a healthy interest and respect for this field =) Be safe, Frank Pagano (The Berean) ICQ#: 2052068 Fax Number: (630) 214-9076 ----------------------------------------- "...They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." -- Acts 17:11 From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 07:57:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01536 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:56:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.janics.com (mail.janics.com [206.102.184.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01531 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:56:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mikespooter [208.137.35.242] by mail.janics.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A5447E200F6; Sun, 09 Jan 2000 06:55:32 -0600 Message-ID: <006001bf5aa1$16ac7a60$f22389d0@mikespooter> From: "M Davis" To: References: <200001081810.KAA05762@mail.crl.com> <200001082005.MAA06659@mail.crl.com> Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 06:57:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I'm a bit out of my league here I suspect, but did notice some problems. The comment about medical terminology is a good example of using specific words of commonly understood meaning among communicating professionals. This works in the medical community because the patient will either know the terminology or will have to summon a medical professional for a "layman's" interpretation. Forensic science is quite a bit different in that scientists are writing reports to be used by members of the legal professions who rarely ask for clarification of written reports. This has the effect of encouraging reports written as "dumbed down" to layman's terms to be read by non- scientifically trained persons which requires the use of non-specific terminology such as "consistent with", etc. I would rather like to think of "consistent with" as an intentionally vague term which begs clarification. If I wish to convey information from a latent print comparison, for example, must I say that there is insufficient detail for identification purposes and leave it at that, or can I report that the pattern type and visible ridge detail is "consistent with" the suspect's right index finger but that there is "insufficient detail for identification purposes?" The first approach essentially throws the comparison out the window and reports nothing. The second approach leaves open the possibility that the prints may have a common origin, but clearly states in layman's terms that the identification was not made due to insufficient detail. The disclaimer is clear, and the results reported may be of forensic value in that the suspect cannot be positively eliminated as a potential donor of the latent print. Mike Davis mailto:mdavis@janics.com ICQ#38952146 From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 11:18:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01094 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:18:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01089 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:18:22 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.28.28d2f710 (4440); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:17:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <28.28d2f710.25aa0ea7@aol.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 11:17:43 EST Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion To: mdavis@clandjop.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 00-01-09 09:17:06 EST, mdavis@clandjop.com writes: << I would rather like to think of "consistent with" as an intentionally vague term which begs clarification. If I wish to convey information from a latent print comparison, for example, must I say that there is insufficient detail for identification purposes and leave it at that, or can I report that the pattern type and visible ridge detail is "consistent with" the suspect's right index finger but that there is "insufficient detail for identification purposes?" >> >From an investigator's point of view, the use of "consistent with" probably is helpful. However, as an attorney, I can see where it becomes a problem when the evidence in a case must be evaluated or the case actually tried. Very often these written reports are put into evidence during a trial and suddenly "consistent with" becomes subject to various interpretations, such as "probably is" or "probably is not"; two contradictory conclusions. This helps no one and, no doubt, dramatically hurts one party to the lititgation. This is particularly true in cases of circumstantial evidence, where there appears to be no direct evidence linking a particular person to an event. Yet, a series of "consistent with's" might just do the job one or another. I think it would be better to explain just how "consistent" the evidence is with the presumed (or to be eliminated) source of the evidence. In this way, the trier of the facts can know just how much weight to give the "consistent with" evidence. Pietrina J. Reda Attorney at Law From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 12:30:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01801 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:29:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.usit.net (SMTP1.USIT.NET [199.1.48.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01796 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ken (DIALUP59.SCCOL.USIT.NET [216.80.194.59]) by smtp1.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id MAA28995; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:29:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <010f01bf5ac6$d9aecfc0$3bc250d8@ken> From: "K. Habben" To: "Daryl W. Clemens" , , References: <200001051753.LAA08510@mail.enteract.com> <001a01bf57ec$06ad9200$bf0710ac@grandrapids.mi.us> Subject: Re: Private Hair Testing Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:27:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO We are set up to perform almost anything a crime lab can do, as well as pathology. Carolina Consulting Labs (888) 490-9038 From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 12:36:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01845 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:36:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.usit.net (SMTP1.USIT.NET [199.1.48.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01840 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ken (DIALUP59.SCCOL.USIT.NET [216.80.194.59]) by smtp1.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id MAA29441; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:35:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <011201bf5ac7$b9842460$3bc250d8@ken> From: "K. Habben" To: , "Ascld" , References: Subject: Re: Forensic Toxicology Certificate Program Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:34:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Tell me more. I am a member Forensic Toxicologist Certification Board. Ken Habben, FFTCB From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 13:38:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02275 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.janics.com (mail.janics.com [206.102.184.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02270 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mikespooter [208.137.35.153] by mail.janics.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A526BF025A; Sun, 09 Jan 2000 12:36:22 -0600 Message-ID: <004f01bf5ad0$b3acb1c0$992389d0@mikespooter> From: "M Davis" To: , References: <28.28d2f710.25aa0ea7@aol.com> Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:38:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Perhaps the court system could be held accountable for clarifying lab reports. One of my biggest gripes is that my reports are entered as evidence without anyone, defense or prosecution or even the LE agency, ever asking a question. Is it our fault that untrained non-scientists misinterpret our written results? Explaining "how consistent" a result was would be fantastic. I just wish someone would, once in a while, ASK ! Doing this with a latent print comparison also creates problems. There is a common misconception that latent print comparisons are somehow "quantifiable" by, to give the most common example, "counting ridge 'points'" (Galton details or minutae as we call them). In fact, the process is far more complex and involves several levels of comparison. What do we call a "point", for example? And, since there is not a standard which can be applied to such, how on earth could one quantify the level of consistency? Mike Davis mailto:mdavis@janics.com ICQ#38952146 > >From an investigator's point of view, the use of "consistent with" probably > is helpful. However, as an attorney, I can see where it becomes a problem > when the evidence in a case must be evaluated or the case actually tried. > > Very often these written reports are put into evidence during a trial and > suddenly "consistent with" becomes subject to various interpretations, such > as "probably is" or "probably is not"; two contradictory conclusions. This > helps no one and, no doubt, dramatically hurts one party to the lititgation. > This is particularly true in cases of circumstantial evidence, where there > appears to be no direct evidence linking a particular person to an event. > Yet, a series of "consistent with's" might just do the job one or another. > > I think it would be better to explain just how "consistent" the evidence is > with the presumed (or to be eliminated) source of the evidence. In this way, > the trier of the facts can know just how much weight to give the "consistent > with" evidence. > > Pietrina J. Reda > Attorney at Law > From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 14:20:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA02784 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f216.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.216]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA02779 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 267 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jan 2000 19:19:51 -0000 Message-ID: <20000109191951.266.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 142.150.5.46 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 09 Jan 2000 11:19:51 PST X-Originating-IP: [142.150.5.46] From: "Elena Stilli" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: characterizing sharp force trauma on bone Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 11:19:51 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hello, I seek any and all information, whether it be a journal article, book or advice from an educated professional, on the characterization of sharp force trauma on skeletal remains. I am doing a fourth year project involving the quantification and qualification of the stab marks that I will inflict on two pigs using both serrated and straight edge blades. If anyone knows of any good resources or has any advice for me before I begin, I am anxious to hear from you. Thanks, Elena ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 16:56:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA03852 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:55:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03846 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:55:53 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.18.18364cb4 (4257); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:55:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <18.18364cb4.25aa5dcc@aol.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:55:24 EST Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion To: mdavis@clandjop.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 00-01-09 13:37:14 EST, mdavis@clandjop.com writes: << Perhaps the court system could be held accountable for clarifying lab reports. One of my biggest gripes is that my reports are entered as evidence without anyone, defense or prosecution or even the LE agency, ever asking a question. Is it our fault that untrained non-scientists misinterpret our written results? >> No, not your fault at all!! And you are correct when you say someone should just ASK about a report. Sometimes, however, that is not always possible. Particularly if the report is not produced early enough in time. Also not possible if the person reading the report does not have access to the expert, for whatever reason, including lack of funds to hire an expert or an unwillingness, at times, for the person who prepared the report to speak with the other side. (I know, that discussion was already done). I think maybe this is why I enjoy this list. I learn things from you all about your various fields of expertise. I feel as though I will be more astute when I have to review a forensic report and will know better when I MUST ask an expert for more info or clarification. In fact, I have a case now where an individual is charged with driving while impaired (intoxilyzer reading of .07) AND driving while impaired by drugs. The latter part comes from his having taken valium pursuant to a prescription. The arrest occurred because he went from one lane to another without signalling. The lab report shows valium present in system. It does not show how much valium. (I do not know if that is even possible). The prosecutor feels that combined with testimony that the possibility that valium and alcohol potentiate one another, is sufficient. Do I need an expert? Probably. Do I need at least to consult with an expert? You bet. Does my client have the funds to do it? No! So, maybe I will call our local police lab and see if they might be willing to enlighten me. (Note that this is important because driving while impaired by drugs in New York is a criminal offense while the intoxilyzer reading of .07 is a traffic infraction). So, while the lab report I have is not a "consistent with" report, it seems it has led to similar problems...What is the value of the evidence found? That really is the bottom line question and I can see where all of you on this list appreciate that fact...I just don't know how you can do it much differently. Pietrina J. Reda From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 18:00:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04247 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 18:00:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from fozzie.webservepro.com (root@fozzie.webservepro.com [205.160.44.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04240 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 18:00:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (bert-51.brokersys.com [206.180.156.115]) by fozzie.webservepro.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA31123 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:59:52 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Elvis Terrier" To: Subject: RE: Criminal Profiling show on TLC Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:00:14 -0600 Message-ID: <004801bf5af5$4a422740$739cb4ce@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF5AC2.FFA7B740" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 In-Reply-To: <008c01bf5a4e$bce77ea0$f5e8a1d1@rlsitter> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF5AC2.FFA7B740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rachael S. wrote: There is a show this Sunday night @ 8:00 on The Learning Channel - Inside the Minds of Criminal Profilers. This program also airs at 11 pm the same day and at 5 pm on 15 January. You may also be interested in "In the Mind of Con Men" which shows at 10 pm on 9 January, 1 am on 10 January, and 7 pm on 15 January. Catten ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF5AC2.FFA7B740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rachael S. wrote: 
 
There is a show this Sunday = night @ 8:00=20 on The Learning Channel - Inside the Minds of Criminal=20 Profilers.
 
This program=20 also airs at 11 pm the same day and at 5 pm on 15 = January.
 
 
Catten
------=_NextPart_000_0049_01BF5AC2.FFA7B740-- From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 21:48:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05868 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA05863 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:47:17 -0500 (EST) From: Polymarker@aol.com Received: from Polymarker@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.76.76ce8aa3 (3842); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:46:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <76.76ce8aa3.25aaa210@aol.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:46:40 EST Subject: Re: characterizing sharp force trauma on bone To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu CC: estilli@hotmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/9/00 2:31:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, estilli@hotmail.com writes: << Hello, I seek any and all information, whether it be a journal article, book or advice from an educated professional, on the characterization of sharp force trauma on skeletal remains. I am doing a fourth year project involving the quantification and qualification of the stab marks that I will inflict on two pigs using both serrated and straight edge blades. If anyone knows of any good resources or has any advice for me before I begin, I am anxious to hear from you. Thanks, Elena >> Hi, Here are some refrences for papers published in recent years regarding sharp-force injuries in forensic anthropology. Below are the abstracts that seem most promising. Hope these help, Kirk ************************************************************** Kirk E. Lohmueller MIT Center for Genome Research Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research 1 Kendall Square, Building 300 Cambridge, MA 02139-1516 ************************************************************** Sharp-force trauma analysis and the forensic anthropologist: techniques advocated by William R. Maples, Ph.D. Walsh-Haney HA C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. J Forensic Sci 1999 Jul;44(4):720-3 Forensic anthropological tenets supported by William R. Maples, Ph.D. provide the bases for a case study from the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory. Using a multidisciplinary team that included police investigators, pathologists, odontologists, entomologists, and anthropologists, a biological profile and trauma analysis was constructed. Our analysis determined that the decedent was a middle-aged Hispanic male, approximately 5'6"-5'7" in stature, who had died a minimum of three months before the discovery of his remains. Gross and microscopic analysis revealed 11 areas of sharp trauma to the skull and cervical vertebrae. To aid with analysis of the trauma, nonhuman trauma exemplars were created using a Tiger rear flail mower of the make known to have been used at the scene where the remains were recovered. This use of nonhuman trauma exemplars proved to be essential in the effort to exclude the rear flail mower as the possible trauma agent. PMID: 10432606, UI: 99361171 Homicide or accident off the coast of Florida: trauma analysis of mutilated human remains. Stubblefield PR C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. J Forensic Sci 1999 Jul;44(4):716-9 In the many years Dr. William R. Maples served as a forensic anthropologist, he saw diverse sources of trauma presented in the victims of violent crime, accident and suicide in the state of Florida. In 1996 the District 18 Medical Examiner's Office of Florida requested the assistance of Dr. Maples in the analysis of human remains recovered by the U.S. Coast Guard. The deceased was in an advanced state of decomposition characterized by skin slippage and discoloration. The torso bore multiple lacerations, including nearly parallel lacerations in the skin of the back. Specimens were carefully macerated and the fractures reconstructed. The skeletal trauma was caused by a device capable of delivering robust cuts and blunt trauma in linear paths, as is consistent with propeller trauma. Unusual in this case were blows to the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the body. Based on the anthropological analysis and interviews with the family of the deceased, the F.B.I. proceeded with the case as a homicide investigation. PMID: 10432605, UI: 99361170 The diagnosis of a murder from skeletal remains: a case report. Vesterby A, Poulsen LW Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Aarhus, Denmark. Int J Legal Med 1997;110(2):97-100 A skeletonised body was found in a Danish forest. The examination of the bones revealed several incision on the skeleton, one located on the cervical column, two on the sternum, one perforating incision to the right iliac crest, and several superficial ones to the ribs and the right tibia. The skeletonized body was thought to be that of a young man in the twenties with a height of 170 cm. It was estimated that the body has been lying at the spot for at least 1 or 2 y and had been murdered by several stab wounds to the chest and abdomen. Police enquiries subsequently revealed that the deceased was a 23-year-old male with a height of 171 cm. A man confessed to having murdered the victim 1 1/2 years earlier with several stab wounds to the face/neck, chest, abdominal wall and thigh. PMID: 9168329, UI: 97311614 Differentiation of perimortem and postmortem trauma using taphonomic indicators. Ubelaker DH, Adams BJ Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. J Forensic Sci 1995 May;40(3):509-12 Skeletal remains discovered at a construction site in Georgia display classic "butterfly" fractures on several long bones. Although this fracture pattern is usually associated with perimortem trauma, in this case taphonomic indicators demonstrate that they can also occur on dry defleshed bone. Variations in bone color at the fracture sites indicate recent postmortem trauma. Analysis of the directions of force and points of impact indicates that the bones were most likely disarticulated when the trauma occurred. From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 22:31:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06229 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 22:31:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA06224 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 22:31:04 -0500 (EST) From: Mummiees@aol.com Received: from Mummiees@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.87.87a08639 (4410); Sun, 9 Jan 2000 22:30:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <87.87a08639.25aaac57@aol.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 22:30:31 EST Subject: Re: characterizing sharp force trauma on bone To: estilli@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 44 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Elena - an excellent resource for this subject is the book FORENSIC OSTEOLOGY - Advances in the Identification of Human Remains (second edition), edited by Kathleen J. Reichs, PH.D., D.A.B.F.A. Alex Calves From forens-owner Sun Jan 9 23:43:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06748 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 23:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA06743 for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 23:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29283 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2000 04:42:48 -0000 Received: from access-5-44.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.162) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 10 Jan 2000 04:42:48 -0000 Message-ID: <013601bf5b25$1f915900$a27237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <18.18364cb4.25aa5dcc@aol.com> Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 22:42:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Of course it is possible to quantitate Valium (diazepam) but the meaning varies depending on the source of analyte (blood tells you a functional level, urine quantitation is not useful beyond setting cutoff limits.) The problem with driving under the influence of mind altering chemicals of any sort is that the levels for presumption of effect are pretty arbitrary and I don't think most states even define levels for anything but alcohol. Synergistic effects between benzodiazepines and alcohol are well known and if what you need is someone to deny this, check your contacts for "scientific whores." I suggest searching the NLM (http://igm.nlm.nih.gov/) against the subjects "alcohol", "benzodiazepine", and "driving" and then seeking a plea bargain. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 3:55 PM Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion In fact, I have a case now where an individual is charged with driving while impaired (intoxilyzer reading of .07) AND driving while impaired by drugs. The latter part comes from his having taken valium pursuant to a prescription. The arrest occurred because he went from one lane to another without signalling. The lab report shows valium present in system. It does not show how much valium. (I do not know if that is even possible). The prosecutor feels that combined with testimony that the possibility that valium and alcohol potentiate one another, is sufficient. Do I need an expert? Probably. Do I need at least to consult with an expert? You bet. Does my client have the funds to do it? No! So, maybe I will call our local police lab and see if they might be willing to enlighten me. (Note that this is important because driving while impaired by drugs in New York is a criminal offense while the intoxilyzer reading of .07 is a traffic infraction). So, while the lab report I have is not a "consistent with" report, it seems it has led to similar problems...What is the value of the evidence found? That really is the bottom line question and I can see where all of you on this list appreciate that fact...I just don't know how you can do it much differently. Pietrina J. Reda From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 00:45:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07194 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:45:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from docexam.docexam.com.au ([203.33.141.107]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA07189 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:45:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from EXAMINIER3 (EXAMINIER3 [192.168.0.11]) by docexam.docexam.com.au (NTMail 5.00.0010/WB0115.00.3aa46d17) with ESMTP id mtxaaaaa for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:39:10 +1100 Message-ID: <387971BD.123F6EAC@docexam.com.au> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:44:30 +1100 From: roslind X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Laser Printer Samples Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------8752243083A04C2A545EA638" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------8752243083A04C2A545EA638 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am undertaking to collect some samples from laser printers and photocopiers to hopefully determine how often a fuser defect occurs. One of the easiest ways to determine whether a fuser defect is present is to examine a printed page that is completely black. I am hoping that the forensic community can assist me with this research project by providing me a sample of a document printed on their laser printer and photocopier. To participate in this project can you please send me the following samples: 1. Print the attached word document on your laser printer and write the make and model of the laser printer on the reverse. 2. Photocopy a black piece of paper on your photocopier and write the make and model of the photocopier on the reverse. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this research project. Regards Roslind Winter --------------8752243083A04C2A545EA638 Content-Type: application/msword; name="Laserprinter sample.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Laserprinter sample.doc" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAIgAAAAAA AAAAEAAAJAAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAACEAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////spcEAcQAJDAAAABK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABAAA PAQAAA4AYmpianQrdCsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJBBYALRAAABZBAQAWQQEAPAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAF0AAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAAogAAAKIAAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAACiAAAA AAAAAKIAAAAAAAAAogAAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAALYAAAAAAAAAtgAAAAAAAAC2AAAAAAAAALYA AAAAAAAAtgAAAAwAAADCAAAAHAAAALYAAAAAAAAAeQEAAPIAAADqAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAA 6gAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAAPgEAAAIA AABAAQAAAAAAAEABAAAAAAAAQAEAAAAAAABAAQAAAAAAAEABAAAAAAAAQAEAACQAAABrAgAA 9AEAAF8EAABGAAAAZAEAABUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAGQBAAAAAAAA 6gAAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAA AADqAAAAAAAAAOoAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAADqAAAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAACiAAAA AAAAAOoAAAAAAAAAPgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtgAAAAAAAAC2AAAAAAAAAKIA AAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAKIAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAAA+AQAAAAAAAOoAAABUAAAA 6gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4BAAAAAAAAogAAAAAAAACiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgEAAAAAAADqAAAA AAAAAN4AAAAMAAAA0HIxzCpbvwG2AAAAAAAAALYAAAAAAAAA6gAAAAAAAAA+AQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0N DQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NDQ0NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAA PAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAEAAABBAAAAgQAAAMEAAAEBAAABQQAAAYEAAAHBAAA CAQAAAkEAAAKBAAACwQAAAwEAAANBAAADgQAAA8EAAAQBAAAEQQAABIEAAATBAAAFAQAABUE AAAWBAAAFwQAABgEAAAZBAAAGgQAABsEAAAcBAAAHQQAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA +wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAALUQgAAAdAAQAAAEE AAACBAAAAwQAAAQEAAAFBAAABgQAAAcEAAAIBAAACQQAAAoEAAALBAAADAQAAA0EAAAOBAAA DwQAABAEAAARBAAAEgQAABMEAAAUBAAAFQQAABYEAAAXBAAAGAQAABkEAAAaBAAAGwQAABwE AAAdBAAAHgQAAB8EAAAgBAAAIQQAACIEAAAjBAAAJAQAACUEAAAmBAAAJwQAACgEAAApBAAA KgQAACsEAAAsBAAALQQAAC4EAAAvBAAAMAQAADEEAAAyBAAAMwQAADQEAAA1BAAANgQAADcE AAA4BAAAOQQAADoEAAA7BAAAPAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADwdBAAAHgQAAB8EAAAgBAAAIQQAACIEAAAjBAAAJAQAACUE AAAmBAAAJwQAACgEAAApBAAAKgQAACsEAAAsBAAALQQAAC4EAAAvBAAAMAQAADEEAAAyBAAA MwQAADQEAAA1BAAANgQAADcEAAA4BAAAOQQAADoEAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA +wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAC1EIAAAHToEAAA7BAAA PAQAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAwAALUQgAAACKwAKMAEmUAkAH7CDLiCwyEEhsAAAIrAAACOQAAAkkAAAJbAA ABewAAAYsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAA8ACgABAFsA DwACAAAAAAAAADQAAEDx/wIANAAAAAYATgBvAHIAbQBhAGwAAAAFAAAAAyQDABAAQ0oWAE9K AwBRSgMAbUgJDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADwAQUDy/6EAPAAAABYARABlAGYAYQB1AGwA dAAgAFAAYQByAGEAZwByAGEAcABoACAARgBvAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPAAAAAQA ABAAAAAA/////wAEAAA8BAAAAwAAAAAEAAAdBAAAOgQAADwEAAAEAAAABgAAAAcAAAAABAAA PAQAAAUAAAD//wIAAAAHAFIAbwBzAGwAaQBuAGQAHgBDADoAXABSAG8AcwBcAEwAYQBzAGUA cgBwAHIAaQBuAHQAZQByACAAcwBhAG0AcABsAGUALgBkAG8AYwD/QAGAAQAAAAAAAAAAAMRU fQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIQAAAAAAAAADwAAABAAAAIAEAAAAQAAABHFpABAAAC AgYDBQQFAgMEhwIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ8AAAAAAAAAVABpAG0AZQBzACAATgBlAHcAIABS AG8AbQBhAG4AAAA1FpABAgAFBQECAQcGAgUHAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAUwB5 AG0AYgBvAGwAAAAzJpABAAACCwYEAgICAgIEhwIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ8AAAAAAAAAQQBy AGkAYQBsAAAAOyaQAQAAAgsGBAICAgICBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAEgAZQBs AHYAZQB0AGkAYwBhAAAAIgAEAAAIiBgAANACAABoAQAAAAAOVEEmF1RBJgAAAAACAAMAAAAI AAAAMQAAAAEAAQAAAAQAgxABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAACQDAAAABAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKUGwAe0ALQAgAASMAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALQYXgwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAD//xIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAFIAbwBz AGwAaQBuAGQABwBSAG8AcwBsAGkAbgBkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAQAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAOCFn/L5T2gQq5EIACsns9kwAAAAaAEAABEAAAABAAAAkAAAAAIAAACYAAAA AwAAAKQAAAAEAAAAsAAAAAUAAADAAAAABgAAAMwAAAAHAAAA2AAAAAgAAADsAAAACQAAAPwA AAASAAAACAEAAAoAAAAkAQAADAAAADABAAANAAAAPAEAAA4AAABIAQAADwAAAFABAAAQAAAA WAEAABMAAABgAQAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAAAQAAAAAAcwAeAAAAAQAAAAAAcwAeAAAACAAAAFJv c2xpbmQAHgAAAAEAAAAAb3NsHgAAAAEAAAAAb3NsHgAAAAsAAABOb3JtYWwuZG90AAAeAAAA CAAAAFJvc2xpbmQAHgAAAAIAAAAyAHNsHgAAABMAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCA4LjAAAEAA AAAA0klrAAAAAEAAAAAA3KiAKVu/AUAAAAAAUobCKlu/AQMAAAABAAAAAwAAAAgAAAADAAAA MQAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP7/AAAEAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIA AAAC1c3VnC4bEJOXCAArLPmuRAAAAAXVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5EAQAAAAEAAAwAAAABAAAA aAAAAA8AAABwAAAABQAAAJQAAAAGAAAAnAAAABEAAACkAAAAFwAAAKwAAAALAAAAtAAAABAA AAC8AAAAEwAAAMQAAAAWAAAAzAAAAA0AAADUAAAADAAAAOEAAAACAAAA5AQAAB4AAAAcAAAA Q2hyaXMgQW5kZXJzb24gJiBDbyBQdHkgTHRkAAMAAAABAAAAAwAAAAEAAAADAAAAPAAAAAMA AAAxFQgACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAeEAAAAQAAAAEAAAAADBAA AAIAAAAeAAAABgAAAFRpdGxlAAMAAAABAAAAAJgAAAADAAAAAAAAACAAAAABAAAANgAAAAIA AAA+AAAAAQAAAAIAAAAKAAAAX1BJRF9HVUlEAAIAAADkBAAAQQAAAE4AAAB7ADMAQQAxAEUA MAA3ADAAMAAtAEMANwAxAEQALQAxADEARAAzAC0AQgAyADYAMQAtADAAMABBADAAQwBDADUA MgA2ADgAQwBFAH0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAP7/ //8KAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAA/v///xIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAA FwAAABgAAAD+////GgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAAP7////9////IwAAAP7/ ///+/////v////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IAbwBvAHQA IABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAWAAUB//////////8DAAAABgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAACwWZn7KVu/AXCYV8wqW78B JQAAAIAAAAAAAAAAMQBUAGEAYgBsAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJAAAAABAAAAAAAABXAG8AcgBkAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4A dAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgACAQUAAAD///// /////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtEAAAAAAAAAUA UwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAoAAIBAgAAAAQAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAEQAAAAAQAAAAAAAABQBEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4A ZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZAAAAABAAAAAAAAABAEMAbwBtAHAATwBiAGoA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgACAQEA AAAGAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABqAAAA AAAAAE8AYgBqAGUAYwB0AFAAbwBvAGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAEA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABwmFfM Klu/AXCYV8wqW78BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA/v////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////wEA/v8DCgAA/////wYJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYYAAAATWljcm9z b2Z0IFdvcmQgRG9jdW1lbnQACgAAAE1TV29yZERvYwAQAAAAV29yZC5Eb2N1bWVudC44APQ5 snEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA --------------8752243083A04C2A545EA638 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="winterr.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for roslind Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winterr.vcf" begin:vcard n:Winter;Roslind x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Chris Anderson & Co Pty Ltd adr:;;PO Box 383;CARLINGFORD;NSW;2026;AUSTRALIA version:2.1 email;internet:winterr@docexam.com.au title:Forensic Document Examiner tel;fax:+612 98724842 tel;work:+612 9872 4924 x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Roslind Winter end:vcard --------------8752243083A04C2A545EA638-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 08:49:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10895 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:47:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from phobos.idirect.com (phobos.idirect.com [207.136.80.181]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10890 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:47:09 -0500 (EST) From: bmdixon@idirect.com Received: from idirect.com ([207.136.80.80]) by phobos.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA16542 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:46:20 -0500 (EST) Reply-to: bmdixon@idirect.com To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:44:33 +500 Subject: Re: Consistent Message-id: <3879e241.e77a.0@idirect.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO David Stephens wrote: > I would disagree with the logic of the argument in the e-mail from hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov in the message dated 1/5/00 1:30:55 PM, when she states: "I can fairly state "My purchase is consistent with my now being a millionaire"" and then in the very next sentence she states "We all know that the much more likely outcome is that "My purchase is consistent with my having wasted a dollar."" Well, if we all know it (the likely outcome), then it necessarily can't be a fair statement! Given the preceding statements of the author, if we all know it (sic), then it would actually be a fair statement that the first sentence should be "I can fairly state "My purchase is inconsistent with my now being a millionaire." > > In any case, I'm not aware of anyone simply reporting "consistent > with." All reports where I've seen this phraseology gives some > reference or perspective, such as ' The Q is consistent in this, that and the other thing, with the K.' Indeed, all reports should include > this reference or perspective. I see no problem with either > "....consistent with...." or "....similar to...." as long as the analyst > is comfortable with the wording and can explain what they mean > when asked or when called to court. The fact remains that each > of us as individuals sometimes have a slight or large difference in > what a particular word or phrase (or symbol, for that matter) means to us versus another person. The key is to recognize that this variation exists and then to be able to communicate further about the topic at hand so that two or more persons can understand and follow what the conversation is about and what the use of the words and phases mean, not necessarily to make others only write or speak like you. > > Finally, no matter how an examiner or group of examiners decide > how to word their reports, attorneys will still try to nit-pick both the > wording in your report and in your testimony. That's their job! You're not going to eliminate them or their cross examinations based upon only using a particular phraseology of this word or that word. If they want to 'try and get in your knickers,' then they will, even if your phraseology was copied directly from one of the 10 commandments. In this regard, I think its great to bounce your > choice of words off of another fellow analyst at you lab or within > your department, but make sure you give them the leeway to > word their reports in a manner comfortable that they're with (within reason). --David Stephens, Michigan State Police, Bridgeport Laboratory, Trace Unit. > David: The blame for the statement you were discussing actually rests on my shoulders. In fact I think you make my point quite well - the problem about the statemnent: "The purchase is consistent with my now being a millionaire" is precisely that it IS unfair, just as you state - but it IS nevertheless true, whereas the statement "My purchase is INCONSISTENT with my now being a millionmaire" is untrue. Because we know something about lotteries, in this instance we can make a judgement, but if a consistent with statement is about hairs, can a lawyer or a police officer reading it be expected to assess it correctly? Probably many can, but should one take that risk? So far as possible, and without going into needless detail, the report must stand alone, without having to be explained personally in court or elsewher You are quite right that "consistent with" and similar statements are usually qualified. But to use your format, if I say "The recovered glass from Smith's pants is consistent with the broken window at the Central Hotel in colour and refractive index", that still doesn't tell the reader anything if the statement just stands alone, without for example a reference to a data base that tells the reader something about how likely it is that matching glass would be found on the pants if the wearer was never anywhere near the Central Hotel. If this is modern window glass, and those properties are indeed all that were examined, this evidence could be quite weak. If the glass were from a heritage building so that the glass had unusual properties, this might be very strong evidence. The scientist must not assume that the report reader will know the right questions to ask; most of the time the reality is that the decision as to whether the scientist is subpoenaed to court to present the findings will be made on the report alone, and not on the report plus a phone call to ferret out more details. Of course it's the lawyers job to nit pick the report wording - one can never stop that, nor would one want to, but that's no excuse for not making the report as clear as it can possibly be. Then perhaps the lawyers may go and pick their nits elsewhere! Brian Dixon CFS Toronto From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 10:21:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12097 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12085 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:20:58 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.2f.2f29c03f (4068); Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:18:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2f.2f29c03f.25ab5246@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:18:30 EST Subject: Re: Just a question... To: shelby1051@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Michelle I have been puzzled myself by such behavior. I found it very prevalent within the forensic science community where I used to work also. I just didn't understand why we had to lauch nuclear holocaust in order to discuss molecular reactions. But if you read some of what this fellow says, there is a bit of truth behind the attacks at times. It is just so difficult to see through the emotion his presentation brings out. I share your confusion and dismay. Stay with us and you will understand the field despite us. The vehemence goes away after a while and the science comes on out. Frederic Whitehurst From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 10:38:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12276 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:37:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12271 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:37:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id l.30.302488dc (4538); Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:36:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <30.302488dc.25ab567c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:36:28 EST Subject: Re: Agents not scientists (formerly Arson/Murder Charges Dropped.) To: bturvey@profiling.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/7/00 2:54:18 PM, bturvey@profiling.org writes: << And, again, what I am defending is the right of the public to question, and the reality that there is often a legitimate basis for such anger on a case by case basis. >> Thank you. Signed - The Public. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 10:49:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12445 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mailbox.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12440 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:49:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnalab.gmi.univie.ac.at (dnalab.gmi.univie.ac.at [131.130.190.213]) by mailbox.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA120288 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:49:27 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000110164953.007b2100@mailbox.univie.ac.at> X-Sender: nussbac9@mailbox.univie.ac.at X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:49:53 +0100 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Christa Nussbaumer Subject: DNA extraction from sperm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi list, I am having problems with extracting DNA from sperm which was fixed and stained on a microscope slide. The sample derives from a vaginal swab from a rape case. Although I get nice an clean STR-amplifications from the female cells on the slide, I don't get any male DNA (differential lysis). There are plenty of sperms on the slide though. Does anybody have an idea what the problem might be? Thank you for your time, Christa Christa Nussbaumer, Mag.Dr.rer.nat. Institute of Forensic Medicine University of Vienna Senseng.2 A-1090 Vienna AUSTRIA phone: ++43-1-4277-65760 fax: ++43-1-4277-9657 From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 10:53:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12498 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12493 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:53:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA25818; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:53:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:53:32 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Elena Stilli cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: characterizing sharp force trauma on bone In-Reply-To: <20000109191951.266.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I don't know where you are, but I would strongly suggest that you contact your "local" forensic/physical anthropologist. If you are in a big city, your local ME office will either have one as a consultant or will be able to point you to one. There has, of course, been a fair amount of work done in the area you ask about, and it is covered in most textbooks of forensic medicine and forensic anthropology. What you *really* want, however, is to get some one-on-one time with a person who really does this for a living. This will be important not only in getting articles, but in interpreting them. Moreover, if this becomes an interest of yours, it would likely be to your benefit to actually see some it hands-on. Interviewing your local forensic anthopologist will be very worthwhile. If you do not have access to a local forensic anthropologist, send me email offline and I will see if ours can give you a pointer. billo On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Elena Stilli wrote: > From: Elena Stilli > > > Hello, > > I seek any and all information, whether it be a journal article, book or > advice from an educated professional, on the characterization of sharp force > trauma on skeletal remains. I am doing a fourth year project involving the > quantification and qualification of the stab marks that I will inflict on > two pigs using both serrated and straight edge blades. If anyone knows of > any good resources or has any advice for me before I begin, I am anxious to > hear from you. > > Thanks, > Elena > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 11:55:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA13531 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:54:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.220.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13518 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id IAA23330 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:52:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id IAA23317 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Mon, 10 Jan 00 08:52:10 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from VCISD-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:51:46 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.3 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:51:27 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: Sidg@aol.com, ew639398@ohiou.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: determination of time since discharge of a firearm MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1464D1B0249146-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id LAA13519 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Neither the NRA nor any of the manufactures is likely to have any information on these tests. They are strictly a forensic issue. There was a study from India around 25 years ago that no one I know was able to duplicate (my lab tried at the time. The Russian article was the first revisit to the subject that I know of. Luke Haag looked at this out-gassing decay testing technique and found it may be promising. The last I spoke to Luke about this he was applying for a grant to study the possibility of using some instrumentation to study the decay of the out-gassing process. As indicated above this technique is experimental at this time. It is a study of the decay of the out-gassing process of a given ammunition in a given barrel. It needs to be conducted in a short time frame from the time of discharge, hours or perhaps a few days. This out-gassing decay is then compared to tests using the same firearm and ammunition combination. I don't believe that sufficient work has been done to this point in time to know the pitfalls of the process or how consistent the results are from firearm to firearm (or even in the same firearm). In short I haven't seen a sufficient verification study published. Luke Haag in Carefree, Az. was the one researcher in this country that I am aware of but there are probably others. Luke would probably know who and what they have done. He has published some material in the AFTE Journal over the past 3 or 4 years though not a great deal and mostly showing that the Russian technique was promising. Luke is fairly well known but I don't like to put other peoples phone or e-mail up without their permission: so if you do not know how to reach him or if you are not working from his AFTE article and need it contact me off the list. I'll put you in touch with him or look back in my AFTE issues and get you the info that is there, or both. James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> 01/07/00 06:08AM >>> In a message dated 1/7/00 12:46:14 AM, ew639398@ohiou.edu writes: << Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time since discharge of a firearm? >> You may actually be able to get an answer for this question from NRA (www.nra.org). If they don't know, they may be able to point you in the right direction. Any of the gun manufacturers may be able to answer it also. Try www.smith-wesson.com. They'll probably send you to their research department. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 12:21:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13923 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:21:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.220.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13918 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:21:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id JAA10334 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:18:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id JAA10323 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.3); Mon, 10 Jan 00 09:18:44 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from VCISD-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:18:22 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.3 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:18:04 -0800 From: "James Roberts" To: ew639398@ohiou.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: determination of time since discharge of a firearm MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1464CBFE250365-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id MAA13919 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO After I sent my last post on this I remembered that there was an additional study recently by one of the Scandinavian country's labs on out-gassing of shotgun barrels. I think that might be in an AFTE Journal as well. It seems as if it would be in the last year. If I can find time later in the day I'll try to look it up (Might also have been in JFS). Jim James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "Elisa Weckerling" 01/06/00 08:19PM >>> List, Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time since discharge of a firearm? I have one paper from a Russian study which used a spectrophotometer to test for nitric oxide levels from the bore but have had trouble finding more sources. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Elisa From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 14:16:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15323 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:14:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.25.39]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15318 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from cbrenner.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (h207-21-136-159.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.159]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA14698 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:14:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19991219115041.00b90c90@uclink4.berkeley.edu> Message-Id: <4.1.19991219115041.00b90c90@uclink4.berkeley.edu> Message-Id: <4.1.19991219115041.00b90c90@uclink4.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@uclink4.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:15:08 -0800 To: From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: [Fwd: 12-14-99 = statistics on prisoners] In-Reply-To: <004001bf49de$75fac7c0$8733c126@aluma> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; types="text/plain,text/html"; boundary="=====================_52825172==_.ALT" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --=====================_52825172==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:03 PM 12/18/99 -0600, J. T. Price wrote: >If incarcerating users and pushers reduces the quantity of >property crimes it would seem to be easy to prove. Those states >with the greatest numbers of incarcerated users/users at liberty >would have the lowest property crime rate. No, it is really hard to prove things like this with statistics (and incidentally, I don't see how the number of incarcerated users plays into the equation -- surely the ratio you have in mind is users at liberty, as a proportion of all citizens). Nor is it likely that the argument can be won this easily. I'm sypathetic -- I als In fact, if we put enough people in jail, property crimes will decrease. The national rate of incarceration has grown about five-fold in 25 years. That's a lot; maybe it's "enough." It is reasonable to argue that the cure is worse than the disease, but such draconian policies plausibly do contribute to recent crime rate decreases. It is a standard canard that "you can prove anything with statistics." Maybe "you can't prove anything with statistics" is closer to the truth. Even the most persuasive statistical explanation that I have yet seen for the drop in crime statistics -- the theory reported in August that half of it is attributable to legalization of abortion -- has some chinks. --=====================_52825172==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 11:03 PM 12/18/99 -0600, J. T. Price wrote:
>If incarcerating users and pushers reduces the quantity of
>property crimes it would seem to be easy to prove.  Those states
>with the greatest numbers of incarcerated users/users at liberty
>would have the lowest property crime rate.

No, it is really hard to prove things like this with statistics (and incidentally, I don't see how the number of incarcerated users plays into the equation -- surely the ratio you have in mind is users at liberty, as a proportion of all citizens).

Nor is it likely that the argument can be won this easily. I'm sypathetic --  I als
In fact, if we put enough people in jail, property crimes will decrease. The national rate of incarceration has grown about five-fold in 25 years. That's a lot; maybe it's "enough." It is reasonable to argue that the cure is worse than the disease, but such draconian policies plausibly do contribute to recent crime rate decreases.

It is a standard canard that "you can prove anything with statistics." Maybe "you can't prove anything with statistics" is closer to the truth. Even the most persuasive statistical explanation that I have yet seen for the drop in crime statistics -- the theory reported in August that half of it is attributable to legalization of abortion -- has some chinks.


--=====================_52825172==_.ALT-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 14:23:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15477 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:23:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15472 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:23:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from cbrenner.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (h207-21-136-159.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.159]) by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA25493 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:23:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200001101923.LAA25493@smtp2.verio.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:23:35 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: [Fwd: 12-14-99 = statistics on prisoners] In-Reply-To: <2f.2f29c03f.25ab5246@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Sorry for accidentally sending a message that I meant to delete, a few moments ago, with the above subject header. I started composing a message several weeks ago on this thread, thought better of it, and today made the mistake of hitting "send" when I meant to trash what was anyway only an incomplete draft. It was not my intention to resurrect a dead thread. Charles Brenner forensic mathematics, etc. From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 14:24:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15495 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:24:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15490 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:24:09 -0500 (EST) From: CSumme3726@aol.com Received: from CSumme3726@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.3b.3b224f0b (5698) for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:23:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3b.3b224f0b.25ab8bb3@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:23:31 EST Subject: What happened to being a professional? To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear list members, As most, I am very puzzled about the professional behavior of some list members. It is one thing to discuss the matter at hand with open and honest communication of ideas and thoughts, but some members have treated this forum as a battle ground. Winning the ego battle seems to be the only thing that they are concerned with. It makes me angry, that for the last 6 1/2 years, I have been preparing for a career in Forensic Science only to be turned down time after time. When some list members in the Forensic Science profession take for granted how fortunate they really are to be working in this field. Chad V. Summerfield BS Microbiology "97" Alderson Broaddus College MS Forensic Science "99" University of New Haven From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 16:30:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA17335 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from rottweiler.fiu.edu (rottweiler.fiu.edu [131.94.64.47]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17330 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:29:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from [131.94.46.102] (chmja.fiu.edu [131.94.46.102]) by rottweiler.fiu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/FIU) with ESMTP id QAA04754 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:29:18 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:27:05 -0500 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Pyrolysis Information Request Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear List Members, We are currently beginning a research project at Florida International University concerning the analysis of ignitable liquid residues from fire scenes by GC/MS. We are particularly interested in the characterization of the pyrolysis products resulting from the burning of objects generally found in fire scene that may interfere with Combustible and Flammable Liquid Residues by GC/MS analyses. We are collecting different objects (mattress material, carpets, plastics, etc.) normally found in a house and which produce potentially interfering pyrolysis products. I would like to ask the list members, particularly those involved in this type of analysis, if they can provide me with a list of objects that are known to interfere as previously explained or if they can relay any personal experiences they had with such objects. Thanks in advance for your help. Best Regards, Eric Stauffer -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry, CP 194 Florida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA Phone : (305) 348-6657 Fax : (305) 348-3772 E-mail : estauf01@fiu.edu --------------------------------------------------------------- From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 22:30:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20359 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:29:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20354 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:29:10 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.c9.c9edaa86 (3866); Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:28:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:28:29 EST Subject: Re: "Consistent with" discussion To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, dave_vonminden@email.msn.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear David, Thank you so much for your response to my post and offer of assistance. You have already given me a question I should ask of the police lab, i.e., what test was actually done and I will do that. I will let you know off-list what they say. As to whether or not one can be guilty of driving under the influence of drugs when taking a prescription medication, the short answer is "yes", with certain qualifications. The medication must be one that does cause impairment of abilities and the individual taking the medication must know that it does cause impairment. Under those circumstances, if you take a drug that impairs your ability to drive and you know it will impair your ability and then drive, then that's driving while impaired by drugs. In a sense, it is like knowingly drinking too much and driving. The difference, at least in New York State (and my comments are limited to New York) is that there are at least two levels of driving offenses involving alcohol. One is driving while intoxicated (a misdemeanor, criminal offense) where the blood alcohol level is .10% or higher and the other is driving while impaired by alcohol where the blood alcohol level is between .05% and under .10%. The latter is a traffic infraction and not a criminal offense. There is no such differentiation with regard to different levels of impairment by drugs. It's either all or nothing. If all, it's a criminal offense, and if it's not, then it's nothing. Again, thanks, and I'll be in touch. Sincerely, Pietrina J. Reda Attorney at Law Freeport, New York In a message dated 00-01-09 19:44:23 EST, dave_vonminden@email.msn.com writes: << It seems to me that the police should maybe had charged your client with reckless driving, if all that person did was to change lanes without signaling (and don't the police have better things to do than to stop someone for such a minor infraction?). However, without a blood level (for the valium) it would be hard to determine if the individual was impaired. If one has a prescription for medication, how can that be driving under the influence of drugs. What you may wish to do is to ask for the lab report on the presence of valium. It is possible that the lab that ran the test used a single test to determine if the drug was present. Without the presence of a second, confirming test (such as GC/MS), then you should be able to raise enough doubt about the validity of the single test (there are many benzodiazepines, of which valium is one) that will also give a positive screening result. >> From forens-owner Mon Jan 10 22:39:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20443 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20438 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:39:24 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id w.79.79737c91 (3866); Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:38:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <79.79737c91.25abffa3@aol.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:38:11 EST Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) To: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Dave, Not looking for a "scientific whore"...can't stand the thought of perpetuating that vocation... I was just looking for information in understanding what was done scientifically to see if in fact the prosecution evidence reaches the level of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". Your post, however, has added to my education, particularly with regard to the fact that the levels for presumption of effect of mind altering chemicals are pretty arbitrary, if they exist at all. New York State does not define such levels and I would think it would be extremely difficult to ascertain such levels given the wide variety of mind alterning drugs that are out there and what I would think would be a highly individualized response to such drugs. Of course, that last statement is a layman's statement only, gleaned from observation and some reading (and not personal experience!). Pietrina J. Reda Attorney at Law Freeport, New York In a message dated 00-01-10 00:27:14 EST, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: << Of course it is possible to quantitate Valium (diazepam) but the meaning varies depending on the source of analyte (blood tells you a functional level, urine quantitation is not useful beyond setting cutoff limits.) The problem with driving under the influence of mind altering chemicals of any sort is that the levels for presumption of effect are pretty arbitrary and I don't think most states even define levels for anything but alcohol. Synergistic effects between benzodiazepines and alcohol are well known and if what you need is someone to deny this, check your contacts for "scientific whores." I suggest searching the NLM (http://igm.nlm.nih.gov/) against the subjects "alcohol", "benzodiazepine", and "driving" and then seeking a plea bargain. Dave Hause >> From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 00:15:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21121 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:14:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA21116 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:14:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26455 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2000 05:14:24 -0000 Received: from access-4-21.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.90) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 11 Jan 2000 05:14:24 -0000 Message-ID: <043701bf5bf2$9acb6f20$a27237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <79.79737c91.25abffa3@aol.com> Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:13:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO And I'll make the return caution that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is something from the finder of fact, with the famous line (Cardozo, maybe) that 'even if your argument for your client doesn't convince you, it may convince the finder of fact, and then who is right?' I guess I could even throw in an apology for the implication that an attorney I don't personally know would seek a "scientific whore". Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) Dear Dave, Not looking for a "scientific whore"...can't stand the thought of perpetuating that vocation... I was just looking for information in understanding what was done scientifically to see if in fact the prosecution evidence reaches the level of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". Your post, however, has added to my education, particularly with regard to the fact that the levels for presumption of effect of mind altering chemicals are pretty arbitrary, if they exist at all. New York State does not define such levels and I would think it would be extremely difficult to ascertain such levels given the wide variety of mind alterning drugs that are out there and what I would think would be a highly individualized response to such drugs. Of course, that last statement is a layman's statement only, gleaned from observation and some reading (and not personal experience!). Pietrina J. Reda Attorney at Law Freeport, New York In a message dated 00-01-10 00:27:14 EST, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: << Of course it is possible to quantitate Valium (diazepam) but the meaning varies depending on the source of analyte (blood tells you a functional level, urine quantitation is not useful beyond setting cutoff limits.) The problem with driving under the influence of mind altering chemicals of any sort is that the levels for presumption of effect are pretty arbitrary and I don't think most states even define levels for anything but alcohol. Synergistic effects between benzodiazepines and alcohol are well known and if what you need is someone to deny this, check your contacts for "scientific whores." I suggest searching the NLM (http://igm.nlm.nih.gov/) against the subjects "alcohol", "benzodiazepine", and "driving" and then seeking a plea bargain. Dave Hause >> From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 10:31:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26730 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:30:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26715 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:30:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA17658; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:29:30 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000111073101.009863c0@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:32:34 -0800 To: "Christopher J. Basten":; From: KdSUA@aol.com (by way of Kim Kruglick ) Subject: class project on forensic science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Folks, Got the following request through my Web site. If anyone can assist this young woman, please reply to her directly. Thanks Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com MESSAGE FOLLOWS: Hello, my name is Katie Dierkes and I am a junior at Saint Ursula Academy in Cincinnati, Oh. For my chemistry class I need to interview a forensic scientist, preferably in the Cincinnati area. If you could in any way help me out as soon as possible that would be great! Thanks for your time! Katie Dierkes KdSUA@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 11:57:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28100 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:56:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28095 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from cbrenner.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (h207-21-136-201.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.201]) by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA00187 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:56:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200001111656.IAA00187@smtp2.verio.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:57:13 -0800 To: From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) In-Reply-To: <043701bf5bf2$9acb6f20$a27237c0@dwhause> References: <79.79737c91.25abffa3@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 11:13 PM 1/10/00 -0600, Dave Hause wrote: >And I'll make the return caution that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is >something from the finder of fact, with the famous line (Cardozo, maybe) >that 'even if your argument for your client doesn't convince you, it may >convince the finder of fact, and then who is right?' This one? -- An argument which does not convince yourself may convince the judge to whom you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. Samuel Johnson (to Boswell), circa 1791 http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner/boswell.htm Charles Brenner From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 12:50:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28563 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:50:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28558 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:50:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from forensci.demon.co.uk ([158.152.84.218]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1285RC-000IY4-0C; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:50:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:47:08 +0000 To: James Roberts Cc: ew639398@ohiou.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Lloyd Subject: Re: determination of time since discharge of a firearm In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In message , James Roberts writes >After I sent my last post on this I remembered that there was an additional >study recently by one of the Scandinavian country's labs on out-gassing of >shotgun barrels. I think that might be in an AFTE Journal as well. It seems as >if it would be in the last year. If I can find time later in the day I'll try >to look it up (Might also have been in JFS). > >Jim > >James L. Roberts >Firearm and Toolmark Examiner >Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab >(805) 654-2308 >James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > >>>> "Elisa Weckerling" 01/06/00 08:19PM >>> >List, > >Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time >since discharge of a firearm? I have one paper from a Russian study which >used a spectrophotometer to test for nitric oxide levels from the bore but >have had trouble finding more sources. Any insight would be greatly >appreciated. > >Thanks, > >Elisa > > > > Andrasko et al., J. Forens. Sci. 1998, 43, 1005-1015: 'Time since discharge of shotguns'. Andrasko and Stahling, J. Forens. Sci., 1999, 44, 487-495: 'Time since discharge of spent cartridges'. -- John Lloyd West Midlands, UK From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 14:54:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00182 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:51:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00177 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:46:05 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C22D@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:50:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Yeah, that's the one. Thanks. That's part of why I had to become a pathologist; always flunked "roundsmanship" in med school because I couldn't remember sources. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Charles H. Brenner [mailto:uclink4.berkeley.edu@verio.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 10:57 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) At 11:13 PM 1/10/00 -0600, Dave Hause wrote: >And I'll make the return caution that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is >something from the finder of fact, with the famous line (Cardozo, maybe) >that 'even if your argument for your client doesn't convince you, it may >convince the finder of fact, and then who is right?' This one? -- An argument which does not convince yourself may convince the judge to whom you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. Samuel Johnson (to Boswell), circa 1791 http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner/boswell.htm Charles Brenner From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 15:21:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00591 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:21:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00586 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:21:07 -0500 (EST) From: idearmo@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001112021.PAA00586@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:22:38 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: snorkel hoods Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:57:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO We're in the process of planning construction of a new Laboratory. Does anyone use "snorkel hoods"? They're like swing-out desk lamps that you can position as needed. Are they suitable for evaporation of solvents from extracts? Would one be better off with a real hood? Any information from users would be greatly appreciated! Ingrid, WSP Crime Lab From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 19:08:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02599 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:07:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from lucy.cc.swin.edu.au (lucy.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.111]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02586 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:07:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from swin.edu.au (STREMOTE52-199.tafe.swin.edu.au [136.186.52.199]) by lucy.cc.swin.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07254 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:07:18 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <387BC664.F41234AE@swin.edu.au> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:10:13 +1100 From: Training Section Organization: Victoria Police Fingerprint Branch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Request for Information on Fingerprint Forgeries References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am a Forensic Officer attatched to the Victoria Police Fingerprint Branch Australia. I am doing a research project on Fingerprint Forgery Cases, and also looking for any information on studies people have carried out on Fingerprint Forgeries (with regards to other people and their ability to be able to tell the difference between a forged print and a true print). thank you Gillian FORRESTER From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 19:32:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02789 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:32:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lucy.cc.swin.edu.au (lucy.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.111]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02784 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:31:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from swin.edu.au (STREMOTE52-199.tafe.swin.edu.au [136.186.52.199]) by lucy.cc.swin.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03204 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:31:50 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <387BCC25.1832963E@swin.edu.au> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:34:45 +1100 From: Training Section Fingerprint Branch Organization: Victoria Police Fingerprint Branch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Request for Information on Fingerprint Forgeries Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I am a Forensic Officer attatched to the Victoria Police Fingerprint Branch Australia. I am doing a research project on Fingerprint Forgery Cases, and also looking for any information on studies people have carried out on Fingerprint Forgeries (with regards to other people and their ability to be able to tell the difference between a forged print and a true print). thank you Gillian FORRESTER From forens-owner Tue Jan 11 20:28:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03196 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:27:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au (bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03185 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from student.uq.edu.au (s349288@student.uq.edu.au [130.102.2.20]) by bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28738; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:26:53 +1000 (GMT+1000) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:26:53 +1000 (GMT+1000) From: Claire Armstrong To: Training Section cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Request for Information on Fingerprint Forgeries In-Reply-To: <387BC664.F41234AE@swin.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Gillian Fingerprint expert - hilton kobus - in australia may be able to help you out. If you don't know where to contact him, anzfss will have his contact details. regards Claire On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Training Section wrote: > I am a Forensic Officer attatched to the Victoria Police Fingerprint > Branch Australia. > > I am doing a research project on Fingerprint Forgery Cases, and also > looking for any information on studies people have carried out on > Fingerprint Forgeries (with regards to other people and their ability to > be able to tell the difference between a forged print and a true print). > > thank you > Gillian FORRESTER > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 00:10:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05058 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:07:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f66.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.66]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA05053 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:07:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13633 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jan 2000 05:06:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000112050650.13632.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 142.150.129.68 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:06:50 PST X-Originating-IP: [142.150.129.68] From: "Yuki Shimura" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: LIMS Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:06:50 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hello, I'm a 4th year undergraduate student seeking any information related to the use of Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) in forensics. I know that the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto uses LIMS and I would like to hear any information about other forensic facilities or police agencies that use LIMS or similar systems. I'm especially interested in hearing about how LIMS is used and about any benefits and disadvantages. Thank you in advance Yuki Shimura ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 09:21:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08873 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA08868 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.194]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20358; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:16:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <387C8C85.2331A9F4@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:15:33 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Lloyd CC: James Roberts , ew639398@ohiou.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: determination of time since discharge of a firearm References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------237C93FBA1D5952F102F532A" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --------------237C93FBA1D5952F102F532A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In case this reference to "time since discharge" has not been mentioned I will throw it in: "Spectrophotometric Determination of Time Since Discharge of Firearms" by Garnik P. Vokertchian and Galina V. Pavilova, Crime Laboratory Digest, Jan '95 v.22 #1 pp 5-10 John Lloyd wrote: > In message , James Roberts > writes > >After I sent my last post on this I remembered that there was an additional > >study recently by one of the Scandinavian country's labs on out-gassing of > >shotgun barrels. I think that might be in an AFTE Journal as well. It seems as > >if it would be in the last year. If I can find time later in the day I'll try > >to look it up (Might also have been in JFS). > > > >Jim > > > >James L. Roberts > >Firearm and Toolmark Examiner > >Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab > >(805) 654-2308 > >James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us > > > >>>> "Elisa Weckerling" 01/06/00 08:19PM >>> > >List, > > > >Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time > >since discharge of a firearm? I have one paper from a Russian study which > >used a spectrophotometer to test for nitric oxide levels from the bore but > >have had trouble finding more sources. Any insight would be greatly > >appreciated. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Elisa > > > > > > > > > > Andrasko et al., J. Forens. Sci. 1998, 43, 1005-1015: 'Time since > discharge of shotguns'. > > Andrasko and Stahling, J. Forens. Sci., 1999, 44, 487-495: 'Time since > discharge of spent cartridges'. > > -- > John Lloyd > West Midlands, UK --------------237C93FBA1D5952F102F532A Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In case this reference to "time since discharge" has not been mentioned I will throw it in:  "Spectrophotometric Determination of Time Since Discharge of Firearms" by Garnik P. Vokertchian and Galina V. Pavilova, Crime Laboratory Digest, Jan '95 v.22 #1 pp 5-10

John Lloyd wrote:

In message <s879a3de.081@gwia.co.ventura.ca.us>, James Roberts
<James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us> writes
>After I sent my last post on this I remembered that there was an additional
>study recently by one of the Scandinavian country's labs on out-gassing of
>shotgun barrels.  I think that might be in an AFTE Journal as well.  It seems as
>if it would be in the last year.  If I can find time later in the day I'll try
>to look it up (Might also have been in JFS).
>
>Jim
>
>James L. Roberts
>Firearm and Toolmark Examiner
>Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab
>(805) 654-2308
>James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us
>
>>>> "Elisa Weckerling" <ew639398@ohiou.edu> 01/06/00 08:19PM >>>
>List,
>
>Does anyone have any information or experience with determining the time
>since discharge of a firearm? I have one paper from a Russian study which
>used a spectrophotometer to test for nitric oxide levels from the bore but
>have had trouble finding more sources. Any insight would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Elisa
>
>
>
>

Andrasko et al., J. Forens. Sci. 1998, 43, 1005-1015: 'Time since
discharge of shotguns'.

Andrasko and Stahling, J. Forens. Sci., 1999, 44, 487-495: 'Time since
discharge of spent cartridges'.

--
John Lloyd
West Midlands, UK

--------------237C93FBA1D5952F102F532A-- From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 10:58:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10341 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10336 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:57:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:57:23 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: A question to any forensic examiner (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Note: Post messages to forens@statgen.ncsu.edu and send help requests to owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu. Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:44:17 -0500 From: Lee Griggs To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: A question to any forensic examiner I do forensic lock analysis - i.e., the forensic examination of vehicle ignition locks, door locks, etc., with reference to fraudulent theft claims, questioned analysis by other "examiners", etc. My problem and question is this: I have done work for insurance companies, law enforcement and forensic labs. I have also done work for plaintiff attorneys. When talking with some insurance SIU's, they state that they will not use my work because they "want to work with someone who only does insurance company work." In other words, if I serve as an expert for a plaintiff attorney, that insurance company and SIU will never use my lab even though they know that the work is scientifically accepted, peer reviewed and meets all court requirements - much more than the majority of other examiners doing lock work. What is the answer to this problem? I feel that ethically I should represent whoever asks for my services and do the best job for all comers no matter who they represent. I am currently doing exams for three different insurance companies and also doing work with two plaintiff attorneys. I deal only in facts, not slanted for either side. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Lee Griggs Protection Technology, Inc. Forensic lock analysis nationwide. Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Website: http://www.msegroup.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 12:15:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11166 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:14:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11161 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:08:53 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C231@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: A question to any forensic examiner (fwd) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:13:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Some insurance companies won't hire you if you work for anyone other than insurance companies. (Do they put this in writing?) My guess is that these same companies will probably cease to retain you if your findings are adverse to them. My suggestion would be to let that company name information circulate among the plaintiffs' bar, as it would seem to call into question the ethics of those who repeatedly do work for those specific companies. Of course, that then gets into the whole question of how experts are evaluated for objectivity, which I think we have rehashed here repeatedly. Dave Hause ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:44:17 -0500 From: Lee Griggs To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: A question to any forensic examiner I do forensic lock analysis - i.e., the forensic examination of vehicle ignition locks, door locks, etc., with reference to fraudulent theft claims, questioned analysis by other "examiners", etc. My problem and question is this: I have done work for insurance companies, law enforcement and forensic labs. I have also done work for plaintiff attorneys. When talking with some insurance SIU's, they state that they will not use my work because they "want to work with someone who only does insurance company work." In other words, if I serve as an expert for a plaintiff attorney, that insurance company and SIU will never use my lab even though they know that the work is scientifically accepted, peer reviewed and meets all court requirements - much more than the majority of other examiners doing lock work. What is the answer to this problem? I feel that ethically I should represent whoever asks for my services and do the best job for all comers no matter who they represent. I am currently doing exams for three different insurance companies and also doing work with two plaintiff attorneys. I deal only in facts, not slanted for either side. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Lee Griggs Protection Technology, Inc. Forensic lock analysis nationwide. Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Website: http://www.msegroup.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 14:16:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12300 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:15:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1608.mail.yahoo.com (web1608.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.150]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA12295 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:15:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6172 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jan 2000 19:15:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20000112191548.6171.qmail@web1608.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [156.29.73.19] by web1608.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:15:48 PST Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:15:48 -0800 (PST) From: Patricia Lough Subject: GHB Analysis To: CAT Forum , forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Does anyone know of a lab that performs GHB analysis on biological and nonbiological samples? They must be able to differentiate GHB from the precursors and their method must be validated. Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 14:44:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12598 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12593 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:38:45 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C235@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "Forens (E-mail)" Subject: RE: A question to any forensic examiner (fwd) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 13:43:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Presuming on friendship and guessing that Dr. Wright actually meant to reply to the list, rather than directly to me. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: R.K. Wright MD JD [mailto:wrightjd@bellsouth.net] I have not encountered such positions from insurance companies. (Wanting only "Defense" expert. However, I have quit becoming surprised, indeed a long time ago. Generally, I think that most folk who work in this area seem to prefer unbiased and honest evaluations of forensic materials. Unfortunately, I think you have just experienced an anomaly. ----- Original Message ----- From: Hause, David W LTC GLWACH To: Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:13 PM Subject: RE: A question to any forensic examiner (fwd) > Some insurance companies won't hire you if you work for anyone other than > insurance companies. (Do they put this in writing?) My guess is that these > same companies will probably cease to retain you if your findings are > adverse to them. My suggestion would be to let that company name > information circulate among the plaintiffs' bar, as it would seem to call > into question the ethics of those who repeatedly do work for those specific > companies. Of course, that then gets into the whole question of how experts > are evaluated for objectivity, which I think we have rehashed here > repeatedly. > Dave Hause > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:44:17 -0500 > From: Lee Griggs > To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: A question to any forensic examiner > > I do forensic lock analysis - i.e., the forensic examination of vehicle > ignition locks, door locks, etc., with reference to fraudulent theft > claims, questioned analysis by other "examiners", etc. My problem and > question is this: I have done work for insurance companies, law enforcement > and forensic labs. I have also done work for plaintiff attorneys. When > talking with some insurance SIU's, they state that they will not use my > work because they "want to work with someone who only does insurance > company work." In other words, if I serve as an expert for a plaintiff > attorney, that insurance company and SIU will never use my lab even though > they know that the work is scientifically accepted, peer reviewed and > meets all court requirements - much more than the majority of other > examiners doing lock work. What is the answer to this problem? I feel > that ethically I should represent whoever asks for my services and do > the best job for all comers no matter who they represent. I am currently > doing exams for three different insurance companies and also doing work > with two plaintiff attorneys. I deal only in facts, not slanted for either > side. Any suggestions will be appreciated. > Lee Griggs > > Protection Technology, Inc. > Forensic lock analysis nationwide. > Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 > Website: http://www.msegroup.com > > > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 12 16:07:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13355 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:06:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.usit.net (SMTP1.USIT.NET [199.1.48.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13350 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:06:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sears.SLED (DIALUP78.SCCOL.USIT.NET [216.80.194.78]) by smtp1.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id QAA10204 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:00:10 -0500 Message-ID: <01BF5D16.1AC75D00.robsears@usit.net> From: Robert Sears Reply-To: "robsears@usit.net" To: "'idearmo@wsp.wa.gov'" Cc: "'Forens-L (new)'" Subject: RE: snorkel hoods Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 15:57:04 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BF5D16.1AC75D00" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ------ =_NextPart_000_01BF5D16.1AC75D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Our laboratory currently uses snorkel hoods over various devices in our robotics room. Especially the evaporators and incubators. These hoods are not as efficient as a full fume hood but are not bad for point source odors/hazards. Our biggest problem involves the position of the device. I have to keep the bonnet high enough to allow the robot access to the rack which is really too high to be effective. We purchased our hoods from Lab Safety Co. and I believe this model is still available. It is made of white plastic (PVC I think) and can be mounted to the ceiling or table (I suppose wall also) with the appropriate hardware. The hood connects to the exhaust duct with a 3" PVC duct which looks like dryer hose. Robert ------ =_NextPart_000_01BF5D16.1AC75D00 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgsVAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAYAIAAAIAAAANAAAAAwAAMAMAAAAL AA8OAQAAAAIB/w8BAAAAQwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAABAGlkZWFybW9Ad3NwLndh LmdvdgBTTVRQAGlkZWFybW9Ad3NwLndhLmdvdgAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAA ABMAAABpZGVhcm1vQHdzcC53YS5nb3YAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAABUAAAAnaWRl YXJtb0B3c3Aud2EuZ292JwAAAAACAQswAQAAABgAAABTTVRQOklERUFSTU9AV1NQLldBLkdPVgAD AAA5AAAAAAsAQDoAAAAAAwBxOgAAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADDAAAAAMAADAEAAAACwAPDgAA AAACAf8PAQAAAHAAAAAAAAAAtTvCwCx3EBqhvAgAKypWwhUAAACVGCvmam3REb/CAGCXlQPExIwA AAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAEZvcmVucy1MIChuZXcpAFNNVFAAZm9yZW5zQHN0YXRn ZW4ubmNzdS5lZHUAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABgAAABmb3JlbnNAc3RhdGdl bi5uY3N1LmVkdQADABUMAgAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAARAAAAJ0ZvcmVucy1MIChuZXcpJwAA AAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOkZPUkVOU0BTVEFUR0VOLk5DU1UuRURVAAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBA OgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAEcHIBBIABABIAAABSRTogc25vcmtlbCBob29kcwAsBgEFgAMA DgAAANAHAQAMAA8AOQAEAAMAMwEBIIADAA4AAADQBwEADAAPADQAEQADADsBAQmAAQAhAAAARUQx OEY5MDhGREM4RDMxMUJGQzMwMDEwNEJBMjU0OTcAOAcBA5AGAKQEAAAVAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYA AAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQCgVHiUP12/AR4AcAABAAAAEgAAAFJFOiBz bm9ya2VsIGhvb2RzAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAb9dP5RvCPkY9sj9EdO/wwAQS6JUlwAAHgAeDAEA AAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAAByb2JzZWFyc0B1c2l0Lm5ldAAAAAMABhABIFXFAwAH EEoCAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABPVVJMQUJPUkFUT1JZQ1VSUkVOVExZVVNFU1NOT1JLRUxIT09EU09W RVJWQVJJT1VTREVWSUNFU0lOT1VSUk9CT1RJQ1NST09NRVNQRUNJQUxMWVRIRUVWQVBPUkFUT1JT QU5EAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA4gIAAN4CAADTAwAATFpGdQTsFvwDAAoAcmNwZzEyNf4yAP8CBgKkA+QF 6wKDAFATA1QCAGNoCsBzZXT+MgYABsMCgw5QA9UHEwKAbn0KgAjPCdk7FY8OMDUvAoAKgQ5xC2Bu DhAwMy4zCvsTsgwBYwBAIE+NCHAgC2AG4HJhdAWwuHkgYwhwFZACMGwbQCZ1ErAEIHNuBbBrZZkD IGhvBHAEIG92BJB0IHYKwGkIYAQgDnB2fw3gB5ELgB0gGoEDYAbgdA8N4AQgA2ADcC4gRXMOcAWQ BzEb0XRoZSC5HhBhcBrkBCAAcGQece0bYGIhMx/AVCCgErAcxe8KwCCwHGAFQGEEIA6BDeCHCJAC MCPCYSBmdSBQxyThB4AcwyBidSOxI2V/IhAhsAIQBcAhAAuABUBzVwhhHkAdIGQhUS8SgHqHCxEi YRpyYmlnZweQRQVAcB7xbGVtHnF2/wbwHUAEICCSIQAAkB8wAiBdHSBmIIMeBB/ASRzAYZMdQCCA byAckGVwIIO5BuBubhLAHMApMGggwN0cYHUuMSzhIEFvB+Agkvse8yGAYx5BKpEs8C9jANB4ayB3 LhAScB5wH2Fl7yBEHOAuBCzhYiCxDpAFkN8fMB1AH8AKhQqFVyrRJ6E/EoASsCGwHrIc1ANSIEz3 AaAGATNAdBtACFAfwCGS+yxwMvBsCJAssi4QBCAEYv8DIDGRKXADEAMgLKALcBqx/yngLFEFQDhi JrAn0SuQMTEOdCrRC2A5IWMgKFCMVkMsYThBbmspIYPuYwORMvEEYHUCMDVRMHX3HkADEAuAZx0g BcABkSngYzvgLHBzdXAq8SCwd/8gQS7xJ4A8sAPwIJAggyDw3ymhKaAHMDtBEoFkQDAVkD8icyWE BaAtwTNgMFdleOcSgBwABUBkdTNgQNQk0HgzIiA8AkTkMUMVIG/+awQgN+AckB3wGzAdURzQfxKw M74IADLwACAKhRSxAAFKIAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAB4AQhABAAAAMAAAADwyMDAwMDExMTIw MjEuUEFBMDA1ODZAYnJvb2tzLnN0YXRnZW4ubmNzdS5lZHU+AEAABzDAIWnpPl2/AUAACDDAIWnp Pl2/AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AAB1Rg== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BF5D16.1AC75D00-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 03:17:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18287 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 03:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from apf.cbft.unipd.it (IDENT:root@apf.cbft.unipd.it [147.162.123.250]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA18282 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 03:16:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [147.162.123.120] (ws120.cbft.unipd.it [147.162.123.120]) by apf.cbft.unipd.it (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA18154 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:08:31 +0100 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:08:31 +0100 X-Sender: giorgetti@apf.cbft.unipd.it (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: giorgetti@cbft.unipd.it (Raffaele Giorgetti) Subject: Re: GHB Analysis Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO We do perform that kind of analysis. You can see the reference "Ferrara et al., Therapeutic gamma-hydroxybutiric acid monitoring in plasma and urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, Journal of Pharmaceutical & Biomedical Analysis, II, 6, 483-487, 1993. In USA a recent work of McCusker et al. (Gainesville, Florida) on Journal of Analytical Toxicology 23, Sept 1999, pp 301-305. Dr. Raffaele Giorgetti Medicina Legale Universita' di Padova Italy From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 09:43:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20830 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:38:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20825 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:38:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA19188; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:38:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:38:18 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Unbonmot@aol.com cc: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) In-Reply-To: <79.79737c91.25abffa3@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 Unbonmot@aol.com wrote: > From: Unbonmot@aol.com > > > Your post, however, has added to my education, particularly with regard to > the fact that the levels for presumption of effect of mind altering chemicals > are pretty arbitrary, if they exist at all. New York State does not define > such levels and I would think it would be extremely difficult to ascertain > such levels given the wide variety of mind alterning drugs that are out there > and what I would think would be a highly individualized response to such > drugs. Of course, that last statement is a layman's statement only, gleaned > from observation and some reading (and not personal experience!). Heh. This reminds me of the only time I ever testified that somebody would have been significantly impaired by alcohol -- a case which provided a great learning experience both in testifying and in reliance on SOPs. When I was in training, it was pounded into our skulls that, because the variation in tolerance to alcohol was so great between individuals and depended on such idiosyncratic features, it was very unwise to make a "medical" opinion that a given individual was "significantly" impaired at any given time. The greatest causes of variation is, of course, habituation -- an alcoholic with a (relatively) healthy liver and brain often has a much slower degradation of many abilities while teetotalers and light drinkers will succumb more quickly. It is well known, for instance, that some hard-core alcoholics are able to function socially with blood alcohol levels which are often fatal in normal people. I had a case of a "little old lady" who ran into a fire truck which was responding to a call. She was found to have a rather high alcohol level on board. I can't remember exactly how much it was -- but it was way over the .1% that most folk consider for DWI. The family/estate for the little old lady sued the city, stating that the fire truck was at fault. The alcohol on board, of course, was a bit of a hinderance to the case -- the city noted that if she weren't drunk, she might have paid more attention to the flashing lights, honking horn, and blaring siren. The plaintiff claimed that a) she really wasn't a drinker, and she must have just had a little taste at lunch, and b) the amount of alcohol was overstated because of spillage of stomach contents ( amounting to more than a little "taste", let me tell you) into the abdomen and diffusion into the blood. When I drew my conclusion, I noted that there was no gross or histologic evidence of long term heavy drinking, so I opined that if the plaintiff's statement about her drinking history were true, then she was severely impaired. A relative teetotaler simply cannot be running around with an ETOH level of, oh, .2% and not be impaired; every study I have ever seen indicates that the only folk who can function at a level > .2% without significant impairment are those who walk around with that level most of the time. The one condition that would have allowed her *not* to be impaired was one the plaintiff denied. Well, that might have been OK, and I still believe it to be true. However... this lady had transected her thoracic aorta, and the heart was empty. I did this case when I was in training, and during that time the SOP for our morgue was to get blood from the pulmonary vasculature in such a case. The diaphragm was not torn, and stomach contents had not entered the thorax, so I did exactly that. I did not believe that the blood was contaminated with stomach contents. Also, at that time, we did not routinely collect vitreous -- though that did become SOP later. Five or six years pass, and the plaintiff files suit something like the day before time would have run out for filing. It takes another year or so for the trial to get going. Now, six or seven years out, I get called to the stand. I didn't remember the case -- it was a relatively standard MVA, and our office actually wasn't funded to do standard MVAs. I think the only reason we even did an autopsy on this case was because it involved a government vehicle. In fact, I *still* don't remember the case; I only remember the trial. In that office, we did not write down every action taken if it is in accordance with the SOP. Otherwise, every report would be 500 pages long and inpenetrable. When I did the case, the SOP was to pull the blood from the pulmonary vasculature. During the ensuing years, the SOP changed to pull the blood from the femoral arteries. So, I get up on the stand and the plaintiff's counsel asks me where I drew the blood from. I looked at my notes and didn't see it, so I stated that my SOP was to draw it from the femoral vessels in cases where the aorta was transected. The plaintiff's counsel's eyes lit up. "Aha!" He pulled out a piece of paper with a flourish and stated "Is it not true, Dr. Oliver, that you indicated in a telephone call on the 5th of January 1986 that you did *not* take that blood from the femoral vessels, but instead from the pulmonary vessels!" [date made up] "Uh." "Which is it, Dr. Oliver? When were you telling the truth and when were you not telling the truth? Are you telling the truth now, or were you telling the truth in 1986?" "Uh." Oh, Christ, I thought, that *was* when we had the old Chief and the SOP was to do the pulmonary vessels, then. "Uh, well, actually, now that you mention it, the SOP then was to do the pulmonary vessels, not the femorals. Since we don't write down SOP actions in our reports, if it is not written down, it is SOP. In that year, you are correct, we would have pulled the blood from the pulmonary artery. In either case, it was not contaiminated." "So, then, you were telling the truth five years ago, but not now. You `forgot.` But, Dr. Oliver, what *else* have you `forgotten?` How do we know that you did not `forget,` and take the blood from an abdominal vessel?" "That would not have been SOP." "But you don't remember, do you?" "No. I am going by my notes." "In fact, Dr. Oliver, you remember nothing about this case do you?" "Very little, as I stated earler..." ... and on and on and on. Forty-five minutes of being hung by the tongue by plaintiff's counsel. The *fact* that the blood was not contaminated in either case became irrelevant. Finally, after all that, and after the jury was dismissed, the *judge* decided to come after me. "Dr. Oliver, in all my years as a judge, you are the *first* Medical Examiner I have seen who made a statement about whether or not an individual was actually impaired. I am surprised at your willingness to do this. You are the expert, and I am not, but you might want to think long and hard about that..." "Sir, I noted simply that, if the plaintiff's claim is true, then the woman would not have a heavy-drinker's tolerance for alcohol. If the woman *does* have that tolerance, then the claim that she drinks only rarely is not true. One cannot have it both ways." "Whatever, just a word of advice. You are dismissed." All in all, a glorious learning experience and an absolutely hellish day. The substance of my testimony, I still believe, was absolutely correct. My performance on the stand, however, most likely destroyed whatever value it had. Happily, folk in those days were not so eager to turn every mistake into an accusation of bad "ethics" and I was able to learn from the experience without having to fear an inquisition and burning at the stake. billo From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 10:15:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA21420 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from swvx12.swmed.edu (swvx12.swmed.edu [199.165.152.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21415 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from pathology.swmed.edu ([129.112.20.7]) by SWVX12.SWMED.EDU (PMDF V5.2-32 #33124) with ESMTP id <01JKNFR23UN49GYSH0@SWVX12.SWMED.EDU> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:14:49 CDT Received: from pathology.swmed.edu (206.50.80.164) by pathology.swmed.edu with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.3.1); Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:21:12 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:13:17 -0600 From: "Timothy J. Sliter" Subject: STRs for non-scientists To: "'forens-l'" Message-id: <387DEB8D.5DF1150@pathology.swmed.edu> Organization: Institute of Forensic Sciences MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D04DF996FFCC0696ACAF4D58" X-Accept-Language: en Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --------------D04DF996FFCC0696ACAF4D58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List Members, I have been asked to provide a short written overview of the STR profiling method for attorneys and investigators. If anyone has prepared such a document and would be willing to make it available to me, either for dissemination with appropriate citation, or as a model for what I'm doing, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, if anyone is aware of an available and effective article or web-based document that puts the STR method into layman's language I would appreciate hearing about it. Thanks, Tim Sliter ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D. Institute of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas sliter.tim@pathology.swmed.edu --------------D04DF996FFCC0696ACAF4D58 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List Members,

I have been asked to provide a short written overview of the STR profiling method for attorneys and investigators.

If anyone has prepared such a document and would be willing to make it available to me, either for dissemination with appropriate citation, or as a model for what I'm doing, it would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if anyone is aware of an available and effective article or web-based document that puts the STR method into layman's language I would appreciate hearing about it.

Thanks,

Tim Sliter


Timothy J. Sliter, Ph.D.
Institute of Forensic Sciences
Dallas, Texas

sliter.tim@pathology.swmed.edu --------------D04DF996FFCC0696ACAF4D58-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 18:47:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27035 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:46:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27030 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:46:26 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.ad.166e0e (4323) for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:45:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:45:51 EST Subject: Fwd: What a way to start the year......... To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_ad.166e0e.25afbdaf_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_ad.166e0e.25afbdaf_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_ad.166e0e.25afbdaf_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh03.mx.aol.com (rly-yh03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.35]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:37:33 -0500 Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.100]) by rly-yh03.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:37:12 -0500 Received: from pavilion (CHCGB810-36.splitrock.net [209.254.85.139]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA40700; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:36:59 -0500 Message-ID: <00a801bf5bcc$086ed340$bd54fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" Subject: What a way to start the year......... Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:37:23 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A4_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_00A4_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_00A5_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0" ------=_NextPart_001_00A5_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 JANUARY 10, 01:23 EST=20 Virginia Set To Execute Three=20 By BILL BASKERVILL Associated Press Writer=20 RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Douglas Christopher Thomas was 17 when he = used a 12-gauge shotgun to kill his girlfriend's parents because they = tried to keep the young couple apart.=20 Jessica Wiseman, the 14-year-old girlfriend who urged Thomas to = act, was too young to be tried as an adult but was convicted of the 1990 = murders as a juvenile. She was sentened to a juvenile prison, the = maximum penalty, until age 21. She was released in 1997.=20 Thomas is scheduled to receive a lethal injection tonight at the = Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. The way Thomas sees it, life = is unfair.=20 ``What I did when I was 17 was wrong, and yes I should be = punished,'' said Thomas in a telephone interview from the Sussex I State = Prison near Waverly. ``But to pay the ultimate price while my = co-defendant, who is just as guilty as I am, has been released to go on = with a normal life ... is a little extreme.''=20 Since 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstituted the death = penalty after a decade hiatus, 13 people who committed crimes as = juveniles were executed out of a total of 598 state-sanctioned killings. = Seventy-four of those who committed crimes as juveniles remain on the = nation's death rows.=20 The United States is virtually alone in the world in executing = people who committed crimes as juveniles. Only Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, = Saudi Arabia and Yemen executed people in the 1990s for crimes they = committed as juveniles, according to the American Bar Association.=20 ``We're so out of step with the rest of the world,'' said Wally = Mlyniec, associate dean of the Georgetown University Law Center and = chairman of the ABA's juvenile justice committee.=20 ``We still believe that people under 18 are children and don't = commit acts of any sort for the same reason that adults do,'' said = Mlyniec.=20 Thomas, 26, fatally shot James Baxter Wiseman and his wife, = Kathy, as they slept in their home 11 days before Thanksgiving 1990.=20 In addition to Thomas, Steve Edward Roach, 23, who shot a woman = to death and stole her car in 1993 when he was 17, is scheduled for = execution in Virginia Thursday. Texas has set Jan. 25 for the execution = of Glen McGinnis, 26, who killed a woman during a robbery in 1992 when = he, too, was 17.=20 Thomas has asked Gov. Jim Gilmore to commute his sentence to = life in prison without parole. Roach has dropped his court appeals, but = has a clemency petition before the governor.=20 ``I put all my trust in God,'' he said. ``I am ready to accept = whatever happens and I am praying for a miracle.''=20 Nearly 360 people have been executed for juvenile crimes in = America, the first in 1642 at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. The = number comprises 1.8 percent of the roughly 19,200 executions in America = since 1608, according to Victor L. Streib, dean of law at Ohio Northern = University and an expert on juvenile justice.=20 Virginia, second behind Texas in executions, is not swayed by = international standards on executing juveniles who commit capital = crimes.=20 ``The U.S. Supreme Court has held that someone 17 years of age = can be executed for committing capital murder,'' said David Botkins, = spokesman for Attorney General Mark Earley. ``What's important to note = is in Virginia, independently elected commonwealth's attorneys prosecute = these cases and have to decide what sentence to seek based on facts of = the case.''=20 The United States in 1977 signed the International Covenant on = Civil and Political Rights that, among other things, prohibits executing = juveniles. But the Senate, in ratifying the covenant, refused to agree = to the ban on executing 17-year-olds or those who committed capital = crimes as juveniles.=20 =20 home ] us news ] world ] business ] sports ] weather ] search ] = help ] =20 =20 Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or = redistributed. Comments and questions AP privacy statement =20 ------=_NextPart_001_00A5_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



JANUARY=20 10, 01:23 EST

Virginia Set To = Execute=20 Three

By BILL=20 BASKERVILL
Associated Press Writer

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Douglas Christopher Thomas was 17 = when he used a=20 12-gauge shotgun to kill his girlfriend's parents because they = tried to=20 keep the young couple apart.

Jessica Wiseman, the 14-year-old girlfriend who urged Thomas = to act,=20 was too young to be tried as an adult but was convicted of the = 1990=20 murders as a juvenile. She was sentened to a juvenile prison, = the=20 maximum penalty, until age 21. She was released in 1997.

Thomas is scheduled to receive a lethal injection tonight at = the=20 Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. The way Thomas sees = it, life=20 is unfair.

``What I did when I was 17 was wrong, and yes I should be = punished,''=20 said Thomas in a telephone interview from the Sussex I State = Prison near=20 Waverly. ``But to pay the ultimate price while my co-defendant, = who is=20 just as guilty as I am, has been released to go on with a normal = life=20 ... is a little extreme.''

Since 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstituted the = death=20 penalty after a decade hiatus, 13 people who committed crimes as = juveniles were executed out of a total of 598 state-sanctioned = killings.=20 Seventy-four of those who committed crimes as juveniles remain = on the=20 nation's death rows.

The United States is virtually alone in the world in = executing people=20 who committed crimes as juveniles. Only Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, = Saudi=20 Arabia and Yemen executed people in the 1990s for crimes they = committed=20 as juveniles, according to the American Bar Association.

``We're so out of step with the rest of the world,'' said = Wally=20 Mlyniec, associate dean of the Georgetown University Law Center = and=20 chairman of the ABA's juvenile justice committee.

``We still believe that people under 18 are children and = don't commit=20 acts of any sort for the same reason that adults do,'' said = Mlyniec.=20

Thomas, 26, fatally shot James Baxter Wiseman and his wife, = Kathy, as=20 they slept in their home 11 days before Thanksgiving 1990.

In addition to Thomas, Steve Edward Roach, 23, who shot a = woman to=20 death and stole her car in 1993 when he was 17, is scheduled for = execution in Virginia Thursday. Texas has set Jan. 25 for the = execution=20 of Glen McGinnis, 26, who killed a woman during a robbery in = 1992 when=20 he, too, was 17.

Thomas has asked Gov. Jim Gilmore to commute his sentence to = life in=20 prison without parole. Roach has dropped his court appeals, but = has a=20 clemency petition before the governor.

``I put all my trust in God,'' he said. ``I am ready to = accept=20 whatever happens and I am praying for a miracle.''

Nearly 360 people have been executed for juvenile crimes in = America,=20 the first in 1642 at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. The = number=20 comprises 1.8 percent of the roughly 19,200 executions in = America since=20 1608, according to Victor L. Streib, dean of law at Ohio = Northern=20 University and an expert on juvenile justice.

Virginia, second behind Texas in executions, is not swayed by = international standards on executing juveniles who commit = capital=20 crimes.

``The U.S. Supreme Court has held that someone 17 years of = age can be=20 executed for committing capital murder,'' said David Botkins, = spokesman=20 for Attorney General Mark Earley. ``What's important to note is = in=20 Virginia, independently elected commonwealth's attorneys = prosecute these=20 cases and have to decide what sentence to seek based on facts of = the=20 case.''

The United States in 1977 signed the International Covenant = on Civil=20 and Political Rights that, among other things, prohibits = executing=20 juveniles. But the Senate, in ratifying the covenant, refused to = agree=20 to the ban on executing 17-year-olds or those who committed = capital=20 crimes as juveniles.

home ] us news ] world ] business ] sports ] weather ] search ] help ]

Copyright = 2000 Associated=20 Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be = published,=20 broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments and=20 questions
AP=20 privacy statement

------=_NextPart_001_00A5_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0-- ------=_NextPart_000_00A4_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="?MItabObj=static_images&MInamObj=staticimageid&MIvalObj=201345" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?MItabObj=static_images&MInamObj=staticimageid&MIvalObj=201345 R0lGODlhyAAhAOYAAEcAAEUAAEoAAEwAAEoBAE8AAEwCAlYAAFQAAFEDA1cBAVsAAFoCAlEGBmAA AGYAAF4DBGkAAGUBAVMJCmEDBG8AAGYEBFkLC2YHBnkAAGsICH8AAF0OD4EAAAAwXnAKCV4SEpAA AGcSEnUMDJgAAJYBAJQCApQEBG0VFH4ODo0ICIUQEG0cHIgSEooUFHwcHJgSEooYGGkmJ4ocHHAp KY0eHpkeH40kJXssLJYlJHwzMo0tKpooJ6UpKIQ3N5IxMZU2NqUwMIQ/P5c6N5c+P6s2N4VFRpZC RJdERas9PJxISYxPTqtDQ51NS7BFRpBTVZxTUq9LTLRPUJ1ZWp9cXq9XVbxRUrhZWaJjYqJnZrdf XqdqaLtjYqlvbLxnZqp0b7xtbKh5e8BydKt8gLOAgMh6e7iEgsuDgLaKi7mPkc6HhM+OjL2WlsKb m9OVk8efn8iko8yrp9GxrdK3sdi7ttrEvt/KyOHP0eXU2eba3ubi5ern6u/s7vXx8fr38f///yH5 BAEAAB4ALAAAAADIACEAAAf/gA+Cg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ycXVmGOjgSik91 Gp2pqquXEBoYsBo5XzsWEBgpMyuwLSMQDBQMBQgICsYKFGxjDMcMI3ZsDMzHEAorXWNxfDhfY95j XWFfXVtZWJ9YVFBNSkhK70hHQj70Pz5DSWMsbTleZT9qrlQRcybMGTFHDDQIwIBDAwEEBEicSFHi iosYkSCRqHHFGAEfP1YUgCRMGAFHUh5ZcQTlCgEsX2IcOTGFzZsDcqbIqVPnIGAaNIyAQ4dOGQwX yMiRI2ZFmjp0tDCAsvRIAgVP4MChIkTIBzhx5DwR0QdPGioc0sR5w0IDjjp4/+zsedHNjJw3d/CY IUMnDZ05ZODS+fJFzp06b560gTrGxw0hPZhgsQLGX5k1XtZYiWPlzBk4YlKsCAAChAECBDx6e0lz pAGJLpAYcOeRDGuK7cgIaKeEjDsDYV6GUbIizGyXGG8bMEDmSLvkFmW+/IlMwws7adL0mcImD5o3 eeDc+Y5niZ82bfw8wdJHq561LOqkadMHxx48W/HQGVNnrp85beCRBwpTbGHGH3nUkYceWPzRR4L3 paFff2DZ0cYebcRRxww/MEFEFVEk4YUYV4hRBhdlXLFGGXJYRgQBpCUwQQLLfbSCbzO1pmNrs5Fh QGy+zVacALrBtIILY5Dxkf9vY2xkkUQGjLGCkLdVedEgCjBDASw+fJHHG1ChkIIGeZihgQQa6CWB BG3QsQcZEiyAgRxxSGNEF31AgdgDQtSHAgt/xGHHAxJokccIOexQRR8fjPCCHzj8gcUIZPQxAg5Y 7JGHHRqwkIIdpzT6wQ34VAGGGGO44cYaqoIRh6pljFjGFhcYIEIDHKRgQG1NtvONlE3G5gJMO050 G0UXkTTbbEg02dEYy5FExrRG3jaGCz5+JBsSyRIrAJYMpICBD/e5GccRe/CRxxdY8HFfFn3oEBQS efThwwIKQCAHHErscQcdfVBRRxsOoOFHHXbYkccdYzhAARaH3pCDEn5YEMP/DX3s8IcPK2gDFx53 NLGHpmGIrO4YLwCBRBVVYJEEGFVY4YUWVqDohhpEuVHFF0IEEAAANs3W0kXL3diCN0xopKRHSPhm pEjFUhTtlLvG1k6UGwm5kUxQZnuRklGqlmRJg0CQCwWHRSABHHNI8MEObPwxggY+yOHHHlQA8UNg flDBwAAI9PXemnpMUQccDmDhR1ASOBAHGxJAMMWhM9TARB8aVN7HCxu34AYfEXwgugYr7PDGHzbt 0IbcN+xgwxVO9CCGE05wAYYTVkjRgxZScIGGG7NiMIEBACQAQNOvrbAtty81y8RF7hzNm0e5IWF1 tzQdO9FrUO54kZQgQZtt/5QtEDfGF2XbpIAdeOjwBR+Ph+G+H2+AAUQafrCxBxH9kgHHHkh4Ap3S cAc7+GAMAYtDHujhBzkEMA5k4MMSIHaHD9QgB5frQhXowAcMbMwFTPADHJoAhjfshwgIbAMZhhCG PkTgB0moghfAEIUrWMGGXriCFtTAQzFIoQpO2EIZcHCDnwEAAMQzlgDK16ymjYE4zIJJC6zHrSnG Rmkm2ZqUYpOjqLVmBbmZ1rSkRIajEY0MYcBSMBQggjvwATFk+IKA8DCFMeBBD3hAQgTgoAcMUeAr eggPOGiwoDnQwQgikAsa3hJIOWDgf3dIAxxG0IQjQOE//tqBBu5wAxfUQP8Jd9DUGtCQB39BgQx3 xAMVNGADG/yglUFIQhGK0AMrBKEIQehBD5yQBDGAAQxB0AISAkABCBwRADCJyPaWsyvlxYYJzrLN E5EwxWrOhgkc0U1tSsIbmFCxSBXBXkWYCb0mTTEMCUECliAgAWZYxwIOcAADLDACCkggFy/4QARu MgIHoMkCr3AbA+QEggf4UxofOOgr4skAFFiAUC8IAxnwNyoUoOAHOxiBJ2vgghSMAAMfsMkHKiC6 MVVgBDPYQRSkYIXa4c4KZXDCicAQqyjMIAlMOJUUWHCBn82gVhDxYvcuMkUm3Yh54GOWbMYwRScR SUpK8AZMwPekdnjrqgL/+JEBpqiE5aQAXAyAgCs6qgAEMAADFLCAAjTgUQywdQQ2scXbXKBWt5aV AcVAwB9HoNYsSUMaQWHGDKZlMBR0ARtk2IISgHCDGTg2Bo5dgU1GsIIRwLUFM8hBEZKghRrSlAtc UIMVCFKGJLjhDF7wghNyWYUpoGACEEhADJajTIlATajRgslKrgUS2/jGNk1jjfKY0yMnNk9KTdua 9SZCm2XuagDUESsEttRXZkgDAwx4KwVGEAMgVJYCGnCBCzBwCw0IowDUsCwFspSldmIArhhQwAiw kKQsoGAMElVSkrYABSIwtgY1gKxjK1e5HwBhCjdIQhd6kIQ1XIEHp+0B/6tGKwfKzK4yQeABEhow AiKIhokwiZJQhRu1K06JWxJ5jo86YiQDJI1IzQKSRrzRVBQ3SSJEGAQHOCACFtBAB0IwwhKgcI7D HtYkZjDDGeRAhzeoYS9jMMM3lDTGX+k3SVaG8hj8UhRDFuXLYJ7DHJYSB7DA4Q1wyBAb3HAXJvcg Cmfggg3WIIYiXAamZRjt7MwQBS0w4QY4CEAYoPBNkICEe7KBDomZO6xiUUm4zbsRSFCcVWgxdVrN 89GKfTMsd0Arx4LAazHDCosCQGAEnQyGddm6ghw0YQeTJe+oxeqMFUDArMNghll/8ddRW2MLU8Yy lSUaBvyOgxzpgAIUlP/Q35cVgQt0SILMxCA7LgThl05wgxiuLQYmoOHa/p3BEH7QBCKsIGk3QhKU rtUsj1yEi0fKmlOl5lTpFKtbTYpS2Ng9PiVBaVsCQJ8gChBe867VvGft6Hp/YQxcvLeyvdCAWC3w gRZ8QKwfwEABhIHXjbPXr9IIxgeU0AXC/MobEkX5F8JwWCxgYQpTeAISmg0GHnjBDjpTQxmKoAYf guEM2T5DFKqghjzEQYZc+AEL2CCHG5hbI1xUCx/+8Ic7yKEKylKeNKlogDnYAQhdoMMfDkYDaElk C3Pog4PaQAMBdKEORvAWnbhnADPUQQYu2AIeqN7AOETpakSaTQK6MAj/CrhgBhrIkgY+YIGwTsOs f83u3FIQUhf4IhgpIEIOEs9WDCRgGMVQAD3X+1daU6AFOeCBhqFABSpoYQslV9LKCYPsKSj7CFOI AhIuXAY64I4LOhTDiMTgSzGgCA6BkoIWwKAFFtzBDyI4ItGO5gc/xAFndfgDGGIDE1+RUTZiz8Mf 6LAYBzUhq17oQx/esIY0/IEPMkBCoLKmA6pPwCLuAsEc/qCXMdhtDyDQAsexbylAeKEGCwwgAe81 N9IAeSBnXeTFVhS3CyEnFJdnARawJQqwcWbTAtgFcr9wai0QAzHgAjZweDNgAzlgYESABE1ABVnQ BViQBTA3BUhABVWg/wVU4AVnAAZ2QAenIgZqoG03owZrsCJl4AaBAgNMQAVosAV14Ac30AEFoEwN YAd/8AQJ0AElUAJR4AQqoDzt0ALuRixiJwdJMAQqAANX8AdqwAA08H5VAAQnYAJV8AdzAAH3cQIP IABxQHVgcAICIAN9MAdU8Ad2YAARUIc2sH0RkFVEsxwJ8FWC0F7GcGpBsV7GEHrDkC8hlQIuoARN 4A458FHsBQEZiFZvJQz5El8PGAxmUzk2MGCzWIIpWAM2cEE/MATMBnOsNwVYUAW4lAMzEARroIJB YANOoIy7tIxW0GCBQgIvIwbv0wc1YAIFMCME0AB68Ac6EAIh0AEVkP8BHUACEZBb0gFGYhcEJBAC JJADPdAHdGAC7lcFKkACJ3ACKiB2ISAHfQCPFKMgd0ACKwAFfxAGYvAHcHACJEACKlABJwCOBRAd EpET1GEMFJAClUQEMbBGoicUKWADMfADU0AEJJlYStIEQ1ADvhByaAUBH2BrHreB0uBXC8ddtpiL uYiLkHUDNxBgF+OTOPADGNVYNcADRKB8YlAUZ+AGZnAzcqAGZ7AGauAFTKAFf3AGJBAEZlAGYsAH ftADJ2ADTXBicoAgYkAEIAAlD7AA3EMTp7MD+HgABnADb0QCe/AHbSCVc7AG/PEHNoCVTtACUaCQ SsgEOaAG2tcDVLf/BlMgA8MDE2HoTayRAgkwCAggAS5wAz+AQmQABV0ABDygNzxgYEQJBEDABDY4 BE0AbGTQBeuABIwlLmGFiiFVDR9nVqomDSnQAuIlYAA2AyQ4i8E5Az9JYDawA0TwIZwVO7vkBj2w WVZQS3YGWmXAItFoA5EBBn3gB0FQAjUwBV8AHGkgflQ3fmDQAt6zAnFJAgcgESDAB/N4nvQ5dmHp An8gBiewBn6AmH9QBjUgdi1AAmeQl1S3B3aABd2iBMEhADwxCCNQA0SgkkPQDVjwBSWJBEMABENA BBs6BCAqiiGKWF3QBCZ6okCAeMAwN7spXzWwAo0nVpRFhkciXjCQ/4K0mIK2GAM14JM30ANBMAMi gAJF0AAX8AEQ9AEgcAUoAAEcYAU4MAEi0ANS8AdrQAJVIHQ8oAfeSQIDwAEu0AJhQCN2Bh5UBxjM pQRY1Z7vKQAgsAdzYAJUBwMuAAM3IVIk4Ad0QAJlsgJ5igck0Ad7UAEkkAIocAVqADB/sAdVwBph 4AJHMAZH0AUrMAg/IIpQAKJY8JpbsAUcuqEcipqouYseQgRH0AT6pQWiyA5NsGxEYAOMt3grcHFn NQNAMAKk1ptE5ZsuAFkkCAMkSILCCVk1UDksgAJMcAEo8AFgAAKHRxA2wANikIszAAYzwAGEKQRu SAItUASfsQd9UP8EIZACQtCCJwETNtCQVeoH5ycAJgYsHnEHf8AEBJlVUCCPIbB3TtCQ/NqvyHcC f8ACKlACaACYf6AFMEACw0KoJNAD3QgGLwEc7jYAXUCJD3AEyzkFHrIF09IFvqERstmh/iWqphqi m+oNGmGiq8oOSnADkzVesNAotwCTR5kDPglguZgDPVqsOylgM/ACM0AEL/ACXGCCLQAGRTADLtCU a9ADZzADteQFM1AEUcAFR4AgJPABSIACQACWNmACKMAGbzAFStAGY4MFTNACU6ewbOB3UeICHhEl excFJJAFrwECfWAHJlAGVaewBfC3BSAEn6etb7AHDRACFRCHYnf/ASFQBCyQPCpgA1jIBSbwEj4S HBR7mQ8QAR56g+WWBV9AZYSGBEwAokiwnB4KouPGAxLDPzrYgutwopiaqTsAA+RlC7RmNirjgq6n Dq0KBVNABaPIDqjLBPTQBD/AA1pwA0XAAaUVAy8QU2vgrbpkIjEQBFwQBUzApVIQmPBSfV+rA+qn Aw0AP08AAjYABGd5pUFAdTjibrGBfOzIABKBMXYQAjaQfXPABBMwWNl3EUCgdm5AAO45AftnBxNA AmPgB2MQpRcAL3zQAyTQh1tzBAPgoYPAi0gAc0AABa83LVtwukfQoaoLBDlAhpQ1JjZxQSbsAivI msJLur6oBKWY/4HTNV0rILJNoAWH9QVboIPn4MMuhwVQsAQxNwVgQAQ5BQRRIAJlEAU2wAKipSpN 6wRX4AaaJRCjVZ9wgAd+kK464Ad98ANIWp+BcgEm0L5/oAKCOFweIXZ026ZvWgckYAIXcJb1eQdK UAVmkJdXEAQukAA3YqXuuARTR5978ATl+IgUMQApMASDsJw5sAIwsAIjmQPuQMMpKF4eBVcjEFKi 8skaFWA/4LKiEQM80KouGLyrugO4iFYWEIqle6rAOA6tpwUF8gWtVw7AiwRXoFimEkMowGezuAa0 4wZ20JRs5gVcQAZl4GenogZvwFlMYAX5yAJUYAQwUAIQwAJacP8GZpAFgluOKSBkDTlOQ1AFOeCe U9UGa9ACNiBZSVAGZyBJMuAADGkASpCeJHCCSVIGPEACNXAEE+AD4EwGVcABEdCObVqRDyoImgdX LLkCmEVuSACrovPJizc6JQVXITXKLjzJHuWbOQAEmDoFJroOQ8ADr8BVGsGaLVNy7EIFBcJfU0CD NggFW9AEpnKV98U7UhADsFMEx3hDbjBaKdJZWpAEJdCQTR0ECetjDJCPDGAAG1DH/doBL7EA50wT 5djQAlAAJAADTUMEGdCvDQkDJPEFDdkDyuMR63wCTGAAD+CO/RoCfegtljkABTAILhBSrTYDZNib E/oDFmdZotzQyZ8sOhndKLMY0jdxETaRvsBrosELBS3AVkBwoqerBFPweqHbBVTgcjCXbEswBPSw AzRwrCIwNxpATysgAS0gDS5QAEqQAAngm9yzAgUQAQ85kXEyAEuUAo0qEQcQARVgAyrwA8rjrj+Q 18eiBF8l3BMxAO1kLAtQASqw3UPwEnArAT9wBBrRDi4wBXRZkQuw3RXwABNJkTxRAB4Q3/I93/Rd 3/Z93/id3/q93/zd3/793wAe4AI+4ARe4AZ+4Aie4Aq+4Aze4A7+4BAe4fQdCAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_00A4_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="tabs2.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/WIREtabs/tabs2.gif R0lGODlh2AAhAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAEALAAAAADYACEAAAL/hI+pu+HBYnqyWkSv3vNBDhre SJaQiaYlQKko68DubMoyjdP3mfe8HwPibELervhqIZe745LkHD5TRCEsOlVis67bdvpVhZlBa5m7 OqNz3jUUeRxLf0CWPOmJq+nutPKJdfc2Iti112NHljfY1Cf2p+hXByUSc3WQQbV3RVjZopf4sXiG +dZUyWkZWiqacdm2iepl8+p6ODe6epKYWsPXy/dpuluma5TWSHysFZQKSwgJ67xcNeqjp8y7y4oM /evkKWwsfRvK3Ita/OHJnvytfuzeejuDras9Zg7vnQearTZtRTJjwuL5grQMWkB9ykiZ8XapmZFw AimtYpfJYkY6/7RexKFVi5qqkesY9Qtp6RDKYDocdQLk8mXMlizpPUQ0M2WkmRRzJgmEppDNoEIH +Szah6HLoiE6rGvaQBVUBa6mhqhqtcLJrBKsXUMIB2yRakfFriGb1Gw9tV+H4nR7lm0WtG7osoF7 t+ZDpGPxRuJLU+9awW0Bm/TJzOhcv30Z+5Gn6XDgg3ztUpY0OLJhxfvMQMYDMS+eynIVYj5IczO/ xLbmgePYrh/JRR87suLWUJtrWShjF2wVcSSG4NwYlvJth3g4YORYGk/MCVjDYbl9EdE98JzEH+P+ ubvn8FnCbdo5vvvVzRoG8+jBiRDf0xy+2+nUDad+/756g9zPr3vHBB9AzolUEW3o/SNTLuaJpxMx zxkUnVcZtcHgddtZSJ19CjIHW0f0xNcacCq5t8lssoVIn4ITKbXbRb1d1NlyvpV0SoyE1aNaglz0 dFSOOCLGY1tx1YUYZzEFWZdqPkq4WJFMLrVkZE5OSWWVVl6JZZZabslll15qWQAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_00A4_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="aplogo_clear.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://wire.ap.org/APwire/static/images/general/aplogo_clear.gif R0lGODlhHwAVAID/AP8AAMDAwCH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAAfABUAQAJPjI8Gu+l/mGRBRlsxmrnBP1Eh 9YxhB6DeB5IsdL6smdLrhnEad9mN5ZLBgsIesZgYIYcn24ymijl0wKDGaEJFk76f6Krifm9TcNi8 FKcgBQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_00A4_01BF5B88.F8D2AEE0-- --part1_ad.166e0e.25afbdaf_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 19:01:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27148 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27143 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:00:45 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id w.bd.5ba82f (4228); Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:58:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:58:57 EST Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) To: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Dave, You are absolutely right. "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is for the finder of fact. From my point of view, I must be able to make some sort of evaluation of whether the evidence does rise to that level and advise my client accordingly. If it does rise to that level, then if a plea bargain is offered or negotiated, then my advice is to take the offer. However, sometimes, there is no offer, but that's another story. And thanks for the apology! Pietrina J. Reda Attorney At Law Freeport, New York In a message dated 00-01-11 00:56:28 EST, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: << And I'll make the return caution that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is something from the finder of fact, with the famous line (Cardozo, maybe) that 'even if your argument for your client doesn't convince you, it may convince the finder of fact, and then who is right?' I guess I could even throw in an apology for the implication that an attorney I don't personally know would seek a "scientific whore". Dave Hause >> From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 19:09:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27211 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:08:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27206 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:08:34 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.3c.947d34 (4323) for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:07:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3c.947d34.25afc2c9@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:07:37 EST Subject: Fwd: Race, Life & Death To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_3c.947d34.25afc2c9_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_3c.947d34.25afc2c9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_3c.947d34.25afc2c9_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: Sidg@aol.com From: Sidg@aol.com Full-name: Sidg Message-ID: <55.55f2211b.25acd831@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:02:09 EST Subject: Race, Life & Death To: abe@cuadp.org, thequill@hitter.net, KJohn39679@aol.com, BPauley@compuserve.com, poll2@prodigy.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Race, Life And Death By David Cole Tuesday, January 11, 2000; Page A17 Last week the Florida legislature entered the 21st century by voting to replace the electric chair with a more modern method of execution, lethal injection. Florida was one of only four states that still used the electric chair, and it abandoned the chair only after two gruesome incidents of malfunctioning and a Supreme Court decision to hear a case challenging Florida's use of electrocution as an unconstitutional imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. But while Florida was willing, under tremendous public pressure, to reconsider the technique by which it executes persons, it refused to allow consideration of a much more important question--racial disparity in how it administers the death penalty. The legislature voted to reject an amendment that would have allowed defendants to challenge the imposition of the death penalty if they could show racial disparity in its administration and the state could not explain the disparity. In reaching these decisions, Florida brought itself into line with the rest of the nation. While all but three states have now jettisoned the electric chair, only one--Kentucky--allows death-row defendants to challenge racial disparities in capital punishment. It has long been known that race--particularly the race of the victim--infects the decision of who lives and who dies in our criminal justice system. In the 24 years since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, 143 black persons have been executed for killing white victims, while only 11 whites have been put to death for killing a black victim. More than 80 percent of those on death row are there for killing a white person, even though whites make up only half the homicide victims each year. A 1991 study of Florida's death penalty found that persons who killed whites were 3.4 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks. Yet none of this is deemed relevant by our criminal justice system. Thirteen years ago, the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp considered a sophisticated statistical study of more than 2,000 murder cases showing that in Georgia, prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70 percent of the cases where blacks killed whites but in only 19 percent of the cases where whites killed blacks. Even after controlling for 39 nonracial variables that might possibly explain the differences, the study found that defendants charged with killing whites were 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than those charged with killing blacks. The Supreme Court said such evidence was insufficient to support an equal-protection challenge absent proof that an individual prosecutor in an individual case intentionally sought the death penalty because of race or that an individual jury imposed death because of race. Since criminal defendants generally are barred from seeking discovery about the prosecutor's or the jurors' motives, this showing is impossible without an admission of racism. In reaching this result, the court acknowledged the breadth of racial disparity in criminal justice but cited that as a reason not to recognize disparity as a legal defense. Noting that racial disparities infect the entire criminal justice system, the court said that to recognize them as a constitutional matter would "throw into serious question the principles that underlie our entire criminal justice system." But the questions are already there--the only issue is whether the legal system will face up to them. Justice Brennan, dissenting, called the majority's rationale a "fear of too much justice." Because of the broad implications for recognizing racial disparity as a legal objection to the death penalty, the court said that "McCleskey's arguments are best presented to legislative bodies." But outside Kentucky, no one has accepted the argument. Congress repeatedly has refused to enact a statute authorizing defendants to raise these claims, and now Florida has refused to do so as well. Whether we rely on race in choosing who lives and dies is ultimately far more important than whether we carry out executions by electricity or drugs. As long as we refuse to allow issues of racial disparity to be aired in the legal system, minorities will have no basis for faith in our legal system. The writer is a law professor at Georgetown University. --part1_3c.947d34.25afc2c9_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 19:23:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27350 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27345 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:23:05 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.5f.44ff19 (4323) for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:22:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5f.44ff19.25afc62d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:22:05 EST Subject: Fwd: Florida's Death Penalty To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_5f.44ff19.25afc62d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_5f.44ff19.25afc62d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_5f.44ff19.25afc62d_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:43:10 -0500 Received: from pimout7-int.prodigy.net (pimout7-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.59.180]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:42:40 -0500 Received: from pavilion (CHCGB809-25.splitrock.net [209.254.85.73]) by pimout7-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA360618; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:42:17 -0500 Message-ID: <004301bf5d1c$0dd82600$4955fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" Subject: Florida's Death Penalty Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:42:42 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_003D_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20" ------=_NextPart_001_003D_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Home=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Times Columnists -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Martin Dyckman Robyn Blumner Bill Maxwell=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - News Sections Action Arts & Entertainment Business Citrus County Columnists Floridian Hernando County Obituaries Opinion Pasco County State Tampa Bay World & Nation=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Featured areas AP The Wire Alive! Area Guide A-Z Index Classifieds Comics & Games Employment Health Forums Lottery Movies Police Report Real Estate Sports Stocks Weather What's New=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Weekly Sections Home & Garden Perspective Taste Tech Times Travel Weekend=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Other Sections Buccaneers College Football Devil Rays Lightning Ongoing Stories Photo Reprints Photo Review Seniority Star Wars Tax Help 99 Web Specials=20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Market Info Advertise online=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Contact Us All Departments=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 A Times Editorial The law's burden The governor and lawmakers have their death penalty legislation, = but now they have to make sure that no innocent person dies because of = what they did.=20 =A9 St. Petersburg Times, published January 9, 2000=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - Sometime this week, Florida will hire attorneys for 100 death row = inmates who already have lawyers. While their old lawyers continue to = appeal the conduct and outcomes of their trials, the new lawyers will = set to work on issues outside the record, such as misconduct by the = prosecution or ineptitude by the defense. These separate appeals will be = heard at different times in different courts. As one set or the other = wins new trials or new sentencing hearings for their clients, which will = happen often, the efforts of the other will be wasted. Considering that = the Florida Supreme Court overturns three of every four death sentences = it receives directly from the trial courts, taxpayers may want to ask, = "What's going on here? Why pay twice when we don't have to?"=20 The explanation is that Gov. Jeb Bush and the Legislature wanted = to be able to say they had shortened the long delays that disgrace = Florida's capital punishment process.=20 It cannot be denied that it is torturous to everyone involved -- = the inmates as well as the families of victims -- when condemned men and = women can languish more than 20 years in 9- by 6-foot cells with no = closure to their cases. But the solution is not to impose arbitrary = limits on appeals, as the Legislature did in reckless disregard of the = danger that innocent people might be put to death. The solution is not = to provoke a showdown with the Supreme Court, as the Legislature did in = reckless disregard of the proper separation of powers.=20 It is, rather, to ensure that prosecutors seek death sentences = only in appropriate cases and to see that everyone involved in trying = them -- prosecutor, defense counsel and judge -- is skilled and = experienced in the highly specialized field of death penalty litigation. = Errors that would be trivial when a defendant's life is not at stake are = intolerable when the potential penalty is death. If there were not so = many of these errors at trial, there would not be so many tedious = appeals.=20 The Legislature did nothing to improve trials. If anything, it may = have gummed up the appeals process with deadlines that infringe on the = Supreme Court's constitutional power to regulate court procedures and = quantitative limits on appeals that potentially violate the = constitutional right of habeas corpus. For the moment, the Legislature = has erased all the Supreme Court's procedural rules governing = post-conviction appeals. Until the court adopts new ones -- whether in = agreement with the new legislation or not -- it is unthinkable that the = court would let any executions occur. Beyond that, death row lawyers are = certain to attack the law in every substantive regard.=20 The members of the public are the losers. As Rep. Lois Frankel, = D-West Palm Beach, warned the House Friday:=20 "This is not about Danny Rolling. . . . This is about arrogance of = power -- a Legislature and an executive that have decided to become the = courts."=20 The governor and his allies did amend their bill to allow = successive appeals when there is new evidence of innocence. Even there, = however, arrogance ruled. It is not at all certain that the language is = broad enough to do any good, and the Senate refused to permit Florida = courts to stay executions while such appeals are being prepared. In one = of its many Catch-22s the law requires such filings to be "fully pled," = with no opportunity to amend them later. An execution might be set for = the next day, but no Florida court could intervene.=20 "You can go to federal court," replied Locke Burt, R-Ormond Beach, = the uncompromising sponsor of the Senate's bill.=20 The law also cuts off funds to state-paid lawyers who file more = appeals than the law allows. Acknowledging that some inmates might have = additional claims under such basic constitutional rights as habeas = corpus -- which not even the Florida Legislature can repeal -- Burt = rationalized that inmates could still get into court by paying their own = lawyers or finding lawyers to work for free.=20 By his admission, Florida now officially boasts two brands of = justice: one for the rich, one for the poor. This goes far to explain = why every African-American legislator -- with the conspicuous exception = of Rep. Rudy Bradley, R-St. Petersburg -- voted against the bill.=20 The governor, the Legislature and Attorney General Bob = Butterworth, who endorsed the bill, have their victory. With it comes = the burden of insuring that no innocent person dies because of what they = did. Fair-minded Floridians can only pray that they take that burden to = heart.=20 =20 Back to Perspective =A9 Copyright 1999 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved. =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - =20 ------=_NextPart_001_003D_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
3D"Keller
3D"
Home =
Times Columnists
Martin=20 Dyckman
Robyn=20 Blumner
Bill=20 Maxwell
News Sections
Action
Arts=20 &
Entertainment
Business
Citrus = County
Columnists
Floridian
Hernando=20 County
Obituaries
Opinion
Pasco = County
State
Tampa = Bay
World &=20 Nation =
Featured areas
AP The Wire
Alive!
Area=20 Guide
A-Z = Index
Classifieds
Comics &=20 Games
Employment
Health
Forums
Lottery
Movies
Police = Report
Real Estate
Sports
Stocks
Weather
What's New =
Weekly = Sections
Home &=20 Garden
Perspective<= FONT=20 face=3DHelvetica,Arial size=3D2>
Taste
Tech = Times
Travel
Weekend
Other = Sections
Buccaneers
College=20 Football
Devil=20 Rays
Lightning
Ongoing = Stories
Photo = Reprints
Photo=20 Review
Seniority
Star=20 Wars
Tax Help 99
Web = Specials=20

=20

Market Info
Advertise online=20
Contact = Us
All Departments=20

=20

 

 

 3D"

=20 =20 =20 =
=20

A Times Editorial

The law's = burden

The governor and lawmakers have their death penalty = legislation, but=20 now they have to make sure that no innocent person dies because = of what=20 they did.

=A9 St. Petersburg Times, published January 9, 2000=20

Sometime this week, Florida will hire attorneys for 100 death = row=20 inmates who already have lawyers. While their old lawyers continue = to=20 appeal the conduct and outcomes of their trials, the new lawyers = will set=20 to work on issues outside the record, such as misconduct by the=20 prosecution or ineptitude by the defense. These separate appeals = will be=20 heard at different times in different courts. As one set or the = other wins=20 new trials or new sentencing hearings for their clients, which = will happen=20 often, the efforts of the other will be wasted. Considering that = the=20 Florida Supreme Court overturns three of every four death = sentences it=20 receives directly from the trial courts, taxpayers may want to = ask,=20 "What's going on here? Why pay twice when we don't have to?"=20

The explanation is that Gov. Jeb Bush and the Legislature = wanted to be=20 able to say they had shortened the long delays that disgrace = Florida's=20 capital punishment process.=20

It cannot be denied that it is torturous to everyone involved = -- the=20 inmates as well as the families of victims -- when condemned men = and women=20 can languish more than 20 years in 9- by 6-foot cells with no = closure to=20 their cases. But the solution is not to impose arbitrary limits on = appeals, as the Legislature did in reckless disregard of the = danger that=20 innocent people might be put to death. The solution is not to = provoke a=20 showdown with the Supreme Court, as the Legislature did in = reckless=20 disregard of the proper separation of powers.=20

It is, rather, to ensure that prosecutors seek death sentences = only in=20 appropriate cases and to see that everyone involved in trying them = --=20 prosecutor, defense counsel and judge -- is skilled and = experienced in the=20 highly specialized field of death penalty litigation. Errors that = would be=20 trivial when a defendant's life is not at stake are intolerable = when the=20 potential penalty is death. If there were not so many of these = errors at=20 trial, there would not be so many tedious appeals.=20

The Legislature did nothing to improve trials. If anything, it = may have=20 gummed up the appeals process with deadlines that infringe on the = Supreme=20 Court's constitutional power to regulate court procedures and = quantitative=20 limits on appeals that potentially violate the constitutional = right of=20 habeas corpus. For the moment, the Legislature has erased all the = Supreme=20 Court's procedural rules governing post-conviction appeals. Until = the=20 court adopts new ones -- whether in agreement with the new = legislation or=20 not -- it is unthinkable that the court would let any executions = occur.=20 Beyond that, death row lawyers are certain to attack the law in = every=20 substantive regard.=20

The members of the public are the losers. As Rep. Lois Frankel, = D-West=20 Palm Beach, warned the House Friday:=20

"This is not about Danny Rolling. . . . This is about arrogance = of=20 power -- a Legislature and an executive that have decided to = become the=20 courts."=20

The governor and his allies did amend their bill to allow = successive=20 appeals when there is new evidence of innocence. Even there, = however,=20 arrogance ruled. It is not at all certain that the language is = broad=20 enough to do any good, and the Senate refused to permit Florida = courts to=20 stay executions while such appeals are being prepared. In one of = its many=20 Catch-22s the law requires such filings to be "fully pled," with = no=20 opportunity to amend them later. An execution might be set for the = next=20 day, but no Florida court could intervene.=20

"You can go to federal court," replied Locke Burt, R-Ormond = Beach, the=20 uncompromising sponsor of the Senate's bill.=20

The law also cuts off funds to state-paid lawyers who file more = appeals=20 than the law allows. Acknowledging that some inmates might have = additional=20 claims under such basic constitutional rights as habeas corpus -- = which=20 not even the Florida Legislature can repeal -- Burt rationalized = that=20 inmates could still get into court by paying their own lawyers or = finding=20 lawyers to work for free.=20

By his admission, Florida now officially boasts two brands of = justice:=20 one for the rich, one for the poor. This goes far to explain why = every=20 African-American legislator -- with the conspicuous exception of = Rep. Rudy=20 Bradley, R-St. Petersburg -- voted against the bill.=20

The governor, the Legislature and Attorney General Bob = Butterworth, who=20 endorsed the bill, have their victory. With it comes the burden of = insuring that no innocent person dies because of what they did.=20 Fair-minded Floridians can only pray that they take that burden to = heart.=20

=20 =20 =20 =
=20

Back = to=20 Perspective

3D"Back
=A9 = Copyright 1999=20 St. = Petersburg=20 Times. All rights reserved.
3D =20
3D"
=20

3Dhearme.com=20

3Dgraphic=20


3D 

------=_NextPart_001_003D_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20-- ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="opinion.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/mastheads/opinion.gif R0lGODlhawIkALMAAP///wICAkJ5U7kiE/z8/HJ3dJKUk/Xz87CzseTj4/n5+dfU0+zu7MTIxd+b lMtdUiH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABrAiQAAAT/EMhJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv /8CgcEgsGo/IpHLJnCUMhehCoVoIDAcAQYCQGAKBRZN5+ILB18QFyhi73/C4XEcwCM4CQQFBADRM BWAIVFwECHcBAllMDQZtRgmBZ3h6BglUEgUCYnOdnp+goRQHiIiTegKYIQySggQFjZOJi0kIiZxE CaaysnpRs7SiwsPExTsKdwYLBwcLrWC4Fn0YB7wBCl+asgaqHt0yB61qROHW5pMIpIrG7O3u7yML YAT0fQTyYAbTFeEGGFYFzJwJVCBBpFPBNtTxVwNfokdDEqCJEmWXOWdoxsHbyLFjsVfQ/yoQ0BUA g60A+i4kSAfgWaAG9JBN0rjBSoACNhrgiRbElqUDffAVWGDmTp4C5c508ci0qdM3rYZSkJgQQJkz DKVN06nUwFJskyBq4IpyHwwDDSRmNAsEQYF9ZtIdutlgTwKgDrH8QJD1qd+/T58lCli37wSS+TiQ OuNsqaGZHMAmnrGn2hmaPQOoYeWKbMGh+0jp9VFHwIqlM1ADXs161Tk0o7XYzKeAgVgKBBaDqeuY bIDbXkJHtQ08AU8ACFAnAA5AQQMqWxzhaXMAwfEG16tan6C6AoPu/DTVTawgaqRoho4n+ENhAfsJ 2DYoAA//uRZNbNvbyZNHGQYB72WQh/8FAxJoGgUAclDgBPw1mAd9rUUYii4nvXYFPRXigVIGMu22 B3eTJLRYSg5piBMFX6wDYlkS+QKTBCfB8pJaDyFWgCpc9XVSMHEBkKImtByUSIDejfeQVaZ8tsA+ +KjGABhIwYjGIiQJwBxyIVkwl4wofSMBKw42WABweRBp4JloMpigBgtKECZ/fEgopzB3wDLXa0Od g5kECyQ3CW8rgiGWQAH8YRFWE8yWyDSE2hEicocq4tAvk9yIJWNeTMLJLr4F0Adile6pBY0p6XbT eYeZEicASbYki4+ysGWqADQ1EGkC+dna36p88YcrgmWyeSCwF7TJarACDuumshPkN+f/s3AocEpA bulhjZ1JLrDnY7w0NoFvaowk2G/YPeMeJuN2QSgvlkiijVIE2IrHupxVqgBIIR76J0Y3WXMcrImE y0CSkfwx0i6KdHgKL3lUSkGGaPBZyjb5DZwHA/fCVxt/YjVoppppEgssssUyayy0KH9ijVGw8HsG AKDqkx+of34o5RltCGQRPTpPYBka6FhH6CFcgCr0IUjdgw4DvjkjpKB+VErKzzft98dMLt90wWyp aGGqklqgRWifDWQ4Jo1gGBQrkhpipTAWfGni5bE40SMSPZooexTJFZx88rF9o7JmyICH4IADAyQ+ wOEWKO74Aw7QorgDEij+QEKIJ07B/+QVKODAA5ZT3njil1eQ+QApgwIxw2jhccDAiG5tDqA3g5FF pS5JNguGYcmihs4j3YU2H4YAeC9ZVhKg8DKuvgzznyO9PRLGVGfx9IkVeJbx16jCHK+mGA8PlCmp cAvGl5M4ilUrMlvxHFtEM+DsBBa/eKzFVpZM+LKB48+csX/LwAIcR8ABLGkCBbTcIjgHgMeZTnGb S5zo+JTAxB0QgZZ7oOZS9wlFmWMPZ3idKVIiDYIQinaXglqlnqSU8kwiUCWJyr10BhR6gAonA+NG UHaiPFMc8BlUGJ4WpIWVeigvLGEbyAUq9BYJmMoRoIEhJ1goiHs9w4kvBAAVA4AA5P/JCw0KEA1Q LKAJbihkP2oigP/29zcACkCNHCNcAC9wugouDoOkA10GGyjByjnOAfs4XQTvKIE6JnCCfJxcICHI QU8cwCCrSx8iHjlCDMRLGVtgjM2idhkAnAIA8gBQFnpWu5IQkSVXQYPdDoY72owED7gylRhciLPn ncFgmZzMBCCjO8NkCkoSgKNSwhGNpmERXgBLRDCzuEU+EMQgCJOEL7ewicjoYlgFUkf+RMbNbhZO m7dx45suwAACOmABCzDkAvs4kj1yjgAFnKAg8Si6coYunXpM3Djgac4JzLORnaDHk5bzBIsE4o0x 08C9TIXCDLUhfT65RCbwMI0MeXL/m83RGSaUNy5ElSiWPmzOM6yHjmmkzyxI1F0TcVOh/OVGVeF4 z/cwpUV0zHASVCDi+WqqlJfcS3e8wF4aOUCPBRXopRfzZuECx1SvxRFkIwuTNE73gJz+NJ+iYyAB 8tkHBiZwHP9MJOUIQNVgSgCreHQcWBkJUDnkMiuP/KK1uBGz+fnMFA19VLfq8ct5aCFDXDiAKnSn COGcQwEOSV4uCzVR56HNfiMMzaN6mZ8MvUg3VmJFNDLEieFRQaNaYKYsohRMWvqrqR0wqrLWyD/U erNNrF1qaznguDGOwnF+JCQAuCrWrpLOcVQ43T4UmUjUdQ63uc3nAIKrOLu2VQll/9gObppRp3mw Mh/OZRs00ALDh8KSLa3omvnCcK99ENa2zWEaNMKrNjQsaXn3waktBbHMIsInpQIRaqIcZssxiYsT zuEs+lpYhywSQLRYqUozXjK2wP3LAlbAJrPAOVuoula2SEoqhudYgT1aIJ+5Fd0ASXcvr0own1UN q4kH8IALgDjEKPYcW58bBwYQxQA4lp/ybGELMdyjkhpgwLoCJgFweXIgXiJlCj0lK+CJRBf++CjX 5CdLkYbllbcMJpB3WUuVXsBUhZLJFD4Fi+agxJhWKWmBI2Zm5zUTAwPDSWID9IorENUO2DPWwQrk N2ZVGMN7PpAbPeDhCoCYnxUc6/87OYfifyI6q6RzMSMfvdvQzZjGY6DZKXBlixNdd0MZiCQenINE WdDCEc0DAyYsG8yVZHTU4VmHXB+pqZfekqOT+NSfuKxLCaAjib1uFsQagDEKCHkltvvoMV2RzGuE 1s2flMB8gik3Tu6GpRrOgMVQc7J4HQXD4N6wn72tB3F7IJ97SoA7K1g6sYbYKo+bMQPzKSIPc+4A 8d4gpscg6oWpSIu76BMXAtTvSiE51SEJBBWegQBddMofEjHYCXWBiS/whQFo+w7FQopwf/jGEYoY KcWp9htWDcRZYL4JLoD6B8umJUNxQsizBWXj0WJMD1TgsSVKdEEtc/hYb7Rw9vb/5uc2mszPRSb6 hTNA1WAcAK3FfYDUIac83y7O6oCEWQKHK8E+lJUCUO+t1guY3X0LAW0W+pW0hzwe7HXUHMYb1crk Z223RWoQfGLXDhd2C3zxnVbTILk5+DDkHzIs1xfA8msOLvjGQ+wtB5aFe64lP7TPxEuxNTZ/gjFH XfVZf0r9VoOWTg1zolOd73bWiuVZwEGKDt/3/Fxt6enP1pt9CYv1xbtCZJZP/6YVXWChMpJkEQTQ 3We80IjCuKg8TUtU2s8wo+BvMUbEBvUuZulUvaAh0F0oX/Jmy4CmrWHGxqZNu8yvDqzXDA0FmDYf QIFdL3yc+AjrATXV4lu4g+n5//2Z25L9F3r1Z0eKwwmUlniL1ke1h1xawEAAYEjx1CwO+IAEdHtM sBvMkIHLQRY69mSSoAYkcSPFkw7yVyhQACU1JBKppF+4Fgb2MBIVcnw+Exf0sBhlYxTLkDGlVRTY xxaK1wYdMmaj8oHTNUnzBTWJJ2TnQCs6+Gol5zVVJG22YCWYQEs0MRvvcxXJgQjENjfNAiZvogdV wWHkZiAO8mdkqCuB8yb0gVgEuCTTMIEdpoByqFyu1x52hEjuBnYMaIFI8IRaEEx203AZkBvaQj8X lBtZwFB7YBvycQANgF5fiBnKowAGYUk2ligMcQ85yFcUgFg9qAHR4BwKdogW8P9I7QFrhTgSUEAR 6eB+FoBYVfF8wbQMkrgcp2gc0/AdNWRjL6gQrOggltCEQpd4h2CGo/d/hXiMUeUgqyISD6hckKMF XKdbo3N1YuczvBVi5nUAskc6DuAlxKWNzeWHSVASCgECPvgleLUHZdcB7wiMuGE3hSgC9Jh4FvAE OIYFuSFNZac8gjUN9ziPH5AfzuKJQySIIVB1nTOQC0lCMVAH7xiPGoCQiXePFllaDpmR1AiPDjlE H2mORKAZNPBp3gItKbchgQCRHkGR6lgDLimSMvkCj0FNYXiTOBkmBdGOW5iTPvmTQBmUQjmU/IEF +qIUoESUSrmUTNmUTvmUUBlklVI5lVRZlVZ5lViZlTcpbcuSlSVYGESjlWJJlcaRD5SCBm0QlmO5 lmzZlm75lnAZl3I5l1mZA6zgcUIGEzEJD+WRFbaWDns5k4I5mChDjxzZGha5SoS5mIzZmI75mJAZ mTcQAQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="rays-promo.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/graphics-test/rays-promo.gif R0lGODlheAA8AMQAAP////rNQ///+v//8gN3f///2P//6AKep2ljNv7+wb6cNv79pEQ/JYeKX6ap aJWAMyFbS1dyYenijuG5PdnIwK6tk87GqNPLe0GhgMyek+PY0O7l3OnptsSlYvTx6OTk4yH5BAAA AAAALAAAAAB4ADwAAAX/ICCOZGmepAAIbOsKQyzPdG3Pb66ifO//JpWOdSsaBsckcsks0obCHXBK Ta1yA1i2dkQavuCweDxu3qCrqroH1dKSZHHhO68b7Pd42CyD6dJrgVA2encFh4iJiouMh4VnQ4FU LQMaFhWYmBQaH5cWG18blxQbiKIVFhynmamIHJ4ci6+ZqLFzBqeflhUUHh6WFhoeV1KSKEIrHw4B zM0BDhXNFocWzBMVhwkWE8wW1c4KDhYJCdHMFeTpBd/NE+KI5gGY1sHLAR0fOcZBxCwfHc6aNWgg UEOBeOIScCDIzIG9gA44cHjYgEM6cvHATZsosIICZg08ghSW5cW+FJQG/3iw0AABMwUIEER40OwB ungTKj4MEIEhTJoBwln4yMzmxXIvGSDgdk0b0QA2fboMGsGChxguAAnq58aAhgoMksp8qqAB0poO gDJjYE8BAwZEQ5JtsCBB3QVt38Z9NdcBUaIyreIwWexHFCIzDPzyyaACQ6AROGQMMLUZA8YIANsD ikDC3QXm3C4NiuBSUWYRHDubcFkDmMEtJnFNTMdD6NT2wkK10JabNcCMGzBlAFR36QXIE9iboMD3 AwQXcjMr7beZzAqgXvcxCcQFbTqHbg8NwJrbA2gvKz8gejlgUQQ0y0N1gBz5TusIRMq3aQEo6wYU ILLHdoXxEMV3ioSW3/9HbtFUVl7DARfQBA8oxSBcQdFV33JPzXehgxUxVoEtjmhXUmxspORFHomc BZMDTLWDQF40IYBhAO0F9dZbCAhnjTWdbZjUWy9FEKN1HJE2DjmJDHhigSIchiAi6SjIUEA9pteA aBLqGFMDDlzpDHRCenmjblhK0FZV6iTQ5BcEahUlMTKA0eJFbWWJI5FQSeVQj+z5KcEFF7DH53ll utXAA0xNtWNR6JEmwVFvwokViih1BV42BVwUGoas2ZheeoNGFyipyBVKnlK6lVUmc0/Bt6qoGeY5 aV0XVRpnpnVu2ulFqabHjVsOfTTBVDBdsMCgvs2YnrILXDAsW9VR6Fn/tBPCxMC0xZIHZpGe2UWp gJaeOIJ3Mfh6VHJqvhWBAzZCp2a8DbzVwLV4xRudvfjCq9QF8152bbs8xmSwvgE3sK/A9YmrDrm7 HpiuIdmk0zByEgzkQHRgejbvxhrjO6/C0c0oskMOeAxvyvVd0FKPPYLJMcsfS5Bxx/XdlSvElx5m gAQc2Bx0uOnYbPTRhJaKtNGEAow0wMsOanN9FGSQgQYaUECBzVAz3XTSTD/tNdRRG01O2Z550IW5 MHTAQAQQwA03oxwgpxQECOANgQJuzb0eA3o3B3jezT2gd0z41oe11RpsgLXWFNSHY9x5Ey5y5XFD wCjm4UiQN9wKdHBB/96ZM2opC1cM4AAEB7Tu+gEYXJCABKy/foBftWOgwAMEuM537QdsiUDvrZOZ s+NWk4J11llrzYECxL+OwQPQXgB86xgc67pfDQDP3PC2K7y2dx1cL/3u5h9QwQS57x59BwoA7xcC r+d3vCUZkOL48lpboLUD0bPdAzxjPdvpTgGvYw7xsgc+2wXvAkdAHRHK5zoMYKCCMImA9DCAO+xR KHrMkR9M6oeA+jjOAlfzwAZWyD8KeIMCFYjeBStInwJK7wEPmOEBmLM99lVQh9OrQM9isLrtNVB3 eTOiXhrgQd5h73euEw79sCeTxq3QaitU4Qr3Bzn/UUCHCtAgFTPQgP8FYg+HYrzdA3wHve2t8YxC PFEMKNg6eC0QJsDDgL06MMXsORF26NveCF0Xkw9cMX++2KIKl9c8rcWwdT6kYph6Nz3sLeqPLWmi /P7okQh0ATF0vF0SASmTO3bAAhL4I1SIt6X4EW9+C5SJIa32iUQmkoUb6KILCdC7MFYQAR2IACXb eACYBNN1tUuL4bZHng4s6jJ+AKX8RonEPMbkAR3oAPFW2botLbObMIleFZOnSC1uEXJWS14ZgweB WA5kmMQrSwf++ETi5JFvxwKcYE5kgCLWkZp47F30ZqLN1l0Ak+tpZx0nIEwqNiB5VrzlBlRYtXR2 IAMXXScvu1mhYFL/cgKstEkkKVmhMBKPlwSIQDgq8IHtzJF1vIRX+/J2UtjFpKAE+CDscOjKAxBA eAI9QI/yh8uJTvQXKEynUi+6UZ8K520BqB1BYLqoCkigob2rV1UYGtTWEUABGfjAJ2FggPJtVKa8 ROLw0jo/YKLUjgSYXmYYIFBYprVH+7NiFpHHuC6ms3so9en0MNrOn0ZVsAqoG/RIyoBxLMCZcQ2s 7uJYkpe+laZxDahTbdQY62V1rXJ1JS+lKFACVHF5jjtnOlmoSzK206Rp5dtGp1fY6XkGpCh9QGQw NoHelhGlZSFQPwtLALSmNKC8jMDbLLAAC9S2ts9xG0qBitKYMA+1/7lcbfP8l1QKwO2rdOXl3gyH 0vLqjoDQpcvonsMo3sXWk5eybEwxi8TwppQB0OKAfQvbEiPZl7R3jcAmHrc8jBK1tRlAIQReS1zd ube8uVWWZ3lpEw+4rZ0QWBRxYdKzthHXuNWcbnOURQHiTlcpZh0tcr8aOq0ReAPpbKQ30mkBuL12 rcfFLIQJQL1oFVZzDbAwcTUM3Ah0eAApJsCCC6tSG5V3wZlpiYl/2iPWTPdYT4ZAY5i3iYoOGJ0Z qIDVFsxL0cbVyhRmX24BlOIgCvnJKEWiH1Yg3x2/bMopfUD3plyvBkiXwiueLuS0ZuAugznByi2s W+KM5q8+B6URKP9NkvXsgYPiubgy6bAAklzeedpzx3IFbHlttL7w4i2cO37OoNM5aBjS0gGAQ6ma Rztr8OIYA/lps57rskoI+0uIEmSBfiGAgQgUe3puYQAf43bsnoyF2cbGdWctlB5iG/vaFeKF/1jt wqQmuAKRBlyxM4iBDPcNA880nLFjUoHyFXsmZlkAByx97C29pQJXSJ1tOLujt0BgAwkYXb93BKAK DZwBQVMLZWJycMBhwosXdSEtw9yACNgM1jvit1I0/i6N88LjeDp4BD4AgJKcSwC/AHcEVr5yiyiE Axlg+corghzeyLwC0ZqWUlJ2AZm3XN6XsNpFZxzmn2NM5ajseVX/guaAn8975TivedMr4rACwJzl DdhAz6KUEsV4oABf/9XZ7HKxnOVsUFOJ14wc4rRlXUB0Tavxl1QegQwMamMd2BjXotO1C1SAUGaX d84UchQmHcIXHohmMVRkJyoBi+yBz9kFJjSQ5pBHARIeFk1EZ4+KR4AZeR8WU8BkeXeY6vJkizyu dlYiAyi+MOhqfMXWBfnAAwQco3FGypbzkjCBRAK313MziMIU4vuoGSwzu8NWX6nxoe5c/eiVumiv +ow56C2c2VZQHGKNzW1pOmmZTvaBomdZUWY6xFGY8lfP+ls4//nQp1Od6nAn6pu9OsnWOVC+T5mN f59Y7EETFWJ+/5chK6zBHj0CLbjCfobXeu8HJVyHGEuwKW5CfeKyIeahJ8+xKGtRHDGDfzNyIR+x gddHeqTBKODHXBYzLuRyOlmRIhIYBotQeGNXF5vhLAsHgvHBFgADI1ARgjryETEBgtGRgS3BFPTh MO3nfuNjLoaBLitCMZxCg3ZhDz2iH8SBfhcCLVaYhf0HfpsRAdEhfs8xFVTHgi24Nk8yCVAYhYxQ eEnCFhkTEFwCFWKYKkzhGz+4FtxHGQpjhQoXRi7XKYvgJGuoBoehKbJXfwrBHiNyUMYygI9xL3ax EEzBGZzRbtPRABZwe/BheYoyDoTYfLAhQVWQiBIYhVLYIv2xKumpMBGcJRPi4C+UmCqxSHD1Ah28 sXPzlosDwVk9QSIOqIZPIgUQ+IRtKAeK0IlKQg6SMRBg8ophMiLp8IzQOBCYMBDjwBKcqBDcmAnY GCBpWC4ddhJz4h1uMDEySA0jyCaHIBHe4HLakApHAY+pEI+v4HLwaBFW5z8ABzmqwITkqGnIYI5p 8AJvMAbfoGfi+IaESIUVSCkV2AjNZyIEeYzmqAOEEArgtmUU+ZEg+ZF5UAY18AdyYpCZggVv8BUh kR2LGJIwOYwkWYqxgZEouQOJKEcy8AucUAh0YCcsQjEj6ZMWSZMvuAYhAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="64316665353534393338376339323930" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://ads.sptimes.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.sptimes.com/Opinion_story.shtml/12435/TopRight/keller/Keller_Moveahead_Full.gif/64316665353534393338376339323930 R0lGODlh1AE8APQfAP///8z/zMzMzJnMmZmZmWbMmWbMZmaZZmZmZjOZMzMzMwCIAO7u7t3d3bu7 u6qqqoiIiHd3d1VVVURERCIiIhEREQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/C05F VFNDQVBFMi4wAwEDAAAh/h1HaWZCdWlsZGVyIDAuNSBieSBZdmVzIFBpZ3VldAAh+QQEyAD/ACwA AAAA1AE8AAAF/uAijmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgsGo/IpInBbDqf0Kh0Sq0yGgKl dsvter/goXVMLluxhLB6zW673zyzfE5GS+D4vH7PVzb+gIGCg4SFhoeHAgQSCn2Oj5CRkiaAApaX mJmam5ydnpsPERONk6Wmp6halZ+sra6foaOps7S1tjOrr7q7rLGkt8DBwrO5vMbHlr7Dy8zNe8XI 0a/KztXW11vQ0tue1Njf4OE72tzlmd7i6errKuTm7+js8vPi7q8OEO+d8fT9/sz2WjmI8EEfJ37/ Eiok9geZAwkEChrUhHChxYuPAnp6KACAxImYKjobAKCkyZMo/VFmwQiDJMo2AxikBNiQF4EIDUp+ 3KXxkshmLgEwMJBgQceTCxIcCLqS5YsDL90ELUkTy64IBGSWnECgq9evXjVBUPBBQb5eon59czmA xFGTJKACaOrURdQ2Ce4K64nJAQIHWksykEC4sGHCFTJJQEBAEQIJaGWFI+mgxFuqJAzMrQtDLxvP wPgmgwA4JaIGOxflLNkAIqy04kgWdQvaEucXoNXktiX6QeOUwIHvnPAA5YMJryWDG9DAxGUAJgzQ va1iNxjrtPg6ILA6uHedmD4EFrwTFOzJbS2DTjCdOgrsXuCn0k6g+PfvOyuMF5q423lwBxzgXG4G uMeCfFz+IHhKb1jtd59JO0lgn0kPQOafcvI8t8JSWjUwgIAtTEVVAjEJNcBsCxzggGAnnsAhax+S 4OBmRp1U4AjSsQiiCyReJkCLJkSlIosolpCjiTuS0ONJPxapZIkAtKigKaIJ4MAEEHRn0mmpQWaS AK5dqBY7GqKQwIpRiuCSA06iIJdJCWgpVAJnmlZCnWkusCaKaMKpZEkoxlmSgHKlt0KdDRgQ4FQ3 koASnic1d+dqhJZkaFIrJrqojSbklZJmSC1TpSUSRHAZAxGkquqqqfZ3CQKM+QZrZGOuU2anq9F1 VANtnqDSj1oyx8AAIjYqKI0i7DqbpyY1mlSeSa1mKFv9LBzlLKiDlqBSlMUqKe0I1CZb0rUnJcls lEVhC5eoNb3SQARelhQBrPTWS6+pmUAwQQVYtvITOLeWEJSzQV2aAkqVPcvkbOomrGezJBQ8Qp/Q PoxiUDti2+sI5wZ6ksEo8SpCwxGblLGfHXP8MW2CxTVlKaNa0gABChz1wWlWYSKIv/9lmNu5Sb4J wMaOnoTio0WzJgLQLvu5gLpDjzCsyk6naJLBJQidZKTaGp00AJIqDOgIb7al9ddhnwtyqMPEfIkD ChRXHkj/fhMwuF5TbemBbC/gWVRTFam21Jw+u+NUTQPg8Akpj/B3336zjTjZJlXWuAh3TZVk5Ou2 3f6uMRJA4CpIyfRMZm6XBfkl351zjpnjoabedUlNTbVSTCRQnHh7dxJbpNDQfR087J3rTjntS/ue +OuXOfnyJG5nQgBypPtkuq25aal6yyvo9fi62s8ulN6A5nXpc8G9kIABgIko/vCYs40+cJ2yP+xd sgtf1TYOVG89hqeDXPxaN8DXHaxv38MMaPQylQFopkgoIZYEJ9iCIQHgRgmEn+uGF8EJUpBsaMIg 2xYowFtEz38HuZ467iaC8H2NAawzYAZbKMCTwPB4gmnA4hYwHqKpAE8MOBrkZiiCHv4QTUEk3utI SMDQfA6F0agbNlhYoyYyKYbwI2L+lDid/Tiriv7jksGxLqi/MipxeJf5orcgdsYRNO99+4PiNqR4 DSoG7k9Xw6IZCxi8O5LPYFO5YcnyGAM/8hGOZmxgCgy5QbyZDJGey5kuPkDJShLnFWXhBR2tQUWm 4TBq3UPgEEPlSREIzUmDyxrSntSOURKQiFbLG8fa4sJDjmxl5NOgEyWJyQrQawIfoF4rMrmLTVaD ig8LI44IGcrWwXJgmWHmIEGpni3t6ABTOyAbnwZLW4rLmmSbGkoaBTUZrc6RTTThE11BTEtQYG6d aOc0VCiOc40NV8ibGGt82MZ++vNYdEGTyEwglx3mUigCyEnYUECxRNmvg/70pthMwoCEgk0EDf01 wEM/lh51pYc5EWQXL9lZs2R8gAJWkgAlKfAAUlFyAv3LJEEo0D9azQNSW1IjpvaWTAHwc2koARHw TlYujqHpo7Qjmkx0urQZASkF9rQUTskYy21CzVxOXRZwTkQxqnIzJVHlXXbWOcxKVrKlCAimShOT 1gmoFDlliQhNXWHMYQBvqy4CKZJcIKJxQW1v87vUUlYzrM1FR5Bm0mthXWDBJi3tqLPpa5oC+yTC xiguaHLsTtHVOyLx0AEf+ikqovcBX8IKmJCZlwAeUIGCUKA/syotJRtDV3oa6La4/QFpS2qJ1q72 na0tiDwFYNaz8AyAuU2ucnOwW0z49rX97SOLAF5riQnA9QNpHV1yarXc7nr3BaQ1LQLIAtcKECCt BXkraolbM5UioLbI/a5850sJsrLCrC/tH0GCSZYHXCm/7LUSJWu6Xfoa+MAjOKEcQ2JbBDsYtwpe cOni++AKGyjCEq6rhTf8DwwvWMMcDrE8PCxHEIv4xPWwr4Thy10Uu7gfJIaiiV9M42bEGIUzrrGO g3Fj/+V4x0Ae60hXPE8KB/nINlYxkQuM5CZbwyrbAYuUp0zlKlv5yl+BACNa7OQu22K1WraumMdM 5jKb+cxoTrOZFcBmLnv5zag4b5vnTOc62/nOeM6znuccAgAh+QQEyAD/ACwAAAAA1AE8AAAF/uAi jmRpnmiqrmzrvnAsz3Rt33iu73zv/8CgcEgsGo/IpHLJbDqf0Kh0Sq1ar9isdsvter/gsHhMLpvP 6LR6zW673/C4fE6v2+/4vH7P7/v/gIGCg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmagQkDAgwAoQID BiOjPAOhqgBNqausd66rT7Kqm3wJAqEMBgkLCQa6AA4NAAM9B69OCcp4ybNPzNC3eLINviUGq8c9 zU3eN8xe4N/T1HW12CbPxj7kSu80uuPm5bbnddqq3Ciu/DvxkASM4YrevScD8a2RpkodCl3/dCQs MrGFPlhcKlKsp9BNLQYsmEXMoVFIyRQX/TFuOWmSY8eFrxy0ONXNpUCbLlKq1MIySM+XX3SOPJHA 4YgDA0ABaDDgwAtlnUAxGGB0RCdhoqiiuKpKQCkS3rDuU6FzGwmkSpk6hYE264EGa0lwFfV1RLMD DnZpPdF2adMUfdWe+Am0S612MxLkRezKQdXBq8oCqCtC8VIDB5BGNuGvqLBrds0x3ItSLAABqL9a ZhzKcc7WmWXFFdE5VyjQIl6tXtXAxGpujY3+pt3aKOHCW0zPfpGg2GkSnx+XeAXA6e7J0ENRTjnb lYARsviBkyYd8sHKzr+bul3+6G25obqLAj829yqIhyk3n79+qbr9z/WHm33nIZcGdcv+uSALZeGx 8MpsSoWCDUMA/GcWcdrRx98C4OTVngnkLEhCgysspp57cYmIYYAc8oZNSjJpiJ2M/Ki44j/HGYgF gjJQOBs7Fa4Q4mYLADkbb5Wtos5F4k2TyocgirbKj0oKqcpycCXZ0AhMhrall0tZNeVZVfpI5pct FqijGTwSVKWY9aVADpDcUOhQM7WU4AlpeFYnAzjpwBcnCq+QNmI9e6pDjjeBwhnKMY1q+SiYO61Z hmmUiWDaK6hxdJ+VBVJ4YieGAgmLWA7O0tif5qA6XVcrOLfNcq6qsOg0tYL5Xa4EspijpVQcNlSR 1HEja6WrgGSrpy4B48BUzVRUKJH9T5lzbJS7rCDZMIriROmrB10LLgAgiQuWKsqmGQqwaAiVwmHY vDORvPXglaG6sEhL3ZsugEOvmiZsi5u+BXrz77oHY/Qru1FQGGY/3pgLZrqEMrvhagx0e8+DoGp3 bIz9WmsxuS3YVmyvfi5b8DQS91ruyOkuzDAU8EKM68gnVhzqhQDOiLIIxw77rcNCY7tuf0efuyEL 9iYL9IVy1hMWzgvwqu6JMs+8zCuZyph0pL9ArXPSIgD5Fdh9qtKbykfX3AKg/IY96Ak5/+JqLWtH vfJBYFMIadx+f2uVP1p3kRLFh05jpntojr1TSiO0fBfXvgm+wLF16530AYuXHf73YF3L6jm1Vln+ s6Qpjy6h3PGdufrpKyJWuBa1DHVY4j4v0GXHQdJIaV06Id06l717Q/TbY2rTiSrbzT1Y3hqCrBwJ ysNuvY26x4n97tZTNzsXKUWUQIRkA5jzYgNq7vNoJCx2mwEGPFvoMQ6fNsAAxWhMttsquC8KduZr H3tSFRFhxKV+o8Bf7/A1LpUEcATo+096BOgfpZHNe9/bwvL0khkDyGoqwlkMcEQBpRY1BRSY4R7q 9nGdGfUsWRailsPSx5eTVUaEGBJACdHVlPjdyyrHQpc6TAU8jlkFhwvwTggnlUQSCop5XitaBqfQ CWKgaxS9UAFSnDOVBMlJNYQK9MtjmjaKCYnQKD5sDYP2dQwDkK9xJwiGGtcRxi4+BTOe4CAK0jiM NZ5sU7IrWx3/goIt6hF3POvMFBfJyEY68pGQjKQkJ0nJSlrykpjMpCY3yclOevKToAylKEdJylKa 8pSoTKUqV8nKVrrylbCMpSxnScta2vKWuMylLnfJy17GIAQAIfkEBMgA/wAsAAAAANQBPAAABf7g Io5kaZ5oqq5s675wLM90bd94ru987//AoHBILBqPyKRyyWw6n9CodEqtWq/YrHbL7Xq/4LB4TC6b z+i0es1uu9/wuHxOr9vv+Lx+z+/7/4CBgoOEhUgJB4mKi4yNjo+QkZKTjgmGl5hoBgOcnZ6fnwwA o6SlpqcMoKqrrK2cB5mxsnQBp7a3ATIHALCzvr+AtbfDpLkvCQ6jvcDMzXbCxMPGLbuky2EHAqQO BwkDo6nZpJ2iAwviow4GJOgA6uzao+QA5u2cAgPXJt4NngYO5+LRG4BPnwhOJewRHGBJRDtuC7wB ENDwoDkS2vqNSzZxHKdyKBYOcIBQhDd8nf0MNAi4LRHHidf+3WNoQubIdw4F4pQFLZqtaSqQmTL4 JQEpEqlGGB1FouRSACeeRj06wilVA6PWRW3AawRWASavZjXBgME+qkuXSSXRoKKIsiXwiRC71uKJ bw2NXkwgSi3TiFTnjqqYgGvDXW2ValuGNTHgv756+jQFFEW1oWYCD9A6giosb50hlwg8+u/niwsC g0PBFWxT16khryaBFQDn0FAPDsYdt0Tt2wAF514A0HNE1GzNVjXHl14Jo7yjR+SKPJljrsFHcF0p HJjkycWCvsRchupmE+ZNSi89nP1B9d3jl/jmnAQy6aSJj+JOInBt1PnBJgJH/J0jHSzp/kV0gjxK rUPfbe/JF9twDzbFYIUW1pdfLN+BB0Bl7BBD1BdHleTeLuiJ1p+KvKHo3mPZsaWMCmilYx8nM644 XDXKTdibUjh2lWJ7PrqIAkcMGFCRKEKiQFpgXDV5zn4LRKlPNdxtmEmH4IEY0Xi2jOjFNruxN4Ao QzrJonBnEuljYRO5hZuYb7bmFkNLCeijQ6qpKCCeo+gp4YRtBmWKVtbQGKgAjPYp5WUTXkmVlphw ORmIl4mYWTr7yXkUX2kuuOabPeLGEXLs0UlmfUDqBoBbgUE6KGygLUCfnHvyBmpQAtkWqaLtOXoN pImG+Bell1jqE1BCTUYnF0fFo2eC/Tqq6WZ8qE74FK5v5XgAfe4gOBgpdzbAaJTIxeroj7aaKwC6 oUaXrX0ORWmWlcBWKwK+I2BZZY79UpnrLMpGwyyTPj27xadMpmuaSYiqeMA6+U28Zy8JRAxVbQVm eFs8vHGMEVJl5lpbdgGOICCTnqpoXEQQ2pqhrQym8CRkGIrwH82sunpRxTELUjAxlUmU8Ka5PcVZ gL0wPfACAohLZNTxnTrVRBjJ9pfV5yBHH4A4A8wRYcF9myGq+TldQqm7mAUnA3LSNHBgcMb4DXdw 6pnRelArzMfQ0pyQ6S1+Y1FXba8+NlwC2lhSl1CKK5VM5CY1TvlTRC3FWZRh/YX+ed/G9lijrwHT 4zhFIlBdeqnaKkW35aOh9o1WcDqmEsY3J26SYWE5Nh3pCzSWF92TV+rhKV5+qekYDyUC7kQCmcuk We2Ya2/174JjQPQCTM9SOrCAG/RJneCzTvM8fwhAA1pt35JAnPRjULOm68a+zjrlRIoA67i/X/ez KUEDSMIJiNAmHv04TJTCdYCXNEAtItkJbRxAwJ1gz15bOh5lVDC4UhTOGSAMYRgAh4sVJKBDHxSh Cld4BRL+pAUFOEUKWUjDGjbBhchzAZyKZcMe+lAKONzgC8A1wx8a8Yg6CGIpkpcCOBURiVCMIgyU GJ4YeOOJUsyiFvdBiUdwa4v+YAyjGK9gE3xUxH8DaRNy2iGnp6jOLsZilUQMuBwU/AMlnPiHQtSo v5J1biIE8QgfL4OaOYpDI/LgyBgXCQQ4HWZ9hCENSYaEKnDJCS7PIcVtOvYW1v3Oa1iri60c1rP0 OY40VhmLdlL3s79ghZGw3AGcqgPJ6JzGBADUXUQaRaTfDEmXgvKljDxJkPjcUmUsUwzIjHkc3ABz QNKJUSynOYOc8QxsuQkOrvChSlv5rwQEwiV9HCOocHqlZvYJToLcwk3gbWaZe9qLysbZENcsI1bU zOcM+MWn9fHmGymgSABXAs/j0EcfFImSa/TkjYNqB2CigoqRMLKUHhFUaxL9dVNCA5W6eB0REYlI AEi7EZVGcGukX1SKIlLqkEagYKQhDQQPp4TRQqEALBXaBNREAyisjewp5tBTT2EzU0qiCZc8619Q a3rUn44Dah414ixFWgu5JYQ6OBpfDBnwrBO6g6XBkweOXloLdSRjXnmYqazedK2O5glqloBnrW41 MsVt70auakhR3bOr3rwVdfBkGFLtKihk2fAbsNgFSwEqggKgNTVMtJDfAjAN3yVESLUABD9pyh9q DTYeOt0phdwFL5WdM4DtOlfNmMQYcHHDs6YVbWgD+5dswQZxnjRsDRFrFLAyFhE0imxVpJQCyjok pbvoBWP9YM2dMfOmOv0rFjxXVrI/kYa6iftaXI71MJjFFnG9oG1uMKYV67JItzT8RgwLwALEfuux kG0BYlsQgAce4IEpSC5g4GuHulmoQOiFjShgs0yzDZdVeoOMgX32GNYtU21Q7RaBMRqX8G7XTehl 4TeSIVyajSQpNuswzSabilqICTHUEYQjexfJUSmFP1jZ3F/eSFOLPqepNOaRSUDyUKg8DnaFOaeM k/Y63XWsOUMCq4Z58Q3+/jZonRHxfFlg3OAhlxd8gZuKI3ib++4PyuLIx3RM4lrrtE8nDayf6+x3 5m1AzAH9GIn50Ci92YT5M3hzbSD/5700WxUw8PgyFOfLFSjrhgQFovjih/olzeEuQ8wnqHKETKBf rPBXn/Rig5KRON+lpHS50JmKMZCB1in3FgUMmMYBkqff2Gwa07A2QzUCQNVRsLcm+6EsADypvA8J gyi1STXn7jIKyqaY0tsJ34deHetmg0GkERFpXqLiFmhz8TknrfYXSaqUbEfbJNx2trjHTe5ym/vc 6E63utfN7na7+93wjre8503vetv73vjOt7733YcQAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="navigation_bttns.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/mastheads/navigation_bttns.gif R0lGODlhawIUAKIAALggEf////77yN2Ucu3Inr4zIc9pT8ZONyH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABrAhQAAAP/ GLrc/jDKSau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5oqq5s675wLM90bd94jgF87//AoHBILBqPQwZyyWw6n4AFdEqt IqXWrNaK3Xq/VwV4TA52y2iwMs32ntvw6TtOZ87r+OI9zwfulwYDBgVCBYJPhgZ0a32NZmKOkT5/ kniUlYuQmI6XRAUEAqECQgcCBE+lp3GMTYahBIShU6CEB6ADtEayXJo/rqaET7lIAwMAhqAEB6u9 VaKhipthAWO2psbSRJ1Gtz2hwQa7TeJw20KgAsXYQKmoppnNSJ/PiuRNoMvJ1stF9lB380RFc4Jv iYADAV8xo6blFQFl2Y6Yu2fqXRVVbSYOGWAx/1w6HqAGcvM2Ch6UUgJEBmnnhGU5jT04pjwWqyQi frsK8Otnk8odmYoKBHOic4ktADIJGVq4BVrEJTCRON0JhSPTKgW+AUB3KutBYjb9pYnKw+PQYzIh svSIjeNDi9aS8bD2cetBWh4hPmG15NZZWb+iGUhmbPA1HrK4Atglc4DSxrIME1hnJ55dxz4akwQK FHHJtAAkrytmVyVap4vTQeuMNBRm0Y8YZglFFZdrku126VadsjPsLWS5WfQsl4dmz6lkvvv9JfgP v68EFAh3qvFjga0VukZtHfnwf5aPyPxhy/apdslnQp6ZrPhDmflUKzM1mHLl8Dzty8I1fjEBA/+B +AcgNrKgtMx+6XBkTGPoCBigE3fcFtM1db2SVnEITnYKfQ8udmBKKH022W4jmiKXggo6aB8PzgHx zChu2UZgRcbsRtyF73C4ok/4UYHSOq51E2OFNHpkwIH/dehGj4BQWEw6IaH4EX/joXRkaiW29uSM 3fAoWxNu+SJUmO1wdOSUaDr2DUu1FIQOQsl5+aVBdZEEwDIoeXZIanum5tmfoCC24Vd+umbaNEFI CJJ0LGnlaEmJSbfZQEeldmR/eO5WU012CcrnoVEwyYRDp+SSlSqvCOXnqo9yamhzop4kYYHv0NIo MJzqCSovc0LhVUhefROof3eWZaNnnA5rUar/Z+0VaxBm/eDWO+2go1CKCqIH11tfdZkdoRCSpeif nzR4pyjGhDjjn4W+uKqf6jrbK58+HGsvpKOQEy9S2HTjEQ/l3vvni6Ps+0OLP6D27m4DCcxqwegu Oa8W/dl4b8M2GSwxxaIsmqO7rlQcFr6pPePZrvdNwawiHB2gbal1aqllnu2cald8IrmCURN8gTXT AfWMQktOoQFWNMkPp/aXpH4S8m+483YG9DdesSuwVgAfjRg/8D09NNIWM5310wc/e4TCtB2jqZ1V J9201sCZzQQsIqudr3RtY/2202LxqgVbxjml981J5yrL4Epn4ZxHHbcHDXVHqyNzio6ft12k//x8 IiN4cvcQ7G2H81bjk/mSbjXJjZHGVoMJ9q2HZZ+nQ12XDiMI5WKmV+pxx3yCDjaMrpHWek89IFwv uDHS3lOQtZfenxbGJyoKqlCi+da6JAU6/BjRIwswY8HXOLz42qMePrt++wqblaa4bJF5y2D7UVwW EfZRQcdw1SxUwf0CUWROyg5E0oKT353mMP6znV54Fh7/xU9RzQvcOwjILx840FgjEt/pDjgZAVKl eJ0jgsKQgg4g9YQtEaRg3CZWhbxkDxgSNKEPAKdCWLHQCbjwQQc5WJjgfQRwNvIf9tI3hf09ZRo3 PGIZuueMD/KBiUrkXxKbQryIQDGKEgkhFlDltMWrdJENV/yiEMIoBNdhgoxiLNsU01iFnrFxY28k AxrjOMeEVTEbdWRjHtPoxjgqTot+NMIexTjILxayizpIpCIXychGOvKRkIykJC2QAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="black.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/Graphics/black.gif R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="printersm.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/News/graphics/printersm.gif R0lGODlhcAANALMAAP///wAAAJkAAP/MzMxmZswzM5kzM8yZmczMzDMzM5mZmWZmZgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAABwAA0AAAT/EMgpQ0g260S7/2AojmRpBiNqrmzruqhmJRigvniurzfY twPDYCcJDok6FEamiIUIgqjg4BkeO4WCJysREChW1kBwRf485wl0aBAAoFDAeChof6ECrTqqrdet ZAAGbVQUB21CAFIDAwV8QwWDBQhTY4U+NjIBCxxpEnBQBm9TB4yBAghxAFxYel5jBKZ0BASXn1Ox coEEooJfjgcIvrwpxSCgpaNFc4rKq3oUrF6Kscy1bR0HtdNjwsS+zxMHUbYfMRcITRSeo2WqCMxu qlDQt31fXvCBbdOGUQZUxpBp9CjcBGw+MqRQiKShQwnjviS0sHCTgocYdxwo10GTRxkIDdhlHJnk o8mQJFPqiAAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="printer.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/News/graphics/printer.gif R0lGODlhZwAZALMAAP///wAAAJkAAMzMzJkzM8yZmcxmZpmZmf/MzDMzM8wzM2ZmZgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAABnABkAAAT/EMhJq7046827/2AojqQ1BGiqrsFRvvB4DhvdvgUS79x5 DIuBcDiU3C4GAYGg1FmUmUGBF/OdWK1EAHC0IJKKJOGCcCLH1Jev07Ukp8yCQMFELA0ApliXFAjS JVYJg4SDAQMJXC4YSQZgAG8COQJ4CEpyU3logDItiAegPzQUbRViYRJJZpQSlJZ4AHSZnCFrHKUT X64TbxKWCgC/rxIKfma0HlYqByjMiIqMSnMScn4SS5LSBnEAcpvIyTehokKki+DoILYbuB856VTK zYeHiUbnFgU0lpIVUB8IZsGrsGYcvgntWsHCVKEMCDnHBkpYpyEhE1aWmKC5Q0wahWoEsvT5EaCj gJ5uc+pcrAZLRKGEFQIUGjWBVTBKqm7iwWSSgpIBCqbkBDBnAKtIk8YsifhhxcELV1IcpDTFUgGI CoNdbAnJDwE+ksr0IwBsKEqjAkOsCEKkrRBmKhYs8GmNZ79f3RTY+VPzar8+U+bIwdOrprUSWBIr XrCFlyslS1TGMelHoDRgWr92O1mNbyqbJBSLXttYogYCjjyHHs2asekNe2CwZv3j9cDZo5/a3s17 dwQAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="to_top.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/nav_graphics/to_top.gif R0lGODlhNgAbAKIAAP/////GhAAAAHtjQv/Gtb2UY3t7e//v1iH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAA2ABsAAAP7 CLrc/jDKSau9lgSCe9dBcHjkBIZiqTYnmq6VIAucMgiDW8iDYggAAg7GwP2AwRlqhxuMfoBbjQgQ GKJAjTJ0K6AOP2GPqphZNbd0SOYK/G7khVHmvQVwa0E7TYtXr2pmegFdLlIyfnMCXk12AUwDOYR6 N1dkZnV4ao88XIMyUzAHbaSlpXGjpqqqVKmrr22hF0dbk4ukgpKQKDcylhUEBmmSw7eGw147kXiT vbITP0t4yqXMk5mZk78UB47NedWSd4NqfH0Vo96bbLji7OUzA88Pqd7U1O28t4XeGxOu/Yp5yRdC 2aZ+/ipAYeAMghUGQob4QOKnokWLCQAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="trans.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/nav_graphics/trans.gif R0lGODlhAgACAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAACAAIAAAIChFEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="08.1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://ads.infi.net/tag?view=stpete.06.28.1999.15:08:08.1 R0lGODlheABaAPMJABIPEhsTF8NPPas8MygYGo4xLXAqKVUjJD4eIAMCAv79/U42N9fKyryfnpd8 fW1YWiH/C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwEDAAAh/h1HaWZCdWlsZGVyIDAuNSBieSBZdmVzIFBpZ3VldAAh +QQEHgD/ACwAAAAAeABaAAAE/hDISau9OOutU+JgKI5kaZ5oqq5s675wLM9YEFD2Te/8lU+/HlCY 0kmMgNxNiTw2WcznzlaJJn9KZzSopYakuC0ILFo2t+i0tZsF6tRuuIZbsqrveHM+f8VjFgwKCg06 C4KDHHtoCA4Mio+Qe0NeAYIMCTYPgg4eVXGQCzkNgphoBJGokmmjCqcBDQ4KnHpUqQGxVwSkWwS9 rkq9tsJoC42ySbDHOcUOoTYEDoTNNsUPvzmxsg42pA8OCM8E3tbPDg/Vw+lKCw+aDADtsQ5Xge2D vYENge8PDICOTDQpaJdkU74ABBY0YPUggMCFghb4snVNTcWADSM2ABBr461B/R9GbXOn6QEABQz0 KXCmhNQRUghIEYCVQB6AmbISiERo6iKwYHeApmkGYNTCBJoaYAo0qyMAQ5cIJDCk1MMHJru4KUig a2uvp0xv2rTpC2jZHMHKCg0ndKJPG/7gRZR76ZUyo1NRljKkIBeTrqUqeZUJKNk8aMfIqj2LcDHj xowdbzFkMgCDSxxRJoGaJNCCvHXhoozWEG1XZ4BTd+yIcOwxx7Als409MUq/Tbc4sULZ8N/lzwgC DSoNiPeRsqNS4tS2KSFTlOz23fZHu/rs6gjeArCa5Mh27jasXg0gXgn4xd9vpk/fq5OH9h7Ix68e GzJ9BNn3rHUVubZk+vf+4ZcdgAQW2IuAb11n2mL2GUjbgIsJiB92EKo1oYO+IPhLWxh2+GCFB0pY IYgSOqahgyXK5uGKJl6YoYjZlQijiyGmGCGINYoYGwLJWQNbI7/54psDZfVzmY8WXkbjjEw2+aKO N5LoJGwpCSfRYiUlcJkvlyE1UC9U6bTSYnwRMOEDTaYJo5n4HQDlk1JOieUDIX25WCDIfKkJJ1Ah NIpJSVmIQDtc8cgAm2omisABjL65Zo5yluViLCapxRdXrIl0kyD4rOSQZjk6QGRwo32zqKho4ucN MwcwI6E3DhjAqJsTMglnmlEKGMh1AiXAiGZhnSZsrxLy9U4xvFlzQEr9JRWXkiAQyYIfpY0sSquc ip6IqIBZYglTLJeEFdOYEYkD06uaDaqXmR0Z9esl7mTWgJlMMQJAozDiu222IeKLHwOzuIjApb8q tdO4CHlm7iUixqvuO4wGQoAEH8RrsWYHCMSAsiLOem3Hs87or7USNkDnLQswYiqpAPA4kFzbQMXV n+Yq1XC68TL6p7UZa3YxxM1ks4DHRH/Mc8j54ov0wPpcdtmn0v5qTZf08jOQr1ThNPHNEAtkrUCi NtCz1WQDYMDGB4xiZtFLs2202/4KdwgnjGw5rdNS4aeQPpyw2Y8+dIpYnCwHnD0ao9k08K9BjA9k gD58J+CxAZT7C/73tZd//J1VAZy6kYDkScAzAhTvO8GiMFpFAKOqMyoVJox+N7EHpNN+wMTkWUv5 7o0yunvlHh+dOdECMtoPOCIvLaHbyw/v+++yTg799NRL/7vzwGP/Tcsgs90m3MVjX/3z1Jd/feHj E50978MDP7rwcGefefRFm2///fjTT76s0M+a/Z/Tc5762Dc//e3PfAXQx+4uU74CTK8ADhwfAqNH PUE8IID1kx/6+lfADN6vAPsggAG8Bj0ImvCEKIxg5RpoQvMRaoMchCH+3IbBA9qvAOAKAATNkQAD pPCHP7whCs1XLcol0BsmI+JCLmiAaJjMiQ/wHSy8oUL/RcMcv/1DFSxMmEMILuQAEBxAA3DYgAGc 8Iop3B0EfxdE6gmHAAmElnCoZyRvDMKHTEkb4cC2CeCN8EgdaaIcLbhDlBBgAJZAAAg3YQkTAm4Q QFyjDyNZwgIgcisQVJhnSlgPs1nwcbLAyTdAmQwz/a4ekvukSETpQ3DBsYuXzEsrBiAAlLBCkZFM oRklacQTkiKTK1lWMCcJwYiAsR6gJJJIFLmTA0judxFBgOEuuMxl4tCQ1zxUMbcSSzEOpHMe2GUu LTkAcaoRhb9c5NA2ecJLXnCRaKqmtOI4SjYWwILHHIjLHKDHb2TzldjsJim82QADlPOg4vwhQndJ zDBuMwHA/VyA4SQaxnIa5QCIfIfL/GFNa6bwohm9l0j6iVFX/rOcAx1oLQehDwEc1KELjakuy7nI QXhzNI1cKA6rNK8eLvIypTpEGX/YiKZJJRsbs8QDBCAcBzAVWjeNxibKaQwGFAABMc2qTsX5Ugi+ Do7OhF18yPnSA6hHhEYkT3gCUDjZNdSEB0BIyyxZgO+Y9QMQlI8i5YPRsC6KdgIQQF25QlatGraw CaUpCg2L0JkqtqtAZKwJGbtQl8Y0sJgNLGU3C1mZchayFT1sRScr2c+WU7MIzaxqTUtZxG62pTol LWWLakbW0rKylqUlZnWr2tXa9rdaZcUCChtayq6Un6z9Re1pd9vb5vZ2ucpl7G6Be1rPFCC3B8Wu YUdq2uk697vgda5WfatVJ2Z3IZm1rksFgF7MohcWC41GHk+L3oM2QowNCK9+90te3j5Xq8+yKZAE oVvrepOpDBAAUpu63pRkg5/sBSoDyrmPbFyXvxgGL3TFm9VdPU6EACPVAmipXltG5KnfEMl1JUbS RkSRU7S0IMASkOEa2zi6CBUEAMqJ1QH8aiUrBnItP7cdb/JzpCtNgJExelVW0DjJdT3AjafMX62e 2L2DUG+JFSBlLB+ZcCtdAHsJd2BSBNbMA2iEU6nM5uYCGFrorUc9gjzcp1bJqSNF8j6eKraVdoUA Z/3eSmD3ceE229i/OF4uK8aox2dZlRUJHvThkIrUB9AyOcnBM0ry8VRbjplIhv4ub6G74cAiNrN+ pWUBPoAArgzAAO+5rVR06NLtAGCwtw5sq+/FFSk7sz1Y/aoBBADrYf9Xv4jObHZdaknLNlu1he2v eGs8WQxXG9mlJq94yUraays7tZol7X+TLWoHPhvZEST3ar393DB6l9nkPKca/dvYxs572fBGtmb5 N2p6j5p/hRa1EfGdWXPrNraT5J8ffXhwh46Wfg3VrcE13OxXF+7CMnW3YN0ERnVjtgC+q+hqAd5V ml6PZG2a5G0NTkwDDGhRv1t54TwuWIdynJxp/TQis28nTZqbkeMD9y/IYd7CFgaPTRNbG8N/fvFX OzA7ElhbyM3I79XutpcuNyUvCWhQMyKP4QKP0dQPboADXW+SH8Pd7Ap18acT3eJrv4nYDTr0jvdb syE3wA2kWbnv1Srht1vduXO775e/naZxvQnSLh74/LinE0qXldmBJ59ORF2aEAS6xpd7VZjfrteN OkvUN9h4gypb41flD+Zb2GpMIKhzlTvFV8QjHqnfTvGuSwLtIQ9GkEf+tsstu9Slwj3SUaw8MJcV 8sCobJ1v3Airu97rMHGK0UueJ7uvfe4/YKbZVZ720c+60ulKVrPKHRzz+T74eYa7jluW5K/9rl18 jrZ2y79nVhM7fvZh93nIf4et2dcyynd5F4d1rXcTcad/uyd3bmJrq+dAmud74iF3bKJ+2ucmFhiA +JGBrgdrtId7r5MEfPc8caU637c5+9cyDXh/u5MfyVeC5ZF/N7B/rgd1NDiBs6eBhfOBbLI5uPc9 09cdN5h93dc6+Dd6jYKCH6CEKRgMQ8gduteEjfKBCEF7naMWKDiDT4iDPth9pwB5jveBWzgeTDiG C4gQ2TGGFmCGbEgBE6iAbBiHbTgBcliHdniHeJiHeriHfNiHfviHgBiIgjiIhFiIhniIiJiIiriI jNiIjviIkBiJkjiJlFiJlniJmJiJmQIYAQAh+QQEHgD/ACxcAFMAGAAHAAAEJTDJSatN7ur72v4S oTzgFjBKUF4Emk3LmixoSjWOqgFLo/wxSQQAIfkEBB4A/wAsXQBCABgAGAAABJKwlDGKueago9E2 UtFUYcZphEcA6QEOTpNJnQoEa5K0oKE8m8KBkCIEEgCADskzMBSejJGoXC5Zm8XTQeAQFkarmHV4 PBVExIrBFVsJj4ZivmBVCXPHYwH+LuJzcw9uCQFygQxngQoMC1ZJVmaLkw5VVwRjCzGJDQ51bjeY hKNjkKSnqKmqq6ytrq+wsbKztLW0EQAh+QQEHgD/ACxdADMAGAAbAAAE2FDIOaq92E6Zey1NtQki JWJOOIzsdhWK087kySgF3YrFHeq7x02xmjB+s8GjoWg+RoNmw/GQCaiOYdMK1SoY3ibjSWINss20 2lEsmVNgcONRWH2KyfqnoOfXzRx8FQaEfIQGfxwvBYiMB4cHj4htggOMkAiRCJuPgiR+jpEHCASb BAClnR8GB3yjm6QAAacJCamNBpwFBwSlBAEJAAC1wbesvQjHs7TExKjJkacE0bPAzc2o0cPPp8LX 1wHRzszD386b1ubqtajM197rwunfqOv27LP39sIAEQAh+QQEHgD/ACxdACcAFwAZAAAEntBIU4q0 05yTj6NVKGak8TSgqJbSojyh0zgqBk6MAjbMozS10SIHLAgUjIZCcQhaHjldRfkIIBKJQe20fBUG A+Vs9nCAH2VllwYeHJFdZDTe+7YHjlzSF1/b7wICBQAJBCcMiElsd22BjgKMkZGPgZKWYJSXl5lu jo2WlKGPk6KljaWolZ2prK2ur7Cxnq2rmKqpp59aq6G7YCG/FZ0RACH5BAQeAP8ALFwAFwAZAB0A AATWEElEqr24zk2zzAQ3eeO1ORy2mdvTpBocbovyiHhMMwqeiwseqjU5HHyIB6/HYTQWxiPn4FJY b8VDTdF4LLzfR9VqmxqDZAVjmWYsNlGDnMpOWx3G7EE+P7oaa04PUUeEe3yEfIiGhopGio6MiJCU i3GTkAUFcpuRlQaaoaKan5mjp52fpw4NDqd8pLCjgA9cqKGcowMCag1WB7e3AwO+DwEICQkDwaLD w74NBs7OzNO7Vg2AAtQFy9bfAw48DDfg5sMIAgIFAAkE3efg6vPq8eb08/bgEQAh+QQElgD/ACxc AAkAGQAeAAAEsDDISau9OEunu3yNpyHKIwaEhTBK2hFwtbActcQSjOcP2+YohgOh000Ii4Ziucjp SIrGY0GtgpZLU/GpxDJ8WAXjtt32wuhheY10NL7CB5ENm9PviLz9vtbr+WV+fn17T4J5gX9Fh4OL inWMjQSHhpGWiJOXmkSbjAcHnZ6fn4ejpIKmo6ipoqx5qap+owa0pwiwpnqztAakn7y1uanApsDB uL+8yca9sMrM0M27tQYRACH5BAQeAP8ALGEABQAGAAYAAAQQEMgJHHMyMMWyxUAgjqQYAQAh+QQE HgD/ACxoAAMABgAGAAAEEBDICRxzMjDFssVAII6kGAEAIfkEBJAB/wAsAABMAHgADgAABP4wSQkC mTIgRDoBWABiZJkA34RyREARnEuO5tzSdV5WcDrvgGBQR9QJccKicrk8ThyLxCP6eCQUVqZ2K2E4 SIgs1xQQPxmmBbTbSDDaii+W/MCNuV5SQ7EMEx8KURgOaBJ+AQoMgQmEiAwEc3MUEwsKFxh2dncY eSGXPySERYI0ohKiBA2VX4APioAXCnsLlYoLioWniXwOCnyADAicUAoBe21Xrl8UDIpfxwmVBL3N jLsYvs+yErtRWNS8iWjZErMJCLKEe9x7Dg0MgLSLE2+91guIDw3Ip17wWJGUTWgVh+AUS73W1eNz BoDBK+2SLbS2jtCIOBN8PUjITdmbK7DyPiWrxAhNrY+UEjkQlQdLp5JuVqLxIo0QoGQ3z8BsKRBg FV7/YEp48EkRAUDLXLr7F5JTA3uosFQh4WvBQ1mSpAQq6LNm0DfrdF7t6Wof0JumEjx9wgedIKW1 AkkbdM0UNUETwkKzxkBGAkcYoXm9CYxhv3LbJMr5qagk2lwomxDRpGMfE8o5HpQxvEVzzk2giwDI GrpEs2pjTucqzZrENMyly2i+I9tv69u4c2+KAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="hearme-story.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/Graphics/hearme-story.gif R0lGODlhWgBtANUAAMzMzPX19fX184aFhP///6CeoPb29rSztMrKyr69vmtqagEBAU4GhssnKe3t 7sfHx/n5+cPDw/f7/Yljp+np6fPz89p5V/39/f39/+amhvb4+ePj4x4eHuzCqjQ0NMrLzfHx8f/+ /N/e3VFPT9jX2NDQ0EE/P83O0Pr8/vz8+vT2+NLS1PDVxfz59vLg1czNz/P09vDw8tTR0NHNzP77 +8jFxPXq5MvMzsS/x/n7/PXy8vfw7Pf29Pn19cvIx87LyiH5BAAAAAAALAAAAABaAG0AAAb/QIBw +EAMh6dS8nQ8nl5HY6nUBJyYAOWLWp0Wk4iiEIucQr1SaHXNbrvf8Lh8Tq/b7/i8fs/HI/4PDxER CYWGhwmDgUVGfY5ugIKECQeVBZeYmJUHhYqMj6AAkZOblwOnqKmompyJgX+heoA1hJamqAqnmQWn CrmrBZWJNZ+xdIC1B7cDucEHMzIiIhsUGyQyPzWUvKmXwhGwxnFhydy6ByTTDjwpLSkh7y0hFxAq IBQiAAnm5weKjeLWILOUCt0GASEIEEiosKFDhe9oQAhAoUSCXudcAQw4hNy2VRFEUGhB4MKFhygX tmhBA0PDHBBibHjAq1kwjRyFhNnGrUAN/xEgUqRUeAFDUaMmW3TIYENeQwwYUKig8KHmgJsRxIj7 o00Zr2Aidgh1CJUeBAgG0qo1IMGGhQYWOrQwCfXp1AjMTgnTGsqjMl0ydhioq9DoWQMBEgsIIGBx Yg1uG0jOYEADBLouCWDIseGAr6uc+DoiVwlVhA08Mhemh5hxhQqNHSdO3FbyZA0aAqSFwFAhjBd5 b9bYuId0zxliH7JW/Lp549mKBUhwYbtBBwmtdUMgu6FAM07g+hj3XkCEANVQ0WYXADs29NmNDeTI YNsCCwnRDVx26MCzAqzE2UHaAXpRsN1TaEWn4HsMMqYBdfXpkBtjuumXGQYUJOCLcAEeE/9BaQok 4IBTmi3nXoPQqZDdYwLQZ9t1rcl2VmExaPhfaB2O0xUzB5BYUoIoKlZhYmxJoIEAMebAQnUWSAgf dBBk1t+GOAr4wDYKHNDbj08y+NyQGhiQQQaWwScBCi5OhsKKUDYUg2egJSAaHDv9VcA8CK7XoGyz ScDDWxlIMFF8GnTAZGV7BhClZt19F94cCHzIjQFj/ajne3xCh5uh1mHn2HRv2eYCfkEuigEJ3g3A yXBy1MnMBpWyxmam0DU2oZGh3teaBBKEOhmpsn2p6EkonMDMTXOycaUyWT6kHoX5GfDcl4vxqhsK nFqAAqkGoMmkkZjyuWgFNgbzKCSEcLP/5bO1NqaCCq+BAIJjiHUwagBt5YpdADBosGR9iAapnWYi pFqAnDnqtKx3Pzh0QVrh9uvCqBKA0N5JKcAFAW4ohGoBD0dWgIILvjZwL8SYMqYfATkAd2NW6Nrp 8ETtxiZBByxMrAF2ENRQwAb0BYovpw3sIEFj2JXcAQoCU2jASRTAefC5TbiqwA4NmRhsYxXczEIG HdjAQkIjLDBDxkXzKoC+sOFaXQYo0LqgblCheqOcbES6zykuGcZmdEjjDHYHFug1wFn0XRdAx7/C pgHjtgkNX2zsiYuhhlclwGoVgjDrAFFAAn7izUstlcEIHNBwFQZLWiCBChK4aEGYusX+/zawscE2 uWM5SLACef48UMVONSWEwVmM5e5cn6Z3QPgAI4TggQcVtCCZDbxmCztjN7/tWO7UCskYAQ5gPjVx kTKbQGFAct2c7rS5ADbYH28AggcLbHDBW9d1D1cPuZEO0RpAJq5Rzku6UVQFbnAsfxBnYQrIQYlC x57lEQkFEIiLfSxggwJwYAEcWEEI+Merf1kAUQLgwQCv872UQYtIF+hMLkIThStxA3RoEdaJiFSZ DLDAPmMqwAKGeAICkHA6krFAACYEgQGy4EgoOiB8IOCACDQDYR2RlAJqoJDDIGYxctONAMfkPAs4 wAQgJMEITVbCt1igHtUimgWMxifK7f9QjIj53cuEpxMtUuBHoYPW976XL8KRrAMP8IACHJDBE7KF U3DrAQx6WB8BqKhWydPhbCqgAhLAiRMAWRYzuqiftSAGYrOqQADmlwEXdGAzG7MB2I6GLcmMCjGP 81Wg1NKlaUEnLSCgiPmwSLxTaOaUa+FhL1+jAlnKD4MBSIG0VACD53hrjqTila90BbFBCvKXArgH A0ETnvR55wAlQSXKEAi42C3tkpQDF+yCRjt8rS2JG8Ok+JInJMQ4wAF2M5cRzNmsCyBJSGHsEmTu 8yRhLdF5KtAADGjzr059kZ1bm00MKOBJE6gKb6IcAQkIAIGDUiihDDJSHYPFL15J9DH/3iLgmvbJ Tn4mJgYOEEECRpA54dkQen8saYxe2DQirbShbNKmLY+GUhcuZqMbGKZP96YACmAAmessapcA50Lo SOBfLJhpC7kaRQHgdANW7CkAfjoAEVy1AgboolYd2i6tquCHMFIQGCvI0nbdYwPAyVwEAJCuU7iV PSkgkAxoFqRwZnRyRPVrv0g1NylGVjFn/YAuQLq3tqIgmATAXwEIECMkMTZTpoSYBlRUmQkl5l2w qcxEF8NLHsZnNwZQJVp0kBgdVCOwwfDpXwZAAg2AIK748wFR4OqQkqrmYaohAK+mS10J6KC6BuAt Yw5EyuZyVzMNgQBs7kEBY6n1pwog/4E9kLuA6Y3gACYZgHuBIl8PmCABIVCACUzggREsxQIAzgCA LeCCZgrYAhmAAc3QUl8TRMABCuCAIi8QgREoYHrQs+8MIAACB1DAASvY7GDRu4IKzCu0QxyiB0Iw gBS394wp9oAIPjhEDqSpOgTs1e1yQ4CygZADngHhEP9T4xR/0APi9XAMSrDZqfJiBDeIQQx0gAE0 EpkDEcAfkRdQAB/4YogJQKMJKhG0HbyFBW6JC1xc8MNOXSABIJTBBmQgxBFUgwMcqPMGyvYz/EUA BRSgQABWcMWpEui+HwYBimfgABAOgMYp/nKKw7wABRDAWx3QwFsooIIB41imBGjxCP9YFuoFDCAh Vq40ARSwAPyi8QA5+PCgrzhYc753Aw5QtJ9F4OgPSljCaMwz/hKgZekmTscugEGA4TImBLsgABcQ dUlKPQCFpNrSrNYS/g6AIQcY4AU8pSFBC0CCf2Jg2LzmALErfYD7ttgDB/ggpRWAARUkjnEuiAGA DcVBGLCgBxTwxQFAOIMMCdEEFJgBCIWI7QWgc9vkC2aFPyo8vdXkBLjWALqHWIMWRxrOLr6wqu3d qbe4QAdv2YDHGsCCgbea1XjmADN+bGqG0yDb0qs5AmICvEeJUgERKDcMmEECG/hCjd6xcAJ24J1c /IdHLSgUgWGwFAoYYCk5kGWAd0D/ghGItAXQs/AMehD2AtDgB1nqgWdIAPYsDQC/DhBxI2yNjg+n QCIBUEgPeECih9Hg7guhQQjmwcltSQAGLr2ukaqrAR70IATuUAgN/s6bwEPAHSmowN1bEFcCtGC7 G5ghFkWhxQK84MMOAOMLu0kkHq5TtpKcEMpws1rGwGQ2arntRVEmrcTA4J8QyMEJXgaQYoZIBP+M QV+Lekfm+5Kfd9QkGO8BAgzAwDMCPcLC3ruCQKc+XF6q3JMuNST4vGavOnwsUQXwzxZgIO4U3whB B3CaROO+b4QRr3PiigFFkRT3a0EPrnEZ5Ld+TlUBuaYQhEZxVRNSB9B9H9YYEEAB/x+SAD9ACQkg AgFgMWDECRAgAgcgAtmxFiRgIOwhAjVgdfukSaKDWQZyaV/hQJyjRQPwACKRa3kXby42RNV2PALw ge2lOlxGUg9DWz1mAtBmAKw2WhWwHRewXTmUFvGRQ8zhABXgEhUgeslifA/ofT8oAqeARjz1diRQ AyZxAbxmAqvmcCSFfETSY5UmFHxGAyTlAxtAWoKGFijwf1TkAK6BgA5wEhhgRTeRI52TKjhwg8on DyEgRAcweY+2ACYwUmlYagkAAvslAk8YV6xmamtYAClAaXnGYpP4ZgNAARdQACbgAxdgMR3WeSpA azliccfyAdTgADpQTSzGZSGgA/+pIokeJolg53BlMwAJZAAhUDZ4RgJL+AN4JnKXoGpo5AMQ4AEc YCCv8U8NoSHI4gaH6AsJUIKylnctdicX0AKe8UGBIYkY8G6mFgLSgiRwOHD95XCsdmobAEIUIGEb gD8DIAOVdgGwAXwKAX/BlTCiAEEFEBJeWGp3IgP442sy0Ghq6HFDmDxxVTYFM2llw0UpgGf5tQCo 84wcsGEm5m2F0XPh0AbmBD0HgHG49jnlGJIDYANlM5GSSG34IwMYYIRlMwMh+XJD2GgcEAIupwAz 1l4EsIEUoGgKEXqXMHqQAEEhQgLUQAE5UI5rCHQfxGhKyWoW2F4bMBFxhUZc5AD/okWP3qFqFLBt NOCPGACIJ0EAKnAOVDOV+5AqQUcNEPBodzID1sgBJqBuNCBhoaZuKbCEm5hfJckbCSBzYOdrCpAW pCgCNHAAHrABBkCQCgE8UkknhfUfOGCVgUYBAjAXKTADIhACVjmBMiAtuHgW1UA5HhYvELABG0B5 PmCCSMIDPCAtLWCanEkAIaYqB5AsU1lYI1AAJ0CaAgADqvQ0KRBNEwEPuvGESEIDuRUv+gGdFpMC JTUsp1VKRAJ8mREDjoKQebMwtWiVMbl8goR+fPU+OyR+K/hPjDSXEEZOyPkGgPAR/3EDpPlhqqRP NrU1fUVXddRhuXYZLpEDjtKf/+NAlQXwACswDainertjoGOFe3sCiFa4MuSTEXcpILVgFRFwoVfp ADHQHu7jHulHVxdlfv/UHgeCnldxMBLqIQD6dh/gnt6XevR5Wc2XMieZayCgA3PJjHGyOXzgFzWR JRHwAgOKn7lGV00jheFkpSAgZYPBMj0BHuppJTxBJQ9QAlXqYVcqRa3BS63BoP8kLzU6lxsQHGJq DOPxGaC0AqT5T6iHn/KSpOfHNXKaa3EaaDEQV60YpsEzpnkQBuypAMvpQM2JoVaKn396qTiFqU3p hBrQcd+BExzxB+XADMT3Anw6DVeZqaXZqqXpAJN0FuVjp+Cxo4+ADDzBDOGWCP8IgKok8KvpIA3C Kg24iWsgoGD3UAJNl6OtUKI54RG56gs34kBTsALWCqzEeovVIAIPQCDA0ArFkBPDs1blwA2fwayd EAEf8AJP8AEfkC78ABrgaqvimpBXQglegQvS2g2psK+64AydQK/12hF+YQuqcLDd4A3NGggDKyCQ eq/4ugsS6wzNmhV/MFANewcXKwmTgK+c0AqIkBWM4KgZ65+RwLFZIbIp+worWbJVMAEMwABcAAcw CwAMMAGicLE6e7EwG7MTwAU3SwZsMAEH8AGhUAI9ewA3AAcvALNVgQNG2wYwS7RTSwU3OwNu8AI3 u7SgkAA3e7NDALYnALM3kAD/PQuzJwC2D9CzN4sDOuG0NyADE4CzCHCzZ1u2bFsAMQu2j4C0DHAA NSsEN/sCMwCzOACzlxCzHwC2Uwu4fLu4EyADQiADMlACdXuzBxCzCDC1BQCzK3C1auAIMeu4BfAB N3CzVFCzbTu2DFC3P3uzMnADfou1NvuzVRC0H+C5azu3Mau1tvsIOLC3PuuuqFu4DFC77Oq0qMu3 AACzVJC7MisEc4sAkDsDrNu8dqu8v9sHTcsACfABh8sAHyADMZu44su5MVu7xku1fLu5N9u5DFAA AAC5ACC3rQu7wXu/E5AAj0C+4mu6iHsDemu34mu2Piu+Qbu2ezsBbisEfju8gEY7uH6LvQTsuBMQ tX1AAivABTfgrqa7AieAAyLsrlC7Ah/wAEZ7AlhbAhtcAjIgtGZgrSfAtVzABVDwADiAwuD7AFzb B8L7w0AcxEI8xERcxMKLwbKws9TrwUz8ATvrxEocxVI8xRfrrkvsxC6bxVq8xVzcxV78xWAcxmJc r0EAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="tbcom-120x90bttn.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/promo_graphics/tampabaycom/tbcom-120x90bttn.gif R0lGODlheABaALMAAAAAAAsrKxpVVf39/QwzM9Db25S0tOQMDVGDg6IREe9iYggdHWAGBwQNDQGS ki0DAyH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAB4AFoAAAT/EMhJq7046827/2AojmRpnmiqrmzrqs/DMEn9vHjOyYni /4oDQ0csPnqHZDAxa96MNN/hNyyOjktGrFa1Ao5IaQ359HoeQa0ELZTMYhc4hqG4gSvvmI8pE9q5 eFplH2BdWF0UchVHgz5DdAUFQXYKCWgFBzc0ZQySNQqYVXSgS0wTPVpIam4+km1oCaeWiz8HsWi1 Q7hRdQCbc5VYlVOWkEFBQgmSuj1LtkkzPwlJfE+4PcsUo9O20ZVfoG0T14KQY92kU2mdCojjwXRM DNCj3TRK0FjTfHS2nn1C5j1BQswGK3n0/jXjQwHVwD2CniUJuE/KKgqO2MyYyC0fgH3z/2xNi2Lp gSt6IZ/NgtVkxj6NKaeVEsnHFCw3BGfN2xjwAbV7NSr0KFYJJJd5pj6a2mdKijSgRhkCcDRuS6VK SGmMGZMqU78Y3VT5LGYLrE0uR0QmoorU5hsaXd58kduPqxatblfFoxTEF00mAQi8CTCYwCS4NzrO +qjyjyE1Mi4KDgaggdwGExo0uIE5c4AAT0Y54WxZS4MFCzB3zsptDFYZDwgIcCBANm3ZAhAULVs5 MiIealDHOJ26MgHaqCUQWJDxtOrUBKLPri1AQAAACz4HWACOsgTiBFQHRp1cQmtBIANYz467evTP uuXVkL28swXO21ETR33cgf/tn01mCv95uPln4IEI1oaZKp4tEB1qgRHwWXlD3aWbH5p11kB0732G SxvCzeafAMVZsGF+5DmYIGrVLbDXaSIiKOOMAtRVRQMALscehxJ+pkw7C0mVGW4SkreHJcRtKGNt 3H1XJIS2IbhcYOvt9ECMBloXHgUwRunfhaZhxx+BHFZn4FbdwGGfBOpVp90CqNiQYnZYzmhnlrVp l+dcDPRnIAHKAVpBABq2CVF/1VFXp5SjfVeeBAskGp1mUw0zRHba6bnonX9m2uaWYoqYp56CTlAi pJpxsQCndl5XwWnamSopqD51U5mn2klo3KZZ9ohri06OKF2ibmZ2GpcRwtYArwe695n/iZ5mSOR2 3xH2BqwR8kgitOxFiGum1VUb2IRtEkuoZroOSaSpDhLr7Leveqqtm65uaN1zvyYKraa+fosbm/kS 26N7g5Y7Qa659otrweC6x+PBiUKY6QS1pUtBw9Z9qymJDnrq7qjurUlnxBKPSp/Gz5rar6SUghrp rLl21rF62an8maQol1uxx+72SJ/Iw1b8Xocny+triiuHDGmTL7sbINM+Mwlp1KNq3F7G2c5LdZNO ttcvfcPiilvCHW7cJI5Ofuze2b4Ca1yAieZ8NdZ6Qgx3uBQETffcdN+dc67WHTwB33EPDrirAFDd t7wfB4iAAZAjEADkkMtGuQG5XY5z/+TVQS4A5JNHbrkBN3vusecAPG6dAZJ/zrrrlE/wOOfhPS75 Z5RLSLl6ps+Oc3gGDCB8AQgILzzmxg/wuPEFOCvA8NUN0HwBAwQw/ACYU69e8lg/b/znA0SPuffT Jw9p8NQrDwD11CMAPvWkp09A8MoXz36eywEQvADYFY9889LrUfDcF7cA2C98zyuf9QpgvQEQQHvB gxz2tBNB/w3Qf7mRHgL9N7ULYi+B9vMeAYQXgPQhwIQDNEABetSkCLLOfyE8ngHmJz3PVQx+ykug ALQXQO1Rj4YI8B8FlYejBaAPfiXEXg45eKIUYs9+MaweCdOHPuXRD3OxkgD9Ppg8yf9xb4vNS5T0 MCi9HUpRgdQDXxAnGJgBKmeLExzjBzkoQOYRAIplJOEUpYdD99GPgSnTn/IA9TzWxRGQk8uhw8iX xxXyEI0OdCLpeJdD7HkQeRpcYSHHlUgJrpF4eZRi9XCoxCC6j4SBVMAAkKHKIEjvAMJzyiqloATp qXIAsMSl8HJ5ywNQbwp8XOVEVCmJWRrTB7bcZSsnAkxkunKVr4zlLqlHzFa2cpfqmQA1a4mJXSYP mcabyDZ/eUthftOXuETnK5mZPkxQs5XjxCUx2WlMTNwSE8CMJTphWcwgpC8IsvkOMwdK0IIa9KAI TahCF8rQhh6gNgC72LeqY0p6Ycz/ohNjE90sujhzNQxjgdxYsQ52s3xNlF6gAgAnMRbEd4m0agGy z4lu1jOxuVQ9k8LMrDozrp7Zh1S/UpjOJmUzxlUUplTyaMwY9jGhTitTRFUpy6aWVKVRFakBIlvP uDZTqFKUgH3jG1S5Ji6dYfRpZcsU0+LGtqq67W2y+ZuOmrYnw2XtagRkXOMyOiTAKZWv8KpMAQ03 N8QlTjp/C+TYDHtRtSlMbVgrFcW6JzSFlUpsk60YScvFoYvhTG4QG1VRIfvZlwotphUo2k2hKrOv dYZIoJqbhFLaNKHKq7UdEgB47gZZHs22prkiq1SjZtvxUNVnTSoXtaQqMONCqrRQ/+UR1LzKIbjZ cHam01znxvc5CdnOPgvALgEv10bWoeZyWFyO6xJlO+zYEHasmxwC5oe5y/XId5mLnFctarnjZdB4 pOsi+CZYvAyyj2JVrF/yHqhB6yQPkQdEoPEAYMZEpY+LDpReEtkXGBMm0sNJXWl12pnB/wFAesxt pwHDtz8VSqBzCjYk6aI3PQSodICzXZ8VFZzGCteGehQTnv2SmEgaY0+Qa5ykwzYWzBLb78SWpLH2 Clw89WEnOkcMn/0qN7zrOGiAn8FM+1oawQ+mUULwe+H1GAjBSqIPyRH8VHh4a0kFGw9Q3Cvk/sD2 x5lWsXlVDuAJhZcnMBNqAWMecf/4eujAz1xYxl1u8/IGLcjhSadIh00UHA0JSgM8oIwwBrB2WopK 3O1Yxrn53PJIB8RMtW+A1xtl9RxdPesUr8psjqTy2Cc8GnqSXi8mFjXZt8xozhKdoFhnM3c5zFW+ 05bPXGYz6Znsak5zltX+gbNfSU1vbtuZqsQi4tzFbGl2U5fG62Uu6SlMcTIvn8ocnruR4e5jNvPC yR6eNbmdbn4Cs5/EtNjctkLwghv84AhPuMIXzvCGI5yFI6uYR/OXNoE9yFFltSlwwdYe59qrcW2V W1pRpreEFbDjWVQOZOuFuOISjrf8bbnaFCvXAsrNafsdmEs9C1nBAUxjDlusWX3/dVnHXjax0AV6 c0HKWZqmiLTJba3Sia6ooC8VO0aX+q82VtzGCjVuT+X4pUu+NKr6C6nADW7a5rXcmRntbl1/qVMl dXKU2lxS1XKS1c5a2LFW/HAhZ9zGEtv3/VbdbzTdKN5UatfqIt6vNs/q4PibscZ71a9i0+viYE5h kFWtaDTl6WaVS9PHLr1uGq0awX6uHnC1Dat9S7pIdVp1jlo26r6jLwFtlznJee51BaBcxugrHdUZ 0HMNwC7rXgc60B1f3LzXuexLT/GVUwlXGuIO/dZoZg3KuIH+G6HxJCebHqvxgAVowKaf2GsNR/h9 bLyay9dztplff2Ho0qIMjyd+/xE2koMadjfm50QntELRIWjspzwalkYDlEbB51aR5VVk9XGRt3kL c0SRcGSEtkcwpIGW1B49lkjcN0PaUUYdGHwLGD43wz63g3MlpSeGpVJDBVT+wiGYUWYoaABQJn5J tD+FBGWEZmHhozs5pGLbA2js90dJVGXuQ0VpZ3trEhidp3pxFxidAWsKqIN6VD1VRGEaGEbC1mgi aDskJBsIiDy4lkTn9z+nd1oKQgEdsyyUJ1dcEzy9ZGzzdE//xku0hGytcEzM5m/Wlmzu9G3dVgAJ YHMPwh/b4ihUczgkZzE6tm6vVE7IoE/zdE5JcGH9pE70VonHNE+59GzMRnkSlf83w+dSZ2U0FeBQ rviKsDgRqqcBOFV6g2c1lCIrJCIzzZVSBzMvbfhZLhVVVxZdubVXNJMBdHVyKCc2wvUyiEOBsyVc YpIaEBhZWIMjoOdcxRhc+nGNGRM4GOAgeqMlPeN43Lh2meE0FIcsFXeO9DEk/NWOXcWNFDhxkvUq iuMepLUzMZg4iweQNncBMteP/DN52GhYQoWKexVQGbCP1mGQq8dzP9WLBBla/fhTtXgzkoVZGLl0 upUBXjeFpOWLAsk0dNUja/IevGiQXLMjCYMibmeFughcjVgBBAJzW2KQJvkyZ+NWnRVaa2WQiNN0 VOJbs2WDNbl0kuiIROMuxdH/j/WRITBSHdJCOBwzMuFRlanWc5rRJgRUjkNDLLAiG0flLLKRJJXR LkHXOMthSi1VUYRELGcJWXBZl19VUXdpjuzVUn0JVtFxVHc5mLVnlXn5l3CJmISZmL03mHF5ly/k mINJOe4TKZJ5mXkZROjlmLlxmX4JX5RJmcp3OZEQfOglmo55mqopXpvZmZO5mahJmqV5mpIZOba5 fJRTmqapQss3m8kzPLo5m7Q5O6YZnLqpmpczmpppnLA5m8Epm8GnmcmpfMbJR8EnnLr5m8DJPJEA naMJOcHJPODZndAJnc+JXtxpnBk4PN+Jm6WZnsCpnuupnRoUnyp0nugVnvEJe2BwtJ3peZyX82Dy yYnMOZ7v6Z/WKZ/0GWsJeqDWeZ/VuZ8LyqDxqaD/qZ4TOp/WyZ0Xqp/0uZ4Y2qEeGkwTuqADemEV GqIf+psaOp8nmqHpeZ8C+qIcWqImqqIziqMPxqItKqLZaaIXyqM0iqA2KqQ/qp0DWqTw6Z8RAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20 Content-Type: image/gif; name="rust.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.sptimes.com/nav_graphics/rust.gif R0lGODlhAQABAIAAALggEQAAACH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF5CD8.FDF8DE20-- --part1_5f.44ff19.25afc62d_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 20:09:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27734 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:08:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27729 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:08:23 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.9c.eb7288 (4228); Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:06:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9c.eb7288.25afd0b0@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:06:56 EST Subject: Re: DWI (was "Consistent with" discussion) & testifying To: billo@radix.net CC: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dear Billo, Testifying can be fun, can't it? Hard to know what's it like until you've done it. I remember the first time I had to testify...Judge had to keep reminding me that I was just a witness in the proceeding, and not a lawyer... But you can't let it get to you. If I have to call any witness, I always spend time speaking with that person, in conversation, about what they know and rarely going over actual questions. I try to get a sense of the way that person communicates and then try to phrase my questions in such a way that the person can actually testify by communicating with the Judge and Jury, and, on redirect, I clarify, again through questions. I find by doing this that witnesses who are credible will, in fact, appear credible and bring forth the necessary evidence. Pietrina J. Reda, Attorney at Law Freeport, New York From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 22:05:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28578 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1608.mail.yahoo.com (web1608.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.150]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA28573 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13712 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jan 2000 03:04:57 -0000 Message-ID: <20000114030457.13711.qmail@web1608.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [156.29.73.19] by web1608.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:04:57 PST Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:04:57 -0800 (PST) From: Patricia Lough Subject: New CA Laws Re: GHB/GBL To: CAT Forum , forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I have just received a copy of the new CA laws listing GBL (the GHB precursor) as a Schedule II controlled substance under H&S 11055. This originated from AB 924, Committee on Public Safety, Chapter 975. It says: ..."(6) Gamma-hydroxybutyrate, including its immediate precursors, isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, including, but not limited to gamma-butyrolactone." Thank you all for your responses to my previous post - Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 13 23:25:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29129 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:25:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA29124 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14823 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2000 04:25:14 -0000 Received: from access-5-38.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (192.55.114.156) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 14 Jan 2000 04:25:14 -0000 Message-ID: <054d01bf5e46$ab2036c0$a27237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <3c.947d34.25afc2c9@aol.com> Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:20:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Couldn't you just as easily erase the disparity in death sentences by increasing the number of times it is sought for killers of blacks, in general? Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 6:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Race, Life & Death From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 12:23:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06214 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06209 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:18:45 -0500 (EST) From: WBirkby@aol.com Received: from WBirkby@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.6.ffcc78 (4452); Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:18:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6.ffcc78.25b0b452@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:18:10 EST Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death To: KJohn39679@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Mac sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Once again, it is not the fault of the majority public that non-Europeans commit more violent crimes than Europeans. Further, non-Europeans get the death penalty more often because they usually have a much longer history of violence, or, the crime was more brutal. The statistics shown by the anti-death-penalty crowd are usually cooked in some way to "prove" their theories, which, thankfully, does not seem to be swaying the public. Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape from prison to kill again. May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! Please! (My apologies to billo). J. Birkby Republican From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 12:42:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06461 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:41:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06442 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:41:00 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.bf.4c733e (4543) for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:39:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:39:56 EST Subject: Fwd: Executions stats To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_bf.4c733e.25b0b96c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_bf.4c733e.25b0b96c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_bf.4c733e.25b0b96c_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:26:39 -0500 Received: from pimout5-int.prodigy.net (pimout5-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.58.59]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:26:30 1900 Received: from pavilion (CHCGB807-06.splitrock.net [209.254.84.205]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA1238866 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:26:29 -0500 Message-ID: <004e01bf5ea3$b64f6540$cd54fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "John Kelly" Subject: Executions stats Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:26:20 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF5E60.A731E6C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF5E60.A731E6C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Diane=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 9:03 AM Texas has executed 199 persons since 1982, including 35 in 1999; 20 in 1998=20= and 37 in 1997. In its long history of executions, Texas once used its elect= ric chair to execute five men in one day in 1924. Virginia ranks second in o= verall executions since the death penalty was re-established in 1976 with 73= . Florida ranks third with 44 executions, the center reports.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF5E60.A731E6C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Diane
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 9:03 AM

Texas has executed 199 persons since 1982, including 35 in 1999; 20 in 19= 98=20 and 37 in 1997. In its long history of executions, Texas once used its elect= ric=20 chair to execute five men in one day in 1924. Virginia ranks second in overa= ll=20 executions since the death penalty was re-established in 1976 with 73. Flori= da=20 ranks third with 44 executions, the center reports.=20

------=_NextPart_000_004B_01BF5E60.A731E6C0-- --part1_bf.4c733e.25b0b96c_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 12:49:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06568 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06563 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:48:54 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.5f.48e258 (4543) for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:48:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5f.48e258.25b0bb5f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:48:15 EST Subject: Fwd: The URL works just fine To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_5f.48e258.25b0bb5f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_5f.48e258.25b0bb5f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_5f.48e258.25b0bb5f_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:36:45 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f284.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.63]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:36:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 29969 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jan 2000 17:36:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000114173630.29968.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 165.236.178.150 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:36:30 PST X-Originating-IP: [165.236.178.150] From: "Linda Tumulty" To: kjohn39679@aol.com Subject: The URL works just fine Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:36:30 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARMED AND DANGEROUS FBI machine-gunned Davidians, experts say Video, eyewitnesses clearly indicate automatic weapons fire on Mt. Carmel By David M. Bresnahan © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com A newspaper claim that a single photo now proves federal forces did not shoot at the Waco Branch Davidians has come under heavy criticism by a documentary producer, as well as FBI, CIA and other officials. The debate is over claims that government agents used machine guns on the Branch Davidians while their Mt. Carmel community burned to the ground on April 19, 1993. The FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms have been heavily criticized for the use of deadly force in the assault, which led to the deaths of 17 children and 62 adults. Michael McNulty is the investigator and producer of the newest documentary about the controversial incident, "Waco: A New Revelation." He claims the article published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is flawed in its conclusion that federal agents did not fire on the compound prior to and during the fire. The article, titled "FBI photograph apparently undermines claims that government forces fired on Branch Davidians," is an effort to discredit his work, McNulty told WorldNetDaily by phone. The Post-Dispatch claims it obtained the photograph from an unnamed source, and did not mention McNulty or his documentary by name. McNulty also produced the controversial documentary, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," which received significant attention nationally. "The FBI surveillance photo appears to have been snapped on April 19, 1993, within seconds of the time when a flash appears on a separate infrared tape at 11:24 a.m. The Branch Davidians and their experts claim that flashes on the infrared film at that time are the muzzle blasts from the guns of government agents. The surveillance photo shows no one in the vicinity of the flash," said the Post-Dispatch article. The photo shows a military tank as it was engaged in smashing into the Mt. Carmel building. Infrared videotapes were taken from the air by helicopters. The videos are in black and white. The hotter an item, the whiter it appears in the video. Cold items appear dark. Gunfire shows up better on infrared than on normal photography. "The tank made initial passes into the building and back, before the gunfire and after the gunfire. To say without absolute certification that the photo being displayed is at a given point in time within seconds is absurd," explained McNulty to WorldNetDaily. McNulty said he has already seen many similar still photos taken with normal film from a different helicopter. "You've got to see the whole sequence of photos to determine the time line. You can do that if you line it up against the clock running on the FLIR tape. When I've done that there are gaps of still photos relative to the time lines when the people were seen at the back of the tank firing. Let's see all of these before we go jumping to conclusions, as did the St. Louis Post-Dispatch," said McNulty. He also pointed out that he understands the article carefully qualified the claims, "yet the whole article comes across as a statement of fact." The new documentary by McNulty has an extensive explanation of the Forward-Looking Infrared, or FLIR, videos taken by the government at Waco. The experts in the video claim the FLIR footage clearly shows gunfire, contrary to the Post-Dispatch claim. The video is narrated by former FBI special agent Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, known for his involvement in exposing the improper procedures at the FBI crime lab. The feature length documentary presents a lengthy pattern of what appears to be lies by federal officials to cover up what actually happened at Waco. "After reviewing the results of a six-year investigation into the tragedy at Waco, Texas, I am convinced that the American people have never been told the full truth about that matter," said Whitehurst of the apparent official deception surrounding the episode. The BATF and FBI raided the Branch Davidians on Feb. 28, 1993. Their attempt to execute a no-knock warrant resulted in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians. Federal officials claim they were ambushed and did not fire first, although the Branch Davidians and noted experts disagree and claim that the federal agents fired the first shots. Three Branch Davidians who were not present during the initial raid tried to return shortly after. Two were taken into custody, but one was shot and killed. Shockingly, the survivors and some bona fide experts claim there is credible evidence that the Davidians were murdered. On April 19, 1993 government forces gassed the complex for hours and then attacked using tanks and automatic weapons. The entire Mt. Carmel facility erupted in flames and 79 people inside, 17 of whom were young children, died. Evidence exists indicating federal forces were using automatic weapons fire to kill the Branch Davidians rather than let them escape the flames. The government has consistently responded to such claims by saying that no weapons were fired, but rather, that they were fired upon. The FBI claims the Branch Davidians committed suicide. Indeed, the general public believes the version of events promoted by the government that the Branch Davidians were a strange cult with plans to die in a fire. Those who have studied their beliefs paint a different picture, however, stating in the documentary that they were actually an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. "The majority of people in there were not criminals in the sense of the word that we think about them. They were truly believing people. I believe 99 percent of those people, their sole purpose was the attainment of eternal life. Which was, after all, what I believe all of us at least that are Christians believe in," said Capt. David Byrnes, Texas Rangers, Ret. James Cavanaugh, ATF raid team leader told congressional investigators that David Koresh knew officers were coming and that he "laid in ambush" behind the front door on Feb. 28, 1993. Dr. Philip Arnold, director of Reunion Institute reported to the congressional investigators that Koresh recorded on tape that "he went out on his porch. He said, 'Stop. There's women and children in here.' A shot rang out and hit the door." Clive Doyle, a Branch Davidian survivor told Congress, "I went running down the hall and found Perry Jones laying in the hall screaming that he'd been shot. Perry Jones was in his 60s. He was unarmed, as was David Koresh when they went to the front door. Both were shot in the area of the front door. David was shot in the wrist. Perry Jones was shot in the stomach." David Hardy, Arizona attorney and investigator says the BATF had several video cameras recording what happened at the front door that day. Koresh also claimed that he saw a videotape being made by agents across the road, Arnold said in his testimony. "According to the agency, there were three or four video cameras pointed at the front door that could tell you everything that happened at the front door of that building that day. They claim they can't find a single one of them. Every one of those videotapes vanished," said Hardy in the documentary. Branch Davidian Steve Schneider did a great deal of the negotiating with the FBI by phone. In one of the tapes of those negotiations he told the FBI that the BATF was telling lies at a televised news conference, and that no notice of intent was given when they initially came to the door. "They never said anything. Not by a bullhorn, not by a knock at the door, not by any reason ... not by any reason. Even before they got; just about the time they got to the porch is when David opened the door and poked his head out," Schneider told the investigator, known only as Dick. He added that he could not believe this type of behavior by law enforcement was being tolerated in America. Branch Davidian children Kimberly and Daniel Martin survived and were shown in the documentary. They described how the BATF agents from outside shot up their bedroom. Kathy Schroeder, another adult survivor, told how she hid children under a bed to protect them from the shooting. She also described how bullets came through the window and wall. Pictures were shown of bullet holes in the wall and window in the documentary and in many pictures taken by the press that day. The press also showed pictures of the agents firing on the complex, but federal officials deny they fired through walls and windows. "We're a law enforcement agency. We don't fire through walls indiscriminately at people," said a federal spokesman at a Waco news conference. Schroeder said she was in fear that the BATF would come into her room and shoot her and the children even though she was unarmed. Other survivors interviewed in the documentary expressed the same fear when asked why they didn't come out of the building. This was just the beginning of problems with evidence. "In addition to the missing video tapes, the ATF's on-scene logs also disappeared," Whitehurst explained. Daniel Harnett, former BATF deputy director of enforcement told the congressional investigators when asked about missing evidence logs, "I'm sorry sir, you mentioned that notes were torn out of the surveillance log." He was asked how that could happen, but his only response was, "I don't know sir. I've never heard that before." In addition to those killed, some were also wounded in the initial raid. "I don't think the deaths on either side were justified. As well as those wounded. Judy Shneider was shot while nursing her baby -- through the chest," said Dr. James Tabor, professor of religious studies, Univ. of N. Carolina when he spoke before Congress. When three men who were not present during the initial government raid tried to return to be with their families inside Mt. Carmel, more trouble took place. Two men were taken into custody and agents killed Michael Dean Schroeder. His body was left out in the open in a ravine for five days. The BATF claims Schroeder refused demands to surrender and raised a pistol. The autopsy report shows seven bullets hit him, according to Whitehurst. Survivors reported that after Schroeder was shot, and after they were being led away and taken into custody, two additional shots were fired, which they believe were made because Schroeder was not dead yet. The autopsy report does show two bullet holes right next to each other in Schroeder's head. In the days that followed, there were extensive telephone negotiations between the federal agents and the Branch Davidians. The people inside were not given any confidence they could surrender and be treated fairly, nor were they assured that they could avoid harm. Tapes of the negotiations reveal unwillingness on the part of the Branch Davidians to trust the federal agents. The response of the negotiators was to get tougher with the Branch Davidians. "We got several phone calls in from the ATF that said if they saw any movement inside the building; hands in front of the windows; if people were standing in front of the windows; they felt it was a threatening situation and that they would shoot us," explained Rita Riddle, former Branch Davidian in the documentary. Others told how they were afraid of the agents because of the way they first fired on them without provocation. They said they worried that if they came out they would be shot because the agents showed no concern that there were innocent children inside. "They were assuring us that we would be cared for in a professional manner. Then you turn around and you've got people flipping you the finger over the top of the tanks. They're dropping their drawers and baring their butts. And these are the type of people that you're supposed to go out to," said Riddle. Eventually a few adults and children were able to leave and were taken into custody. The day of the conflagration, one local law enforcement officer expressed concern to the federal agents and was ignored. "I said that I had heard that you guys had wrote on some of the windows there at Mt. Carmel 'We see you David, etc.' and I asked the agent, 'was this true?' And he said, 'yea, it's true.' And I said, 'Aren't you guys concerned about when this is over the news media might see this and think it a little antagonistic on your part?' He just looked at me and walked away," said David Keys of the Texas Highway Patrol, who was on duty on April 19, 1993 at Mt. Carmel. Numerous microphones were planted inside Mt. Carmel, which enabled agents to listen to discussions between Branch Davidians and know their plans. Tapes of those conversations reveal talk of burning the facility if attacked by the agents. Despite the existence of the tapes and other evidence that the agents knew of the danger that could take place if they attacked, officials deny they had any knowledge of the possibility of a fire. Jeff Jamar, FBI special agent in charge at Waco told Congress that he would have done something very different if he had known of any possibility that the Branch Davidians may have plans to burn their facility. "Numerous microphones were planted inside Mt. Carmel that recorded several conversations of the Davidians reacting to the tanks and the FBI hostage rescue team," explained Whitehurst in the documentary. During the congressional hearings, there was no evidence or testimony given by any expert on FLIR images. The FLIR footage taken from Night Stalker helicopters clearly shows flashes of light in dozens of locations all around the Mt. Carmel facility. Dr. Edward Allard, former supervising scientist in video and television imagery at the U.S. government's night vision directorate appears extensively in the documentary. He is a video and FLIR expert. He examined the footage and concluded that the flashes are indeed gunfire. Some federal officials have criticized him, but no contrary evidence to refute his claims has been given. "It's impossible for these shots that you're seeing with your own eyes to be solar reflections, because if it were so the helicopter would have to be violently moving back and forth like a mirror in your hands. This is impossible. So in our opinion it's clearly machine gun fire from the helicopter," stated Allard as he described FLIR videos taken of a helicopter. The helicopter appeared before the fire began in the Branch Davidian complex. Anyone killed by that gunfire would have died before the fire began and would not have evidence of death from the fire. "According to the autopsy report, Philip Henry was shot several times in the chest, shoulder, and head. Jimmy Riddle was shot once in the forehead. Neither of them had soot accumulation in their trachea or bronchial tubes, or carbon monoxide in their blood. Indicating they died before the fire started," said Whitehurst. Extensive government FLIR video footage is shown in the documentary. Allard provides the commentary to give his expert knowledge to help viewers understand the images on the tape. He identified tanks and people coming out of those tanks. He also identified flashes of white light at those locations resulting from machine gun fire. "We've measured the actual time of the individual flashes. They occur at a fraction of a second. In some cases, at a 30th of a second. There is absolutely nothing in nature that can cause thermal flashes to occur in a 30th of a second," Allard explained. The Department of Justice disputed those claims, but no contrary evidence was given. "Somebody related, or they prepared a film or analyzed a film. Representatives of the department and representatives of the FBI went over it in detail and concluded that there was no basis for suggesting that shots had been fired," Attorney General Janet Reno stated at a news conference Aug. 19, 1999. Her response was based on advance information about the contents of the new documentary. But Reno's denial is nothing more than a continuation of the cover-up that has gone on from the very first day of the Waco event, according to McNulty. "As the tank crushes the roof of the gymnasium, gun fire can be seen streaming into the dining room from the courtyard," said Whitehurst in his narration. The flashes of light described as gunfire by Allard and others can be seen all around the complex. There are so many flashes of light that it is impossible to blame them on anything other than rapid machine gun fire -- as many as six rounds per second -- according to Allard. "I stopped counting after about 62 individual shots," said Allard of the scene as he tried to identify the number of shooters he could detect. FBI Director Louis Freeh said on NBCs Meet the Press May 4, 1997, "No shots were fired by any federal agents outside the compound." "Allegations raised about gun fire seem to be based on inferences from infra-ray flash patterns and heat patterns. I think the overwhelming evidence clearly shows no shots were fired," he added. "It's indicative of sunlight reflecting off something and registering on the FLIR. It could be a thermal pattern. If it were a thermal pattern there is nothing that persists from that, so therefore it is more likely to have been reflected light off of something shiny in which the sunlight now gives an apparent temperature rise," Dr. James Quintieri, a Department of Justice fire expert told the congressional hearing. However, his explanation is physically impossible, according to Allard. "From the basic physics, it's safe to say that it's impossible for the Waco FLIR to detect any solar reflections of any kind," said Allard in disputing Quintieri's analysis. March Bell, director of the congressional Waco investigation, lamented that all through that investigation there was no FLIR expert who could provide answers to members of Congress. "On our wish list as investigators was taking a harder look at the FLIR. The congressional staff was never able to find or take advantage of a genuine FLIR expert to watch the FLIR video with us and to understand exactly what we were seeing," said Bell. McNulty provided copies of U.S. military FLIR videos of known gunfire for comparison to the Waco FLIR. The images of flashing light appear to be identical. "You know, when you think of the fact that they are shooting automatic weapons fire into a building with children in it -- there's something wrong," said Whitehurst as he commented about the FLIR video. Former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon, called a meeting to discuss strategies for Waco on April 14, 1993. Government documents revealed by McNulty in his new documentary show that Special Forces Brig. Gen. Peter J. Shoomaker and Col. Gerald Boykin of Delta Force were brought in to the planning session. The purpose of the meeting was to convince Janet Reno to authorize a final assault at Waco. Popularly known as Delta Force, the Combat Applications Group was established by presidential order and is actually a separate branch of the military, making it exempt from the posse comitatis laws. The Army told Congress that the posse comitatis law was not broken, a law that prohibits the military from being used as a police force domestically. Since CAG is technically not a part of the military as described in the posse comitatis law, that claim by the Army is true. In March 1993, there was a secret meeting at CIA headquarters dealing with CAG participation in the WACO operation, according to Gene Cullen, senior case officer, Special Operations Group of the CIA. Cullen was present at the meeting and was interviewed in the Waco documentary. McNulty obtained previously classified documents, which are shown in the documentary. Those documents clearly indicate that CAG was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assist in the Waco operation. Cullen said he was first told that only a few of the CAG soldiers would be present at Waco, but then was later told at least 10 were present "to participate in any tactical operations against the Branch Davidians." Cullen told McNulty that he met and spoke with CAG/Delta Force soldiers about a year after Waco, when they admitted to him that they had been actively involved in a gun battle with the Branch Davidians. "There's no doubt in my mind that the flashes on FLIR tape was from a semi-automatic or automatic weapons fire being returned into the building. It's inconsistent to even think otherwise. There were people there on the ground with automatic weapons. Flashes such as that only come from one thing, and it comes from rifle barrels that are firing back into the building," explained Cullen. The use of military force against U.S. civilians, even if it is legal through a technicality in the law, is wrong and should not be permitted, say many critics. "To me that would be an offensive gesture. When you enter someone's home, that's pretty offensive. I would personally have a problem with that. I think that it violates everything that I've been taught, that you don't use the military against civilian personnel in this country," said Byrnes. McNulty told WorldNetDaily that the one or two photos used in the Post-Dispatch article do not provide any proof one way or the other. "First of all, there's no way to determine what the time is in the photo with any specificity. Secondly, there is no way to tell what it is we're looking at, unless we see the photographs that preceded it and followed it in sequence on the roll of film," said McNulty. "To sit and look at one photograph, they would call me crazy or a conspiracy theorist. And yet the St. Louis Post-Dispatch bought it?" McNulty commented. He claims that photographs used in the 1994 trial of the Branch Davidian survivors show people on the ground at the locations where gunfire can be seen in the FLIR images used in his documentary. Even though the Post-Dispatch photograph does not show people in the location where flashes appear in the FLIR, that does not mean the FLIR analysis is wrong. The pictures may have been taken at different times, or have other explanations. He accused the St. Louis Post Dispatch of a continual flow of stories on Waco that depict only the views put forth by the "spin doctors" from the FBI. "It leaves out pertinent information. It presents information as received by them from the FBI as end-all, be-all. Basically they come across as toadies of the FBI," stated McNulty. David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for WorldNetDaily.com E-MAIL DAVID BRESNAHAN | GO TO DAVID BRESNAHAN'S EXCLUSIVES ARCHIVE GO TO PAGE 1 | GO TO PAGE 2 | GO TO COMMENTARY SEARCH WND | CONTACT WND © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. This page was last built 1/13/00; 2:39:54 AM Direct corrections and technical inquiries to ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --part1_5f.48e258.25b0bb5f_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 14:54:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA08239 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:53:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.apu.edu (mail.apu.edu [199.184.237.153]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA08234 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:53:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from apu.edu (apupri95.apu.edu [199.184.237.55]) by mail.apu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7673C4EAE0 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:53:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <387F8162.A6A059AC@apu.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:04:51 -0800 From: "Eric B. Hansen" Organization: monkey see monkey do, do you? X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-22 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: A question for any Professors out there. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Would anyone be willing to submit themselves to a short e-mail interview? This would primarily focus on what research is being conducted in your lab, and some questions about the volume of writing expected/contributed. Any level of help would be of great appreciation. -eric b hansen ehansen@apu.edu From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 15:59:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09376 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09371 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:58:40 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.9f.d00991 (4511); Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:57:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9f.d00991.25b0e7ca@aol.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:57:46 EST Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death To: WBirkby@aol.com, KJohn39679@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/14/00 2:00:49 PM, WBirkby@aol.com writes: << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape from prison to kill again. May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. I'm no mathmatical genius, but that looks like about a 25 - 27% error rate. I have yet to meet an innocent person that would kill 'again.' Escape from today's death row? - I doubt that. I am hardly a race-baiter, but I do understand that race does have quite a bit of play in the strength of the prisoners' defense and the natural tendency of jurors - all white or all black - to rule against a defendant of another race or color. White juries have a tendency to rule against black defendants while black juries have a tendency to rule against white defendents. The socio-economic status of either a black or white defendent is also part of the big picture. Money equals quality defense; poor means fend for yourself. It would seem that with the Republican stance on pro-life issues, they wouldn't be so blatantly set on killing a human being - innocent or guilty. The system is broken. I'm a Republican also, but that doesn't mean that I can't disagree fellow Republicans on certain issues. That is what makes me an American. Barbara Jean Free Tommy Zeigler - Wrongfully convicted by the State of Florida in 1976 by a broken judicial system, a political ladder-climbing state's attorney, an untrained sheriff's department and one inept FBI lab. From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 16:47:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09928 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:47:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.usit.net (SMTP1.USIT.NET [199.1.48.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09923 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:47:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from usit.net (DIALUP62.TNNAS2.USIT.NET [216.80.153.62]) by smtp1.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA08519; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:47:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <387F992B.FF2E3B48@usit.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:46:19 -0600 From: David Yates Reply-To: davidy@usit.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KJohn39679@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: Executions stats References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------298A5B34AFA1C23FC86D5D68" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --------------298A5B34AFA1C23FC86D5D68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To paraphrase a former governor - "some folks just need killing". Dave Yates,MD Nashville,TN KJohn39679@aol.com wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Executions stats > Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:26:20 -0800 > From: "Diane" > Organization: Prodigy Internet > To: "John Kelly" > > ----- Original Message -----From: DianeSent: Tuesday, January 11, > 2000 9:03 AM Texas has executed 199 persons since 1982, including 35 > in 1999; 20 in 1998 and 37 in 1997. In its long history of executions, > Texas once used its electric chair to execute five men in one day in > 1924. Virginia ranks second in overall executions since the death > penalty was re-established in 1976 with 73. Florida ranks third with > 44 executions, the center reports. --------------298A5B34AFA1C23FC86D5D68 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To paraphrase a former governor - "some folks just need killing".

                                                Dave Yates,MD
                                                Nashville,TN

KJohn39679@aol.com wrote: 

 

Subject: Executions stats
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:26:20 -0800
From: "Diane" <poll2@prodigy.net>
Organization: Prodigy Internet
To: "John Kelly" <kjohn39679@aol.com>

 ----- Original Message -----From: DianeSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 9:03 AM Texas has executed 199 persons since 1982, including 35 in 1999; 20 in 1998 and 37 in 1997. In its long history of executions, Texas once used its electric chair to execute five men in one day in 1924. Virginia ranks second in overall executions since the death penalty was re-established in 1976 with 73. Florida ranks third with 44 executions, the center reports.

--------------298A5B34AFA1C23FC86D5D68-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 17:03:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10135 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10123 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:02:31 -0500 (EST) From: Melannw@aol.com Received: from Melannw@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id r.ef.8369c5 (4159); Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:00:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:00:25 EST Subject: Re: GHB Analysis To: plough7537@yahoo.com, catforum@onelist.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO National Medical Services will perform an entire date rape drug screen which includes GHB on blood or urine samples for a fee of a little over $400. They can be reached at (800) 522-6671. M. Weber NH State Police Forensic Lab From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 17:03:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10170 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:03:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-relay2.treas.gov (mx-relay2.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10163 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:03:16 -0500 (EST) From: RMTHOMPSON@sfdi.atf.treas.gov Received: from tias4.treas.gov (tias-gw4.treas.gov [199.196.144.14]) by mx-relay2.treas.gov (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01111 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:03:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.7.14.10] by tias4.treas.gov via smtpd (for mx-relay.treas.gov [199.196.144.6]) with SMTP; 14 Jan 2000 22:03:13 UT Received: from atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov (mailhub-1.net.treas.gov [10.7.14.10]) by mailhub-1.net.treas.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA20956 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:03:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by atf-hq-exch1.atf.treas.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:03:39 -0500 Message-ID: <51A2AFB08EB9D111A5E5006008D06AB1A7EE31@sfdi-exch2.atf.treas.gov> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: RMTHOMPSON@sfdi.atf.treas.gov Subject: Hand GSR by AA Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:03:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO To the List: As a favor I'm searching for a laboratory that (still) examines hand GSR collected on swabs. Please contact me (off line if you would like). What is the cost of the analysis, methodology, and approximate exam turn-around time. Thanks! Robert M. Thompson Senior Firearms and Toolmark Examiner Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco Telephone (510)486-3170 FAX (510)486-3166 E-mail RMThompson@sfdi.atf.treas.gov From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 19:19:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA11174 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:16:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA11169 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 15 Jan 2000 00:10:39 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 14 16:15:58 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:16:54 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:16:25 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Cc: RMTHOMPSON@sfdi.atf.treas.gov Subject: Re: Hand GSR by AA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Robert: As always after you collect the data, categorize it , and analyze it, could you send me a result of your survey. We are interested in starting up our own GSR program. Thanks Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> 01/14 2:03 PM >>> To the List: As a favor I'm searching for a laboratory that (still) examines hand GSR collected on swabs. Please contact me (off line if you would like). What is the cost of the analysis, methodology, and approximate exam turn-around time. Thanks! Robert M. Thompson Senior Firearms and Toolmark Examiner Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Forensic Science Laboratory-San Francisco Telephone (510)486-3170 FAX (510)486-3166 E-mail RMThompson@sfdi.atf.treas.gov From forens-owner Fri Jan 14 21:01:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA11794 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11789 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from cbrenner.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (h207-21-136-218.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.218]) by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA13197; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:01:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200001150201.SAA13197@smtp2.verio.net> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:02:58 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: <6.ffcc78.25b0b452@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 12:18 PM 1/14/00 -0500, WBirkby@aol.com wrote: >... non-Europeans get >the death penalty more often because they usually have a much longer >history of violence, or, the crime was more brutal. > >The statistics shown by the anti-death-penalty crowd are usually cooked in >some way to "prove" their theories ... A plausible sounding theory. Maybe those statisticians aren't all that smart! Maybe there is no objective way to factor out the "brutality" of the crime, or the "history of violence" of the assailant, so the statisticians (pinko-professors, really -- right J Birkby?) just satisfy their liberal bent by chosing whatever model suits them. But it doesn't explain the fact that in state after state, study after study, people receive the death penalty at a rate 3.5 - 5 times greater for killing a white person than for killing a black person. Charles Brenner, Ph.D. forensic mathematics -- and occasionally statistics http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner From forens-owner Sat Jan 15 14:24:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19348 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19343 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:22:09 -0500 (EST) From: Arizpaul@aol.com Received: from Arizpaul@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id r.36.ff7978 (3755); Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:21:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <36.ff7978.25b222ad@aol.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:21:17 EST Subject: Re: GHB Analysis To: Melannw@aol.com, plough7537@yahoo.com, catforum@onelist.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO What method are forensic labs using for powders that may be GHB. LC? LC-MS? What method is NMS using ? From forens-owner Sat Jan 15 20:22:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21798 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:20:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21793 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:20:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA06334; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:20:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:20:41 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Sidg@aol.com cc: WBirkby@aol.com, KJohn39679@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: <9f.d00991.25b0e7ca@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: > From: Sidg@aol.com > > > In a message dated 1/14/00 2:00:49 PM, WBirkby@aol.com writes: > > << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape > from prison to kill again. > > May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. Well, no. What I have seen documented is that a fair number of convictions were overturned or declared mistrials. That, of course, has nothing to do with proving anybody innocent. Certainly the DoJ data don't support this. With the DoJ data, most of the time, as I recall (though I haven't reviewed it in awhile) most of the folk were clearly the killer in question, but had not been given due process. This is a "statistic" I think I'll call you on. What is your source for these numbers, and what is your criteria for "proven innocent?" If you mean this merely to be hyperbole, then you should make your number clearly unbelievable. Otherwise someone may actually believe what you write, and be led astray. billo From forens-owner Sat Jan 15 21:15:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA22207 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA22202 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:15:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk ([12.72.23.22]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000116021503.QSXN5516@uymfdlvk>; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 02:15:03 +0000 Message-ID: <005f01bf5fc7$22b856a0$1617480c@uymfdlvk> From: "George Michael Newman" To: Cc: , Subject: Fw: Race, Life & Death Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:06:43 -0800 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In fact, both of these posts are inaccurate. In excess of 75 people have been extracted from death row, not executed. A rare few were as a result of technicalities. Many, however, were proven innocent; absolutely innocent. Examples are, Anthony Porter, recently released after the real murderer in the case confessed (after Porter was on death row many years, and had been scheduled to die three times, if memory serves me correctly) and the so-called "Ford Heights Four". Two of the four (all of whom spent about 19 years on prison) spent their time on the row. They were released when the real killers were identified, two (I believe) confessed, one had died in the years the four absolutely innocent men were in prison. A sad epilogue to the fact that the actual perps had been reported to the authorities just days after the arrest of the innocent men and this information was ignored is, that one of these actual perps went on to murder yet another young girl. A significant number of those who have been spared from death row were actually, factually innocent. Another sad fact is that a majority of these were not freed by "the system" and, in fact, in many instances the system fought to keep them in and execute them even after their innocence was undeniable. The significant majority of those freed were freed as a result of the labors of citizens, priests, college professors and private investigators. All of the above is documented in dozens of places, and is available from several other sources, as well. These are not opinions, nor are they something one (I, in this case) thinks, believes or wishes reality to be. Instead, they represent reality as it is. GMN ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Oliver To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: > > > From: Sidg@aol.com > > > > > > In a message dated 1/14/00 2:00:49 PM, WBirkby@aol.com writes: > > > > << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape > > from prison to kill again. > > > > May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> > > > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. > > Well, no. What I have seen documented is that a fair number of > convictions were overturned or declared mistrials. That, of course, > has nothing to do with proving anybody innocent. Certainly the DoJ > data don't support this. With the DoJ data, most of the time, as I > recall (though I haven't reviewed it in awhile) most of the folk > were clearly the killer in question, but had not been given due > process. > > This is a "statistic" I think I'll call you on. What is your source > for these numbers, and what is your criteria for "proven innocent?" > > If you mean this merely to be hyperbole, then you should make your > number clearly unbelievable. Otherwise someone may actually believe > what you write, and be led astray. > > billo > From forens-owner Sat Jan 15 23:08:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22807 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:07:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22802 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.10.86]) by mail.i2020.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:13:58 -0500 Message-ID: <38814393.2F99A770@i2020.net> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:05:39 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens-l Subject: Re: Fw: Race, Life & Death References: <005f01bf5fc7$22b856a0$1617480c@uymfdlvk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO For those who missed last week's Frontline, "The Case for Innocence," go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/ Spend some time there. Really read and listen and think. -- Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: dberry@i2020.net Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." - Will Durant (1885-1981) From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 03:22:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24278 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24273 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu ([24.27.39.20]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sun, 16 Jan 2000 02:22:44 -0600 From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Race, Life & Death Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 02:20:36 -0600 Message-ID: <001c01bf5ffa$90de1740$14271b18@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO It is the widely-believed myth of frequent loophole escapes from death row that allows the American public to tolerate a system that routinely incarcerates and/or kills innocents. As long as there are prosecutors who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge innocence in the face of overwhelming post-conviction evidence, there will be a greater number of true-believer apologists eager to swallow their lame explanations. It should be obvious to anyone who can salute the system without poking his eye that for every innocent prisoner released there are dozens who will never be lucky enough to have their cases reviewed. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@Austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 7:21 PM To: Sidg@aol.com Cc: WBirkby@aol.com; KJohn39679@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: > From: Sidg@aol.com > > > In a message dated 1/14/00 2:00:49 PM, WBirkby@aol.com writes: > > << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape > from prison to kill again. > > May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. Well, no. What I have seen documented is that a fair number of convictions were overturned or declared mistrials. That, of course, has nothing to do with proving anybody innocent. Certainly the DoJ data don't support this. With the DoJ data, most of the time, as I recall (though I haven't reviewed it in awhile) most of the folk were clearly the killer in question, but had not been given due process. This is a "statistic" I think I'll call you on. What is your source for these numbers, and what is your criteria for "proven innocent?" If you mean this merely to be hyperbole, then you should make your number clearly unbelievable. Otherwise someone may actually believe what you write, and be led astray. billo From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 12:22:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27884 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:21:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe24.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.244]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA27872 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:21:09 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 30589 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Jan 2000 17:20:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000116172041.30588.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.171.93] To: References: <001c01bf5ffa$90de1740$14271b18@austin.rr.com> Subject: Gorilla's in the Myths Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:40:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Gerald, what a rare and auspicious occassion this is that you should suppose to enlighten us. Why, it gives me something to look forward to every week. Let's see what popular myths you've factually debunked this time. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gerald L. Hurst To: Forens E-mail Group < > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 2:20 AM Subject: RE: Race, Life & Death > > It is the widely-believed myth of frequent loophole > escapes from death row that allows the American public > to tolerate a system that routinely incarcerates and/or > kills innocents. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Report on Capital Punishment 1998, of those prisoners sentenced to death from 1973-1998: 500 were executed 180 died from some other cause 460 had their sentence vacated due to overturned statutes 634 were reversed on conviction 1030 had vacated sentences 146 were had their sentences commuted Of those sentenced to death, less than 0.2 have been executed, while nearly 37 percent, have had their convictions or sentences overturned as result of due process claims rather than factual innocence. > > As long as there are prosecutors who stubbornly refuse to > acknowledge innocence in the face of overwhelming > post-conviction evidence, there will be a greater number > of true-believer apologists eager to swallow their > lame explanations. Speaking of lame, prosecutors have very little to do with claims of post-conviction relief. The burden of proof is solidly shifted to the defense and properly so. From arraignment to sentencing the process is conspicuously biased against the prosecution. Witnesses that materialize from thin air and scientists that offer opinions as to every manner of fact for dispute to assuage their guilty consciences can hardly be considered reasonable proof of innocence. > > It should be obvious to anyone who can salute the > system without poking his eye that for every innocent > prisoner released there are dozens who will never be > lucky enough to have their cases reviewed. Given the proclivity for those opposed to the death penalty to promulgate obviously flawed and inflammatory information, as well as clogging the appeals system with largely bogus claims of innocence I can't imagine why you assign responsibility to anyone other than abolitionists. Since you are quite obviously a scientist who prefers to argue with fact and reason rather than rhetoric, I await your factual and reasonable debunking of my obviously flawed and erroneous point of view. BTW, even Barry Sheck was honest enough to admit that of the eighty-five freed by the Benjamin Cardozo Innocence Project, less than a dozen are probably innocent. Freeing a prisoner doesn't mean innocence nearly as often as it means that insufficient proof was available to assert their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Shaun > > Jerry > > Gerald L. Hurst > ghurst@Austin.rr.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver > Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 7:21 PM > To: Sidg@aol.com > Cc: WBirkby@aol.com; KJohn39679@aol.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: > > > From: Sidg@aol.com > > > > > > In a message dated 1/14/00 2:00:49 PM, WBirkby@aol.com writes: > > > > << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot > escape > > from prison to kill again. > > > > May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> > > > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. > > Well, no. What I have seen documented is that a fair number of > convictions were overturned or declared mistrials. That, of course, > has nothing to do with proving anybody innocent. Certainly the DoJ > data don't support this. With the DoJ data, most of the time, as I > recall (though I haven't reviewed it in awhile) most of the folk > were clearly the killer in question, but had not been given due > process. > > This is a "statistic" I think I'll call you on. What is your source > for these numbers, and what is your criteria for "proven innocent?" > > If you mean this merely to be hyperbole, then you should make your > number clearly unbelievable. Otherwise someone may actually believe > what you write, and be led astray. > > billo > > > From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 12:43:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28027 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28022 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:43:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26759; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:43:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: George Michael Newman cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Sidg@aol.com Subject: Re: Fw: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: <005f01bf5fc7$22b856a0$1617480c@uymfdlvk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, George Michael Newman wrote: > From: George Michael Newman > > In fact, both of these posts are inaccurate. In excess of 75 people have > been extracted from death row, not executed. A rare few were as a result of > technicalities. Many, however, were proven innocent; absolutely innocent. > Numbers and sources, please. What specific large statistical study to you quote. When I get back to work, I'll look up the DoJ numbers again, but, frankly, simply asserting that only a "rare few" were because of technicalities is no less a simple assertion than my vague remembrances. And quoting "as an example" anecdotes is equally useless. billo From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 13:07:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28215 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28210 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA28923; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:06:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:06:49 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Gerald L. Hurst" cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: RE: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: <001c01bf5ffa$90de1740$14271b18@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Gerald L. Hurst wrote: > From: "Gerald L. Hurst" > > > It is the widely-believed myth of frequent loophole > escapes from death row that allows the American public > to tolerate a system that routinely incarcerates and/or > kills innocents. Once again, what statistical study do you have that shows that the systems "routinely" kills innocents? Your claims are dramatic, but, fundamentally empty without some better hard evidence than anecdotes and repeated propaganda. I'm not claiming that your claim is necessarily completely wrong, just empty. Further, sad anecdotal stories, while stirring, do not make the case that the system "routinely" kills innocent people. What study? What source? What are the *hard* numbers? This reminds me of a Clinton Administration propaganda blast in support of an "anti-violence" proposal a couple of years ago. The SG got up and claimed that something like 40% of women who entered ERs did so because of domestic violence. A couple of reporters bothered to check and found that, in fact, the correct number was between 1 and 2%. When pressed for the source of the statistic, the Administration admitted that one of the staffers read it in Mirabella. When the author of the article in Mirabella was asked, she admitted she made it up. A similar histrionic number is that 52% of women have suffered from domestic violence. In fact, the questionnaire that factoid was based on included loud argument as violence, and even then most of the respondents to the quesionnaire did not say "yes" they had been a victim. Instead they said they couldn't answer because the questionnaire was so poorly designed. The "52%" came only after the writer added up the small number of "yes" answers and the majority response, which was "no opinion." In the past couple of months, I have seen discussions on the net grossly overstating the infectivity of BSE in support of the FDA ban on blood donations by Brits (truly goofy, and based on absolute bull), the classic mis-statements by gun control fanatics, and on and on and on. The spouting of bad data as "fact" is SOP for these discussions. The 25% statistic quoted is sourceless and, frankly, I suspect it is bullshit. You may be correct that we "routinely" kill innocents, but you have offered no hard data to support it. You will have to provide hard numbers *and* sources, not sad stories and hyperbole. As I have indicated, I oppose captital punishment, but I am not sure inflating data and spouting bad numbers is the way to go. I also have nothing against hyperbole as a literary device, if it is clearly such. I have no problem with the statement "The US is killing billions of innocent people every year," since billions is clearly put in there for effect and is meant merely to convey the idea of "lots of." On the other hand, the claim "25% of people executed or slated for execution were proven innocent," does not have that ring. Instead, it's put out there as a fact, and one worth challenging. billo From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 13:53:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28543 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:53:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28538 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 13:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA33421; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:52:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000116105131.03f31980@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:55:56 -0800 To: "Christopher J. Basten":; From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Arson: Fuel Oil from Creosote? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Yo Arson Folks, Got the following question via my Web site. Any input? Thanks A sample taken from the alleged crime scene contained a trace of a fuel oil petroleum product. This area (from where the sample was taken) had been treated with creosote. Did the testing possibly detect a chemical in the creosote? Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 14:14:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28742 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28737 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:14:34 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.ad.2722d9 (2616) for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:14:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:14:04 EST Subject: No Subject To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id OAA28738 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is a multi-part MIME message and will be saved with the default filename SecondPa.mim -------------------- SEARCH THE SITE: APBNEWS.COM > CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM > JUSTICE NEWS > STORY SELECT A PROGRAMFinding JusticeJustice News----------------------NewsCenterSafety CenterCrime SolversEntertainmentCJ ProfessionalsResource CenterCJ SystemVideo Center Watching Steven Roach Die (return to page 1 of 2) Her third execution One witness, a woman, said this was her third execution. She said she keeps coming because they are "interesting." In a pre-execution briefing by a corrections official, she asked questions about Roach, including whether he married while he was on death row and what he had to eat for his last meal. Oddly, though Roach talked freely to the press during the last few weeks, he asked that the details of his last meal not be made public. Another witness, a man, said he came to watch Roach die as a way of avenging his own son's death. He said his son was beaten to death and nobody was ever convicted of the crime. He said he had no pity for Roach. He said he deserved to die and it was a citizen's duty to watch. "He killed a 70- year- old woman who was like a grandmother to him," he said. Shotgunned a neighbor Roach confessed to murdering Mary Ann Hughes on Dec. 3, 1993. Hughes, a widow who lived next door, frequently paid him to do chores for her. Roach even said he played board games with the elderly woman to keep her company. In interviews days before his execution, he said he was ready to take responsibility for the crime but he never explained why he walked to the kindly widow's house and blasted her in the chest with a shotgun. Roach said that after shooting Hughes, he took $60 from her purse, a credit card and her car. After fleeing to South and North Carolina, he returned three days later and surrendered to the Greene County lawmen. The curtain opens. Waiting for the final nod Roach lies on the gurney, his arms outstretched in a crucifixion-like position, strapped down onto two wings attached to the sides of the gurney. The two-person medical team is now behind the curtain, hidden executioners, waiting for Warden David Garraghty to give the final nod to kill Roach. Roach's eyes appear closed. He had said in an interview 30 hours before his death that he would close his eyes while lying on the gurney and then open them in heaven. The governor has not changed his mind. The nearby red phone is silent. The warden gives a small nod. Behind the curtain, after about a minute, witnesses watch as a intravenous tube jiggles. This is a signal that the medical technicians have chosen that tube to insert a syringe and start the flow of a chemical that will put Roach to sleep. Then, the medical technician will insert a syringe that stops his breathing. The last syringe carries a chemical that will stop his heart. Roach lays on the gurney, his eyes still closed. Those in the room stand silent and watch. A monitor hooked up to Roach's chest will tell a doctor in the room when the condemned man's heart stops beating. Death Several minutes go by. Roach does not move. He lays still, as if he is in a deep, peaceful sleep. "9:04," a corrections official says. Steven Roach was dead. The curtains to the execution room were closed. The execution of inmate No 225822 was over. Roach was the 604th person in the United States executed since the death penalty was reestablished in 1976. He was the 75th person executed in Virginia since 1976. He also became the 15th person who had committed murder at the age of 16 or 17 to be tried as an adult and executed since 1985. Lawyer's statement Robert Phillips/APBnews.com Attorney Steven Schneebaum reads a statement after execution. Outside the prison after the execution, Steven M. Schneebaum, who had handled Roach's appeals, stood in the cold wind and read a statement saying that Roach did not want to be remembered as a murderer or "monster." "It was important to Steve Roach that he be remembered, not just as the boy who killed Mary Ann Hughes, but also as the man who married Elasa Roach; not just as the teenager who committed a horrible crime, but also as the adult who accepted responsibility for it and begged the forgiveness of those he caused to suffer; and not just as someone who ended a life for no reason, but also as someone whose own life was ended to no one's benefit." Robert Anthony Phillips is an APBnews.com staff writer (robert.phillips@apbnews.com). Select a Topic Behind Bars Capital Punishment Courts Guns Dead Man Walking in Virginia Texas Executes 200th Person Canadian Sues Over 'Pipe Dream' Sexual Assault Case Justices Uphold Driver's License Privacy Law High Court: Cops Can Stop Those Who Run Death Row Fashion Ads Spark Outrage Executions Set for Three Juvenile Killers Fashion Ads Feature Condemned Inmates Executed Prisoner's Autobiography Posted on Web High Court to Hear 3-Strikes Death Appeal The Whitewater Scandal Stocks and Ethics Collide in Courtroom The Sheppard Case Is Solitary Confinement Justified or Unreasonably Cruel? Wrong Man Imprisoned for Murder of Audrey Cardenas? | HOME | NEWS | SAFETY | CRIMESOLVERS | MEDIA | CJ PROS | RESOURCES | CJ SYSTEM | VIDEO | FORUMS | ©Copyright 2000 APB Online, Inc. All rights reserved. ABOUT APB ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc02.mx.aol.com (rly-yc02.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.34]) by air-yc04.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:21:22 -0500 Received: from pimout5-int.prodigy.net (pimout5-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.58.59]) by rly-yc02.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:20:51 -0500 Received: from pavilion (CHCGB807-06.splitrock.net [209.254.84.205]) by pimout5-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA1222956; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:20:15 -0500 Message-ID: <00a001bf5eb3$98ea1da0$cd54fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" Subject: Second Part........... Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:19:56 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009C_01BF5E70.89233FC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 14:59:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29155 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:57:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe29.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.249]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA29150 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 14:57:49 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 42291 invoked by uid 65534); 16 Jan 2000 19:57:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000116195711.42290.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.129] To: References: <200001150201.SAA13197@smtp2.verio.net> Subject: Allegations of racial Bias Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:42:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This ought to be entertaining. ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles H. Brenner To: Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death > At 12:18 PM 1/14/00 -0500, WBirkby@aol.com wrote: > > >... non-Europeans get > >the death penalty more often because they usually have a much longer > >history of violence, or, the crime was more brutal. > > > >The statistics shown by the anti-death-penalty crowd are usually cooked in > >some way to "prove" their theories ... > > A plausible sounding theory. Maybe those statisticians aren't all that > smart! Nah. They just lack the personality to be an accountant. As to the rest of it one in four black males over the age of 18 have been convicted of a felony. Past bad acts and aggravating circumstance are far better predictors of outcome in sentencing, as Professor Baldus discovered, than are allegations of racial bias. Besides, after abolitionist 'won' jury discretion I find it distasteful that they are so willing to abandon their victory in favor of some other system which could be even worse. Perhaps their aim isn't an unbiased system after all? > Maybe there is no objective way to factor out the "brutality" of the > crime, or the "history of violence" of the assailant, so the statisticians > (pinko-professors, really -- right J Birkby?) just satisfy their liberal > bent by chosing whatever model suits them. With or without sandals, building a facade with mendacous allegations of racial bias without a foundation of proof that considered the impact of those circumstances written into code is patently poor logic. Baldus, as well as his successors, ignored the impact of previous homicides, robbery, or attendance of mitigating circumstances or lack of extenuation as a factor in their studies. In short, all those things which might reasonable account for disparity were ignored. Moreover it also skirts the nearly ten to one ratio of black perp/white victim v. white perp/black victim issue. > > But it doesn't explain the fact that in state after state, study after > study, people receive the death penalty at a rate 3.5 - 5 times greater for > killing a white person than for killing a black person. Again, ignoring the circumstances in which the crime was commited. Helps if you consider the same facts the jury does. Though there is little doubt that whites rob blacks at the same rate that blacks rob whites, then end the act in homicide, it would be helpful for you to add some of the finer points to what appears on the face to be a sound bite argument. For all violent crimes, there are ten times as many black offenders (2,016,939) involved in white victim violent crimes as there are white offenders (210,869) involved in black victim violent crimes, or a 10:1 ratio. (The State of Violent Crime in America, pg. 12,1/96, data derived from Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1993, BJS forthcoming, tables 42 and 48). Just curious Charles, how did UC Berkeley fair in the lawsuit alleging racial bias against whites and asians on their scaled admissions policies? Shaun Wheeler - "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics", Mark Twain > > Charles Brenner, Ph.D. > forensic mathematics -- and occasionally statistics > http://www.ccnet.com/~cbrenner > From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 15:09:53 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29245 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:09:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29240 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:09:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.10.92]) by mail.i2020.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:16:00 -0500 Message-ID: <38822519.E896406C@i2020.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 15:07:53 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens-l Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill Oliver wrote: > Once again, what statistical study do you have that > shows that the systems "routinely" kills innocents? > Your claims are dramatic, but, fundamentally empty > without some better hard evidence than anecdotes > and repeated propaganda. I'm not claiming that > your claim is necessarily completely wrong, just > empty. Further, sad anecdotal stories, while stirring, > do not make the case that the system "routinely" > kills innocent people. > > What study? What source? What are the *hard* numbers? > Here are studies, with sources attributed, and if you have a browser on your home computer, there is no need to wait until you get to the office to start reading them. 1. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial NIJ Research Report Published: June 1996 http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt 2. Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence Published: September 1999 http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/177626.txt 3. Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing the Danger of Mistaken Executions Staff Report by the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary One Hundred Third Congress, First Session Issued October 21, 1993 http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html 4. Lost Lives: Miscarriages of Justice in Capital Cases Samuel R. Gross Duke Journals Cited: 61 Law & Contemp. Probs. 125 (Autumn 1998) http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+125+(Autumn+1998) 5. The Execution of the Innocent Michael L. Radelet and Hugo Adam Bedau Duke Journals Cited: 61 Law & Contemp. Probs. 105 (Autumn 1998) http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1998) 6. The Wrong Men on Death Row U.S. News & World Report 11/9/98 edition http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/981109/9deat.htm 7. The Wrong Man Alan Berlow The Atlantic Monthly November 1999 http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99nov/9911wrongman.htm 8. Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the Innocent Richard C. Dieter http://www.essential.org/dpic/inn.html -- Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: dberry@i2020.net Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." - Will Durant (1885-1981) From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 17:05:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00185 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.austin.rr.com (sm1.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.54]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00180 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from geraldhu ([24.27.39.20]) by mail.austin.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:05:28 -0600 From: "Gerald L. Hurst" To: "Forens E-mail Group" Subject: RE: Race, Life & Death Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:02:43 -0600 Message-ID: <001e01bf606d$6a3dccc0$14271b18@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Statistics? I have no statistics. Statistical values for actual innocence are unknowable even in thought experiments involving a Maxwell-Scheck demon. We are fortunate indeed that most of our collective knowledge is not based on bean counting. "Anecdotal" is a term that should be reserved for information based on short narratives. Given that many rightly-overturned convictions involve years of study and subsequent, voluminous publications, is it not reasonable to conclude that bogus convictions are not rarae aves? If you do not like "routinely" then try any other qualitative adverb which connotes unacceptably high frequency. Those who refuse to accept any evidence other than that which can be reduced to indisputable hard numbers are relying on the same ostrich defense so widely used by appeals courts, unrepentant prosecutors and two of the three not-so-wise monkeys. Jerry Gerald L. Hurst ghurst@Austin.rr.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Oliver Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 12:07 PM To: Gerald L. Hurst Cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: RE: Race, Life & Death Once again, what statistical study do you have that shows that the systems "routinely" kills innocents? Your claims are dramatic, but, fundamentally empty without some better hard evidence than anecdotes and repeated propaganda. [Snip] From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 19:43:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01340 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:43:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe28.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.248]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA01335 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:43:03 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 6208 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Jan 2000 00:42:34 -0000 Message-ID: <20000117004234.6207.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.129] To: References: <38822519.E896406C@i2020.net> Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:47:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Perhaps you misread the question. None of these things which you have quoted suggest any proof that someone who is factually innocent has been executed. Regarding Bedau and Radelet, they are so thoroughly discredited in their work that I am, quite frankly, surprised that you would even quote them. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: Sheila Berry To: forens-l > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 2:07 PM Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death > Bill Oliver wrote: > > > Once again, what statistical study do you have that > > shows that the systems "routinely" kills innocents? > > Your claims are dramatic, but, fundamentally empty > > without some better hard evidence than anecdotes > > and repeated propaganda. I'm not claiming that > > your claim is necessarily completely wrong, just > > empty. Further, sad anecdotal stories, while stirring, > > do not make the case that the system "routinely" > > kills innocent people. > > > > What study? What source? What are the *hard* numbers? > > > > Here are studies, with sources attributed, and if you have a browser on your > home computer, there is no need to wait until you get to the office to start > reading them. > > 1. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of > DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial > NIJ Research Report > Published: June 1996 > > http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt Nothing in that document alleges an innocent being executed. > > 2. Postconviction DNA Testing: Recommendations for Handling Requests > National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence > Published: September 1999 > > http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/177626.txt Nothing here either. > > 3. Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing the Danger of Mistaken > Executions > Staff Report by the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, > Committee on the Judiciary > One Hundred Third Congress, First Session > Issued October 21, 1993 > > http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html First, no examples of innocents being sent to slaughter on quite the terms offered by Geraldo. Second, some of these were released on the opinion of courts that never heard the entire case, rather, they offered their judicial insight on the basis of briefs. Let me explain on the off chance you might have difficulty with the foregoing. Releasing somebody because an appellate court believes evidence is insufficient is not evidence of innocence, only enough to presume that guilt is not adequately proven in the eyes of the jurists'. > > 4. Lost Lives: Miscarriages of Justice in Capital Cases > Samuel R. Gross > Duke Journals > Cited: 61 Law & Contemp. Probs. 125 (Autumn 1998) > > http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+125+(Autumn+1 998) Anybody executed here? Particularly anybody whose innocence goes beyond anecdotal claims? Didn't think so. > > 5. The Execution of the Innocent > Michael L. Radelet and Hugo Adam Bedau > Duke Journals > Cited: 61 Law & Contemp. Probs. 105 (Autumn 1998) > > http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?61+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+105+(Autumn+1 998) > > 6. The Wrong Men on Death Row > U.S. News & World Report > 11/9/98 edition > > http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/981109/9deat.htm > > 7. The Wrong Man > Alan Berlow > The Atlantic Monthly > November 1999 > > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99nov/9911wrongman.htm > > 8. Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the > Innocent > Richard C. Dieter > > http://www.essential.org/dpic/inn.html > > > -- > Sheila Martin Berry > E-mail: dberry@i2020.net > Web Sites: > http://spiritlink.com/ > http://truthinjustice.org/ > > "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." > - Will Durant (1885-1981) > > > From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 19:51:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01400 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01395 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:51:22 -0500 (EST) From: WBirkby@aol.com Received: from WBirkby@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.ca.9e0894 (8329); Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:49:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:49:16 EST Subject: Re: Allegations of racial Bias To: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Mac sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Thanks to Shaun Wheeler! Just when it seemed that most in the forensics world were sandal-wearing, tofu-eating, Reagan-hating, coffee-house-dwelling, Woody Allen-watching Castro-lovers, he proves otherwise. Great job. His death-penalty information dealt a blow to the race-baiters who use race to further all political agendas, including abolishing the oldest type of justice in history: "An eye for an eye". (Again, my apologies to billo, who is not among the above-mentioned). J. Birkby Republican From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 19:58:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01472 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:58:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA01467 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:57:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25930 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2000 00:57:56 -0000 Received: from access-7-42.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.43) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 17 Jan 2000 00:57:56 -0000 Message-ID: <004501bf6085$e1e71d40$2b0d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: Subject: Re: No Subject, actually should be "No Point" Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:57:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO And the forensic science point was? Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM Subject: No Subject From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 20:11:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01600 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:11:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.242]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01587 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:10:57 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 37150 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Jan 2000 01:10:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000117011029.37149.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.129] To: References: <9f.d00991.25b0e7ca@aol.com> Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 18:14:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Just a few of the finer points.... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death > > In a message dated 1/14/00 2:00:49 PM, WBirkby@aol.com writes: > > << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape > from prison to kill again. Well they don't have to escape. Part of the genesis of the Supermax prisons was the murder of a guard in a federal penitentiary by two inmates. They had conspired as to how to go about it and it was a calculated, premeditated crime. > > May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. Since post-execution claims are quite rare, in fact the only two that come to mind here are Sacco and Vanzetti and the Sheppard case, I'd be interested to know who the other 80 are. >I'm no mathmatical genius, but that looks like about a 25 - 27% error rate. I have > yet to meet an innocent person that would kill 'again.' Escape from today's > death row? - I doubt that. As to escape from death row you need to read the news more frequently. Concerning your estimated error rate, consider night school or any of the fine math programs offered online. > > I am hardly a race-baiter, but I do understand that race does have quite a > bit of play in the strength of the prisoners' defense and the natural > tendency of jurors - all white or all black - to rule against a defendant of > another race or color. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both seem to think that it's a very ambigious claim, but given as how you've apprehended it in some concise manner I'd again, be interested to know on what basis you offer this 'fact'. Whites are sentenced to death at a higher rate than blacks are. They spend 15 months less on death row before being executed than blacks are. As to your allegations of racism, I look forward to reading more about them. > White juries have a tendency to rule against black > defendants while black juries have a tendency to rule against white > defendents. The socio-economic status of either a black or white defendent is > also part of the big picture. Money equals quality defense; poor means fend > for yourself. A study of death row inmates (the subject of our discussion) shows that nearly 74 percent of all murder defendants in Georgia would be considered poor and yet only 34 percent of those on death row are poor. Given your opinion, how do you account for this descrepancy? Is it a statistical anomaly? > > It would seem that with the Republican stance on pro-life issues, they > wouldn't be so blatantly set on killing a human being - innocent or guilty. > The system is broken. Taking the life of a murderer has about as much in common with abortion of a viable fetus as rape has in common with consensual sex. Both end in sex but the parallels end rather quickly. > > I'm a Republican also, but that doesn't mean that I can't disagree fellow > Republicans on certain issues. That is what makes me an American. I do that too, while drinking my Snapple (tm) Iced Tea (the kind with the slave trading ship on the outside), wearing my republican power tie, smoking banned cuban cigars , spraying freon into the atmosphere, telling misogynistic jokes, conspiring to deprive minorities of their rights and starving old people, women and children. It's a tough job, but somebodies got to do it. Shaun > > Barbara Jean > Free Tommy Zeigler - Wrongfully convicted by the State of Florida in 1976 by > a broken judicial system, a political ladder-climbing state's attorney, an > untrained sheriff's department and one inept FBI lab. > From forens-owner Sun Jan 16 20:32:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA01795 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:32:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01790 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:32:04 -0500 (EST) From: LarryVPD@aol.com Received: from LarryVPD@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.cf.a79386 (4331) for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:31:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:31:34 EST Subject: Fwd: Allegations of racial Bias To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_cf.a79386.25b3caf6_boundary" X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO --part1_cf.a79386.25b3caf6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_cf.a79386.25b3caf6_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: LarryVPD@aol.com From: LarryVPD@aol.com Full-name: LarryVPD Message-ID: <98.9c124b.25b3ca6d@aol.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 20:29:17 EST Subject: Re: Allegations of racial Bias To: forens-L@fau.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 In a message dated 1/16/00 8:11:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, WBirkby@aol.com writes: << His death-penalty information dealt a blow to the race-baiters who use race to further all political agendas, including abolishing the oldest type of justice in history: "An eye for an eye". >> "Information"....sorry I haven't read any "information." Just the opinion of one person that I happen to disagree with. As for you, I wouldn't publicly admit being a Republican so close to election time. It might drive scores of thoughtful, intelligent, fair-minded voters to the "dark side" of the Democrats. Larry Vogelman Non sandlewearing, tofu hating, Democrat PS: as far as Woody Allen, I'm no big fan anymore, but for different reasons than you (I too, am a Jew, originally from NY) I confess to having frequented coffee houses and a discussion of Castro and America's bankrupt Cuban policy is for another day and another time. --part1_cf.a79386.25b3caf6_boundary-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 06:36:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05751 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:36:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05746 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:35:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.10.69]) by mail.i2020.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:42:19 -0500 Message-ID: <3882FE37.478FF64A@i2020.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:34:15 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death References: <38822519.E896406C@i2020.net> <20000117004234.6207.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com wrote: > Perhaps you misread the question. > > None of these things which you have quoted suggest any proof that someone > who is factually innocent has been executed. > There's some sort of inexplicable resistance to finding out if someone who has already been executed may have been factually innocent. The case of Roger O'Dell in Virginia comes to mind. O'Dell was convicted in 1985 on the basis of "blood" evidence, but no DNA testing was done. Ever. His petitions for release of evidence for retesting were uniformly denied, and he was executed in 1997. Attorneys for his family continue to petition for DNA testing. In response, the Commonwealth wants to destroy the evidence. The case was examined most recently by Lori Urs in the New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement. You can download this article in pdf format at http://www.nesl.edu/journal/index25.htm -- Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: dberry@i2020.net Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." - Will Durant (1885-1981) From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 08:26:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06577 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:26:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06572 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:24:30 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.c1.6103a5 (3987); Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:22:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:22:36 EST Subject: Re: RE: Race, Life & Death To: glhurst@onr.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/16/00 4:47:24 AM, glhurst@onr.com writes: << This is a "statistic" I think I'll call you on. What is your source for these numbers, and what is your criteria for "proven innocent?" >> This statistic was from a paper written a paper that was later made in to a book called Convicting the Innocent. See - http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list The people that are profiled in this paper were proven Innocent and having absolutely nothing to do with the crime or crimes they were convicted with. Absolutely nothing. As in, they weren't even there. Some of them were documented as being in another state even. That's my Statistic as well as the Criteria. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 08:38:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06689 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:37:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06684 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:37:52 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.1d.4ddd27 (3987); Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:37:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1d.4ddd27.25b47505@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:37:09 EST Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death To: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/16/00 9:11:48 PM, shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com writes: << > << Finally, let us remember that a person who has been executed cannot escape > from prison to kill again. Well they don't have to escape. Part of the genesis of the Supermax prisons was the murder of a guard in a federal penitentiary by two inmates. They had conspired as to how to go about it and it was a calculated, premeditated crime. There are, for sure, true murderers inside the walls. > > May the race-baiters stop feeling guilty about their heritage! >> > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. Since post-execution claims are quite rare, in fact the only two that come to mind here are Sacco and Vanzetti and the Sheppard case, I'd be interested to know who the other 80 are. Please see this site or read the book Convicting the Innocent. http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list >I'm no mathmatical genius, but that looks like about a 25 - 27% error rate. I have > yet to meet an innocent person that would kill 'again.' Escape from today's > death row? - I doubt that. As to escape from death row you need to read the news more frequently. Concerning your estimated error rate, consider night school or any of the fine math programs offered online. Resorting to personal slams? How mature. > > I am hardly a race-baiter, but I do understand that race does have quite a > bit of play in the strength of the prisoners' defense and the natural > tendency of jurors - all white or all black - to rule against a defendant of > another race or color. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both seem to think that it's a very ambigious claim, but given as how you've apprehended it in some concise manner I'd again, be interested to know on what basis you offer this 'fact'. Whites are sentenced to death at a higher rate than blacks are. They spend 15 months less on death row before being executed than blacks are. As to your allegations of racism, I look forward to reading more about them. There are fewer blacks in the country than whites. Therefore, when you look at the numbers, there are more blacks in their race sentenced to death than there are whites sentenced to death in their race. > White juries have a tendency to rule against black > defendants while black juries have a tendency to rule against white > defendents. The socio-economic status of either a black or white defendent is > also part of the big picture. Money equals quality defense; poor means fend > for yourself. A study of death row inmates (the subject of our discussion) shows that nearly 74 percent of all murder defendants in Georgia would be considered poor and yet only 34 percent of those on death row are poor. Given your opinion, how do you account for this descrepancy? Is it a statistical anomaly? You're talking about Georgia for crying out loud. Nothing more need to be said. > > It would seem that with the Republican stance on pro-life issues, they > wouldn't be so blatantly set on killing a human being - innocent or guilty. > The system is broken. Taking the life of a murderer has about as much in common with abortion of a viable fetus as rape has in common with consensual sex. Both end in sex but the parallels end rather quickly. Taking the life of an innocent person is right up there with taking the life of a fetus. > > I'm a Republican also, but that doesn't mean that I can't disagree fellow > Republicans on certain issues. That is what makes me an American. I do that too, while drinking my Snapple (tm) Iced Tea (the kind with the slave trading ship on the outside), wearing my republican power tie, smoking banned cuban cigars , spraying freon into the atmosphere, telling misogynistic jokes, conspiring to deprive minorities of their rights and starving old people, women and children. It's a tough job, but somebodies got to do it. Calling them Monica's is Hilarious! Shaun > > Barbara Jean > Free Tommy Zeigler - Wrongfully convicted by the State of Florida in 1976 by > a broken judicial system, a political ladder-climbing state's attorney, an > untrained sheriff's department and one inept FBI lab. > >> From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 11:45:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08493 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08488 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:45:06 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.85.acb224 (4463) for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:44:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <85.acb224.25b4a0e8@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:44:24 EST Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > And the forensic science point was? > Dave Hause > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > Subject: No Subject > > Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a devise that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous fission of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong point) were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it necessary to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to drop the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? Was it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and killing thousands of civilians? What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have been the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, who committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape for any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and "irrelevant" to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative of a lack of conscience. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 12:10:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA08674 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:10:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe33.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.28]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA08669 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:10:10 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 58286 invoked by uid 65534); 17 Jan 2000 17:09:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20000117170930.58285.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.133] To: References: <1d.4ddd27.25b47505@aol.com> Subject: More Fun with Math and Statistics Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:57:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Facts are so entertaining. > > > > It is documented that 83 people executed out of 413 executions resulted in > > the state-sanctioned murder of people that were later proven innocent. > > > Since post-execution claims are quite rare, in fact the only two that come > > to mind here are Sacco and Vanzetti and the Sheppard case, I'd be interested > > to know who the other 80 are. > > Please see this site or read the book Convicting the Innocent. > http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list I have read the fundamentally flawed and unproven, not to mention substantially discredited works of Mssrs. Bedau and Radelet. Of their claims, only eleven were in the last twenty-five years. Of those, there is far more proof of the perpetrators guilt than of their innocence. Spend a little time reading some of the other fine articles based on facts, also in the Stanford Law Review by Paul Cassell, professor of law and former Assistant United States Attorney. > > > >I'm no mathmatical genius, but that looks like about a 25 - 27% error rate. > > I have yet to meet an innocent person that would kill 'again.' Escape from > > today's death row? - I doubt that. > > > As to escape from death row you need to read the news more frequently. > Concerning your estimated error rate, consider night school or any of the > fine math programs offered online. > > Resorting to personal slams? How mature. Claiming that people don't escape death row is ludicrous and utterly false, but on par with the reliability of the sources you've quoted before. Murderers can, and do escape not only death row but life imprisonment with grave consequences. > > > > > > I am hardly a race-baiter, but I do understand that race does have quite a > >bit of play in the strength of the prisoners' defense and the natural > > tendency of jurors - all white or all black - to rule against a defendant > >of another race or color. I suppose an equal but opposite argument that all black juries or all white juries are predisposed to render favorable verdicts to defendants whose race matches their own, but I have not seen a study which proves this. Perhaps you might have that as well? > > > The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS both seem to think that > it's a very ambigious claim, but given as how you've apprehended it in some > concise manner I'd again, be interested to know on what basis you offer this > 'fact'. > > Whites are sentenced to death at a higher rate than blacks are. They spend > 15 months less on death row before being executed than blacks are. As to > your allegations of racism, I look forward to reading more about them. > > There are fewer blacks in the country than whites. Therefore, when you look > at the numbers, there are more blacks in their race sentenced to death than > there are whites sentenced to death in their race. Silly me. Obviously my reasoning is quite flawed. For just a moment I supposed that there was a measurable disparity in the per capita rate of homicide between whites and blacks that would cause such a thing. Amazingly the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows it to be precisely so. If you will observe http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm it shows quite clearly that in the even in the lowest per capita (a rate) of offenders, there is a nearly five fold disparity in the commission of homicide. At the upper extreme it is nearly ten times the difference. So, blacks do commit homicide at a higher per capita rate than whites do. If you'd like to level a charge of blatant bigotry or racism because I've said that be my guest. It won't change the facts. Though my argument pales in contrast to your excellent rebuttal, I will offer it as paltry fare as 'an apologist' for a broken system. > > > > White juries have a tendency to rule against black > > defendants while black juries have a tendency to rule against white > > defendents. The socio-economic status of either a black or white defendent > >is also part of the big picture. Money equals quality defense; poor means > >fend for yourself. > > > A study of death row inmates (the subject of our discussion) shows that > nearly 74 percent of all murder defendants in Georgia would be considered > poor and yet only 34 percent of those on death row are poor. Given your > pinion, how do you account for this descrepancy? Is it a statistical > anomaly? > > You're talking about Georgia for crying out loud. Nothing more need to be > said. Of course. Georgia's model system for balancing jury selection is one we all should consider emulating. They provide a pool based on selections guaranteed to produce socio-economic diversity on a far greater scale than nearly every state I've yet examined and they are justifiably proud of their record. Consider studying either the Chicago Jury Project (redacted) or "We, The Jury", by Jeffrey Abramson, both of which consider the impact of juries on the judicial system. > > > > > > It would seem that with the Republican stance on pro-life issues, they > > wouldn't be so blatantly set on killing a human being - innocent or > > guilty. > > > The system is broken. > > > Taking the life of a murderer has about as much in common with abortion of a > viable fetus as rape has in common with consensual sex. Both end in sex but > the parallels end rather quickly. > > Taking the life of an innocent person is right up there with taking the life > of a fetus. Tell me what due process is involved in abortion these days and I will find your argument very compelling. Last time I checked, they are without counsel or legal standing. In the meantime I've yet to see any argument of an innocent being executed under our current system of justice that is convincing to the same burden of proof required by most appellate courts under a direct appeal as opposed to a writ. > > > > > > I'm a Republican also, but that doesn't mean that I can't disagree fellow > > > Republicans on certain issues. That is what makes me an American. > > > I do that too, while drinking my Snapple (tm) Iced Tea (the kind with the > slave trading ship on the outside), wearing my republican power tie, smoking > banned cuban cigars , spraying freon into the > atmosphere, telling misogynistic jokes, conspiring to deprive minorities of > their rights and starving old people, women and children. It's a tough job, > but somebodies got to do it. > > Calling them Monica's is Hilarious! I forgot to mention we also raffle a copy of Paula Jones new book, "Close but no Cigar" at every meeting. Shaun > > > > > > > > Barbara Jean > > > Free Tommy Zeigler - Wrongfully convicted by the State of Florida in 1976 > > by > > > a broken judicial system, a political ladder-climbing state's attorney, an > > > untrained sheriff's department and one inept FBI lab. > > > >> > > From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 13:19:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA09404 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:18:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA09399 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:18:45 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.4e.b98777 (3930) for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:18:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4e.b98777.25b4b6e5@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:18:13 EST Subject: Voice Print Analysis To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Can anyone on this list give me a contact for voice print analysis? And literature citations? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 15:02:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA10275 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f34.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.34]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA10270 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 14:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27681 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jan 2000 19:56:39 -0000 Message-ID: <20000117195639.27680.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.245.79.61 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:56:39 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.245.79.61] From: "chris breyer" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:56:39 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO As scientists, and subsequent to the rendering of our opinions in reports or in court, we have no more responsibility in penalties of any kind than does any other member of society. because we are employed in the field of criminal justice, we are more intimately connected with the processes of criminal justice. that connection does not make our opinions on penalties for crimes any more relevant than anyone else's. to claim otherwise, in my opinion, is unreasonable. legislatures set penalties. scientists set standards for classifying and interpreting data from their experiments and other laboratory determinations. where is the crossover? Chris Breyer >From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:44:24 EST > >In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, >dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > > > And the forensic science point was? > > Dave Hause > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > > Subject: No Subject > > > > >Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic >scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they >function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a >devise >that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous >fission >of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong point) >were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it necessary >to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to >drop >the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some >uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? >Was >it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and >killing thousands of civilians? >What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work >made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of >nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have >been >the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, >who >committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape >for >any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or >may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and >"irrelevant" >to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative >of >a lack of conscience. > >Bill Holden >Legaleye Investigations >Legaleye1@aol.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 15:22:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10516 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10511 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:17:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26588; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:16:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000117121042.0095c510@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:19:18 -0800 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: Voice Print Analysis In-Reply-To: <4e.b98777.25b4b6e5@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO At 01:18 PM 01/17/2000 -0500, Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: >Can anyone on this list give me a contact for voice print analysis? And >literature citations? >Fred Whitehurst Hi Fred, Is this the kinda stuff yr looking for? Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com Biblo purloined from site below: Greenwald, M., "The Effects of Decreased Frequency Bandwidth on Speaker Identification by Aural and Spectrographic Examination of Speech Samples", Master Thesis, Michigan State University, 1979 Hall, M. C., "Spectrographic Analysis of Interspeaker and Intraspeaker variables of Professional Mimicry", Master Thesis, Michigan State University, 1975 Hazen, B., "Effects of Different Phonetic Contexts on Spectrographic Speaker Identification", 54 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 650, 1973 Hollien, H., & McGlone, R., "The Effect of Disguise on Voiceprint Identification", In the Proceedings of the Camahan Crime Countermeasures Conference, University of Kentucky, University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 1976 Kersta, L. G., "Voiceprint Identification", 196 Nature Magazine 1253, Dec. 29, 1962 Reich, et al., "Effects of Selected Vocal Disguises upon Spectrographic Speaker Identification", 60 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 919, 1976 Reich & Duke, "Effects of selected vocal disguises upon speaker identification by listening", 66 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1023, 1979 Smrkovski, L. L., "Collaborative Study of Speaker Identification by the Voiceprint Method", 58 J. AOAC 453, 1975 Smrkovski, L. L., "Study of Speaker Identification by Aural and Visual Examination of Non- Contemporary Speech Samples", 59 J. AOAC 927, 1976 Stevens, et al., "Speaker Authentication and Identification: A Comparison of Spectrographic and Auditory Presentations of Speech Material", 44 3. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1596,1968 Tosi, et al., "Experiment on Voice Identification", 15 3. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2030, 1972 Tosi & Greenwald, "Voice Identification by Subjective Methods of Minority Group Voices", Paper presented at the 6th Meeting of the International Association of Voice Identification, New Orleans, La., 1978 Young, M. A.,& Campbell, R. A., "Effects of Context on Talker Identification", 42 Acoust. Soc. Am. 1250,1967 Polygraph vs Voice Stress. http://www.polygraph.org/voice.htm Department of Defense Polygraph Institute VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS POSITION STATEMENT http://www.polygraph.org/voice.htm#dod American Association of Police Polygraphists AAPP Position Statement on the Use of Voice Stress Analysis http://www.polygraph.org/voice.htm#aapp The Aural/Spectrographic Method http://www.aftiinc.com/Voiceidowl/voice_identification.htm Research Studies: http://www.aftiinc.com/Voiceidowl/Research%20Studies.htm Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 15:25:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10538 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:22:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10533 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:21:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA21273; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:21:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:21:40 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Sheila Berry cc: forens-l Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: <38822519.E896406C@i2020.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Sheila Berry wrote: > From: Sheila Berry > > Here are studies, with sources attributed, and if you have a browser on your > home computer, there is no need to wait until you get to the office to start > reading them. Oh yes there is, I have a T1 at work and a 2400 bps modem at home. Of the eight sources you provide, only 3 actually pretend to be primary sources. The rest are editorials. Let's look at those three... > > 1. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of > DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial > NIJ Research Report > Published: June 1996 > > http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt The claim is that a quarter of cases of death penalty cases result in people being proven innocent. This study identifies 28 cases of people previously found guilty of various crimes, but mostly sexual assault, later exonerated by DNA evidence. Of import, it does not note how many cases, altogether were in the pool of cases from which these 28 were pulled. The implication of the study is that these are *all* cases of exoneration in *all* 50 states from DNA evidence in the past 20 years (since the earliest case was from 1979). That's a pool of more than 96 cases one would suspect, and thus does not support the claim. However, of course, if the claim is that of the thousands of cases covered by the time period and the scope of the search, there were 28 cases in which innocent people were convicted, I certainly will not dispute that. But then, .001% isn't quite as emotive as 25%. Even worse, of those 28 cases out of thousands, I only saw 3 cases where the death penalty was given. So, this is a study in which, out of the hundreds of thousands of criminal cases in the US since 1979, they identified 3 in which the defendent was convicted of a capital crime and exonerated. This is the study on which folk defend a claim of 25%? I hope not. But, let's actually look at the two useful "studies" below: > > 3. Innocence and the Death Penalty: Assessing the Danger of Mistaken > Executions > Staff Report by the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, > Committee on the Judiciary > One Hundred Third Congress, First Session > Issued October 21, 1993 > > http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html and > > 8. Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the > Innocent > Richard C. Dieter > > http://www.essential.org/dpic/inn.html The first is a list of 43 people condemned to death who were later found to be innocent since 1930. The second extends that list to about 70 (69 "for sures" and a handful of "sortas") Hmmm... Let's see.... Since 1930 and 1998, there have been 4348 people executed(1), let's add another, oh guesstimate of, say, 100ish for 1999, or just round it off to 4450. Now, of course, an argument can be made that the percentage of "correct" executions is actually higher because many incorrect convictions were discovered, or one can argue the opposite, that this is the tip of the iceberg. The data presented actually supports *neither* case. However, the simplest assumption is that this is in some way *representative* of the error rate. And it's as good an assertion as any. So.... 70/4400 = 1.6% Oops. Well, that's about what I remember. Not quite up to that 25% mark again, I'm afraid. (1) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.txt The remaining "sources" are not primary sources at all, but editorials which, while highly entertaining and inflammatory -- two laudable goals in my opinion -- do not address my challenge. The bottom line is exactly what I said. There is no real evidence of anything like a 25% rate of executing innocents. Remember, I *oppose* the death penalty, just like you. That's one of the reasons I am so strongly critical of attempts to inflate the data. Frankly, any reasonable person would be horrified by an insinuation that we are killing innocents at the rate of 1, 2, or 3%. So, why not leave it at that? Why is it necessary to strain the bonds of credibility by massaging the data to present inflated and frankly unbelievable statistics? There's no *need* to inflate the numbers. It only hurts those who oppose the death penalty because it makes it possible to dismiss all the *other* arguments as well. One cannot retain credibility when making an argument if one's position when making supporting arguments is shown to be incredible. The sad thing about many death-penalty opponents is that that they don't seem to realize that the most effective arguments against the death penalty do not rely on any error rate at all. If the death penalty is immoral or wrong in and of itself, then it doesn't really matter if *every* person killed was actually guilty. It's still wrong. Conversely, if capital punishment is fundamentally OK, it *still* doesn't matter if there's an error rate. That's only an argument for system reform to decrease the error rate. No proponent of capital punishment that I know of claims that there has been *no* error in the history of capital punishment in the US, and almost any demonstration of error will be ignored. The fundamental problem is that there are folk who think that capital punishment is basically wrong from a fundamental values viewpoint and there are folk who think that capital punishment is OK from a fundamental values viewpoint. Instead of addressing the problem at that level, however, they engage in a bullshit proxy discussion of bullshit numbers about racial bias and/or error rate. Fundamentally, neither of them really matter to the basic question of whether capital punishment is right or wrong. If you went to Jerry and could convince him that *every* person killed by judicial execution was guilty, do you think he would suddenly become a cheerleader for the death penalty? I don't think so. Would you? I doubt it. If you went to Dr. Birkby or Shawn Wheeler and could convince them that there was an unacceptable rate of error (of whatever percentage) -- do you think they would suddenly become crusaders for abolition of the death penalty? Of course not. They would become crusaders for a more efficient and more accurate death penalty. Arguing bad data, unfortunately, in this proxy discussion, not only makes the discussion *more* irrelevant, it also makes it *more* impossible to present convincingly. billo billo billo From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 15:33:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10638 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10633 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:30:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22610; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:30:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:30:26 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Sidg@aol.com cc: glhurst@onr.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: > From: Sidg@aol.com > > > In a message dated 1/16/00 4:47:24 AM, glhurst@onr.com writes: > > << This is a "statistic" I think I'll call you on. What is your source > > for these numbers, and what is your criteria for "proven innocent?" > > >> > > This statistic was from a paper written a paper that was later made in to a > book called Convicting the Innocent. > See - http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list > The people that are profiled in this paper were proven Innocent and having > absolutely nothing to do with the crime or crimes they were convicted with. > Absolutely nothing. As in, they weren't even there. Some of them were > documented as being in another state even. That's my Statistic as well as the > Criteria. > Barbara Jean > Neither the number "83" nor the number "413" appear in the site you quote. There have, of course, been many more than 400 executions in the time period covered by list you do provide -- between 1930 and 1947, the US averaged about 150 a year, so you hit that 400 pretty fast. Your numerator is high, but arguable. Your denominator is abysmally low. Try again. billo From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 15:52:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10794 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:47:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10789 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:47:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA25010; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:47:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:47:15 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Gerald L. Hurst" cc: Forens E-mail Group Subject: RE: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: <001e01bf606d$6a3dccc0$14271b18@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Gerald L. Hurst wrote: > From: "Gerald L. Hurst" > > Statistics? I have no statistics. Statistical values > for actual innocence are unknowable even in thought > experiments involving a Maxwell-Scheck demon. We are > fortunate indeed that most of our collective knowledge > is not based on bean counting. > > "Anecdotal" is a term that should be reserved for > information based on short narratives. Given that > many rightly-overturned convictions involve years of > study and subsequent, voluminous publications, is it not > reasonable to conclude that bogus convictions are not > rarae aves? > > If you do not like "routinely" then try any other > qualitative adverb which connotes unacceptably high > frequency. > > Those who refuse to accept any evidence other than that > which can be reduced to indisputable hard numbers are > relying on the same ostrich defense so widely used by > appeals courts, unrepentant prosecutors and two of > the three not-so-wise monkeys. No, the problem is not about accepting evidence other than hard numbers. The problem is engaging in proxy arguments using semi-quantitative claims and bullshit numbers when the actual argument has nothing to do with numbers whatsoever. Let me ask you this: What constitutes an "unacceptably high frequency?" I'll make a cognitive leap and bet that your answer is "no error is acceptable." Which, since such an error is unobtainable, means that *no* solution other than the abolishment of capital punishment is acceptable. Further, I'll make the further leap and bet that even if I could prove that only a miniscule or "almost zero" error rate could be achieved, you would *still* oppose capital punishment because, I'll bet, you believe that capital punishment is wrong at it's base. There is no acceptable error that makes capital punishment moral any more than there is an economic argument that makes slavery moral. They are both wrong in and of themselves. The problem, unfortunately, is that when we start engaging in these kinds of proxy arguments, we often feel it's OK to make the numbers up because they aren't "really" the basis of the argument. That's what you are essentially pleading when you say that anecdotal evidence makes the use of the term "regular" OK and anybody who challenges what that actually means in terms of numbers is engaging in an "ostrich" defense. No, it's not an ostrich defense. For people like you and me, the numbers are unimportant because it is a moral and ethical matter at its base. However, for folk who are not convinced already one way or the other and who actually care what the numbers really are, then bullshitting about them makes your position less tenable. And that's what claims like 25% or "regularly" are. Oh sure, an error rate of 0.000000000001% is still "regularly" killing people, just at a very low rate. However, both you and I know that the implication of "regularly killing" as a semi-quantitative statement implies a high error rate, not a low one. If you are not willing to defend that, then you shouldn't use that term. In the usage you defend above, the terms "occasional" or "rare" or "uncommon" or "infrequent" are as valid as "regular," since they *all* denote an "unacceptable" error rate. billo From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 18:33:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12475 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.usit.net (SMTP2.USIT.NET [199.1.48.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12463 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from usit.net (DIALUP48.TNNAS2.USIT.NET [216.80.153.48]) by smtp2.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA10680; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 18:30:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3883A5E6.74971FF3@usit.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:29:43 -0600 From: David Yates Reply-To: davidy@usit.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LEGALEYE1@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" References: <85.acb224.25b4a0e8@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Oh great. Now we re-hash whether we should have bombed the Japanese and prevented thousands of our troops deaths, along with innumerable Japanese, if we had been forced to invade the main islands to end the war. The only thing this has to do with forensics, I guess, is the excellent study by Liebow et al in the Yale Journal of Medicine just after the event detailing the acute effects of radiation. I don't recall any moralizing in that study, by the way. Dave Yates, MD Nashville, TN LEGALEYE1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, > dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > > > And the forensic science point was? > > Dave Hause > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > > Subject: No Subject > > > > > Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic > scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they > function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a devise > that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous fission > of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong point) > were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it necessary > to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to drop > the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some > uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? Was > it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and > killing thousands of civilians? > What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work > made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of > nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have been > the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, who > committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape for > any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or > may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and "irrelevant" > to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative of > a lack of conscience. > > Bill Holden > Legaleye Investigations > Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 20:37:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13304 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13299 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:37:27 -0500 (EST) From: Amflaw@aol.com Received: from Amflaw@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.8e.2b328c (3703); Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:36:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8e.2b328c.25b51db2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 20:36:50 EST Subject: Re: Voice Print Analysis To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO There is Norman Perle--former section chair of the American Bd. of Recorded Evidence. You might check to see if there is a directory listing for him. I recall that he wrote a brief commentary on voice identification using spectrograms and waveforms for the 9/99 issue of the Forensic Panel Letter (www.forensicpanel.com (I think)). You might be able to get contact information through them, as the biography didn't mention where he is based. Ari FitzGerald amflaw@aol.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 21:13:26 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13592 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from i-2000.com (i-2000.com [204.97.92.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13587 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:13:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from i-2000.com (hyp01-207-97-142-93.i-2000.net [207.97.142.93]) by i-2000.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20844; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:13:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3883CD0E.5B42C1A@i-2000.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:16:47 -0500 From: FreezerDoor =?iso-8859-1?Q?=AE?= X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Oliver CC: "Gerald L. Hurst" , Forens E-mail Group Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Bill Oliver wrote: (snipped) > And that's what claims like 25% or "regularly" are. Oh sure, an error > rate of 0.000000000001% is still "regularly" killing people, just at a > very low rate. However, both you and I know that the implication of > "regularly killing" as a semi-quantitative statement implies a high > error rate, not a low one. If you are not willing to defend that, then > you shouldn't use that term. In the usage you defend above, the terms > "occasional" or "rare" or "uncommon" or "infrequent" are as valid as > "regular," since they *all* denote an "unacceptable" error rate. How about using the term "consistent with??" For example: - Since Illinois reinstated the death penalty in 1977, it has executed 12 men. This is consistent with the number (12) of men it has also released from death row after they were able to prove their innocence. Some had come within days of execution. Bill __________________________________ Contrariwise', continued Tweedledee, `If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.' - Lewis Carroll From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 22:57:44 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14361 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA14356 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17348 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 Received: from access-8-17.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.67) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 Message-ID: <00eb01bf6167$bc79fc20$2b0d12d0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <85.acb224.25b4a0e8@aol.com> Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:54:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I try to limit my conscience pangs to my own actions. Does my conscience bother me that a confessed murderer was executed for killing the old lady who befriended him? Not a bit. I didn't give him the shotgun or suggest he steal $60, her credit card, and car. I didn't raise him. I neither prosecuted nor defended him at trial. I have never voted in Texas, either for or against the death penalty or on any other matter of Texas politics. My point, which John Kelly and several others seem to have trouble understanding, is that this is a discussion list about the forensic sciences. It isn't "alt.stop.the.death.penalty". It isn't even a forum to ferret out prosecutors who forget that their first obligation is to seek justice rather than convictions or defense counsel who fail to adequately represent their clients. It is reasonably concerned with proper and improper uses of forensic sciences and how to ethically ensure the proper use of our work products. Sometimes it is a resource on how to do things IN THE FIELD OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES. So I'll probably continue the periodic protests about posts by people which have no question applicable to the forensic sciences. Especially the ones who aren't even submitting their own thoughts. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:44 AM Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > And the forensic science point was? > Dave Hause > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > Subject: No Subject > > Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a devise that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous fission of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong point) were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it necessary to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to drop the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? Was it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and killing thousands of civilians? What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have been the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, who committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape for any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and "irrelevant" to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative of a lack of conscience. Bill Holden Legaleye Investigations Legaleye1@aol.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 23:17:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14564 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:17:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.erin.utoronto.ca (mail.erin.utoronto.ca [142.150.1.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14553 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from e0fvrjt4.erin.utoronto.ca ([142.150.147.33]:3168 "EHLO mail.erin.utoronto.ca" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by mail.erin.utoronto.ca with ESMTP id <144357-1961>; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:06:36 -0500 Message-ID: <3883E907.B4015600@mail.erin.utoronto.ca> From: Scott Neal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens-l Subject: Document examiner needed. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:06:36 -0500 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO The following message was received by The University of Toronto's Forensic Science Club. Perhaps individuals in this forum can be of some assistance. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:00:14 -0500 From: Collie Salmon To: "'ecivnvi@mail.erin.utoronto.ca'" Subject: Forensic Doc. Examiner Hello, We are looking for a fully qualified Forensic Document Examiner in or around the Toronto area. Can you recommend any names? Thank you. [c1]Regards, Collie Salmon Human Rights Officer Toronto Transit Commission Day: 416-393-6625 From forens-owner Mon Jan 17 23:41:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14739 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:40:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe21.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.125]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA14734 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 23:40:41 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 52225 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Jan 2000 04:40:12 -0000 Message-ID: <20000118044012.52224.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.148] To: References: <3883CD0E.5B42C1A@i-2000.com> Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:22:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO When will they learn. Just a brief recap: The original claim was innocents being railroaded and executed (Geraldo Hurst Thread) without being reviewed The subsequent one, suggested nearly 85 innocents who were not executed (but this in itself still did not prove the first point) After that we witness allegations of racial bias merely because blacks are 'over-represented', yet given their higher per capita rate of commiting homicide even a casual examination reveals that this system slightly biased against whites in terms of convictions resulting in a death sentence v. blacks with a similar sentence, ie, blacks are actually under-represented when compared per capita to net number of capital sentences. Finally we are now down to comparing 12 more people who were not executed, but now comes Bill, alleging their innocence. For the sake of argument, let's presume they were factually innocent, rather than having their convictions reversed which of course is not factual innocence but rather legal innocence, this seems to more adequately assigned as proof of a system working rather than one which is broken. The metric being applied to this 'broken system' is on the final outcome rather than the entire process. A more accurate measure of whether or not due process is adequate and review is appropriate is found by considering the entire system rather than a hasty judgement on flawed logic. Cases are sometimes never even charged, because guilt is not certain to the degree it would pass a preliminary hearing. Some of these are undoubtably innocent. Others who are charged, are not necessarily bound over for indictment, even though sufficient probable cause for an arrest existed. Of those who are bound over for consideration by a grand jury, many are not indicted, some of whom are also possibly innocent and even as many who are probably guilty. After arraignment still more are eliminated. Finally once the trial starts we are possessed of but a fraction of those who started at the opposite end of the 'broken system'. Despite all the many steps along the way, nearly a third of those sentenced to death will find their way off death row, not on the basis of factual innocence, but because appellate courts find errors (in their opinion) in due process, particularly in regards to sentencing but find the lower courts competent enough to manage a decent trial. Amazing. All in all, Bill, I think you need to rethink your math a little. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: FreezerDoor ® To: Bill Oliver Cc: Gerald L. Hurst ; Forens E-mail Group Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Race, Life & Death > Bill Oliver wrote: (snipped) > > > And that's what claims like 25% or "regularly" are. Oh > sure, an error > > rate of 0.000000000001% is still "regularly" killing > people, just at a > > very low rate. However, both you and I know that the > implication of > > "regularly killing" as a semi-quantitative statement > implies a high > > error rate, not a low one. If you are not willing to > defend that, then > > you shouldn't use that term. In the usage you defend > above, the terms > > "occasional" or "rare" or "uncommon" or "infrequent" are > as valid as > > "regular," since they *all* denote an "unacceptable" error > rate. > > How about using the term "consistent with??" For example: > > - Since Illinois reinstated the death penalty in 1977, it > has executed 12 > men. This is consistent with the number (12) of men it has > also released > from death row after they were able to prove their > innocence. Some had come > within days of execution. > > Bill > __________________________________ > Contrariwise', continued Tweedledee, `If it was so, it might > be; and if it > were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's > logic.' > - Lewis Carroll > > > > > From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 00:17:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15084 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:17:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15079 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:17:17 -0500 (EST) From: Ddillonqd@aol.com Received: from Ddillonqd@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id w.95.2bb1fd (4232); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:16:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <95.2bb1fd.25b5511d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:16:13 EST Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" To: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Not a totally unresonable comment. Duayne J. Dillon From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 06:10:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17234 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:08:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f240.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.240]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA17229 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8961 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jan 2000 11:08:25 -0000 Message-ID: <20000118110825.8960.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.156.86.33 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 03:08:25 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.156.86.33] From: "Michelle Thompson" To: dwhause@rollanet.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 06:08:25 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Can I ask you a question that? I am not trying to be rude (even though it seems that everyone on this list is alot of the time) but what are you trying to say? Execution has alot to do with forensics because forensics is a huge part of the conviction process.... Michelle Thompson Pro-life and proud to be!! >From: "Dave Hause" >To: >Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:54:34 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBA4D37030067D820F3AA98015F24E3310; Mon Jan 17 20:28:56 2000 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14361for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:56 >-0500 (EST) >Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org >[208.18.12.6])by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id >WAA14356for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:51 -0500 >(EST) >Received: (qmail 17348 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 >Received: from access-8-17.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.67) by >mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Mon Jan 17 20:29:35 2000 >Message-ID: <00eb01bf6167$bc79fc20$2b0d12d0@dwhause> >References: <85.acb224.25b4a0e8@aol.com> >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 >X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Precedence: bulk > >I try to limit my conscience pangs to my own actions. Does my conscience >bother me that a confessed murderer was executed for killing the old lady >who befriended him? Not a bit. I didn't give him the shotgun or suggest >he >steal $60, her credit card, and car. I didn't raise him. I neither >prosecuted nor defended him at trial. I have never voted in Texas, either >for or against the death penalty or on any other matter of Texas politics. > >My point, which John Kelly and several others seem to have trouble >understanding, is that this is a discussion list about the forensic >sciences. It isn't "alt.stop.the.death.penalty". It isn't even a forum to >ferret out prosecutors who forget that their first obligation is to seek >justice rather than convictions or defense counsel who fail to adequately >represent their clients. It is reasonably concerned with proper and >improper uses of forensic sciences and how to ethically ensure the proper >use of our work products. Sometimes it is a resource on how to do things >IN >THE FIELD OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES. So I'll probably continue the periodic >protests about posts by people which have no question applicable to the >forensic sciences. Especially the ones who aren't even submitting their >own >thoughts. >Dave Hause >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:44 AM >Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" > > >In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, >dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > > > And the forensic science point was? > > Dave Hause > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > > Subject: No Subject > > > > >Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic >scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they >function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a >devise >that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous >fission >of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong point) >were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it necessary >to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to >drop >the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some >uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? >Was >it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and >killing thousands of civilians? >What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work >made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of >nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have >been >the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, >who >committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape >for >any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or >may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and >"irrelevant" >to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative >of >a lack of conscience. > >Bill Holden >Legaleye Investigations >Legaleye1@aol.com > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 07:39:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17844 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:38:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17839 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:38:33 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Received: from LeonStein@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.df.463a7c (3703); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:37:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:37:57 EST Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" To: shelby1051@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/18/00 5:12:56 AM Central Standard Time, shelby1051@hotmail.com writes: << I am not trying to be rude (even though it seems that everyone on this list is alot of the time) but what are you trying to say? Execution has alot to do with forensics because forensics is a huge part of the conviction process.... >> You are not being rude, just misguided.... When we, as forensic scientists, confirm that a bullet was fired from a particular gun, or confirm that a blood stain on a man's shirt bears DNA identical to the victim, we do not know, nor care (in the scientific sense), what the criminal charge will be in court. Whether the State charge someone with assualt, murder, or capital murder, our job is to get the correct (accurate) answer. It is not our job to figure out how the results might be used and then adjust those results depending on the criminal charge. This does not mean we are not interested (one way or the other) about larger questions such as capital punishment - its just that those questions are not part of the determination of scientific facts. David Epstein From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 08:46:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18337 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18332 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:41 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id o.ee.648a02 (7941); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:09 EST Subject: Re: RE: Race, Life & Death To: billo@radix.net CC: glhurst@onr.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/17/00 4:45:35 PM, billo@radix.net writes: << Neither the number "83" nor the number "413" appear in the site you quote. There have, of course, been many more than 400 executions in the time period covered by list you do provide -- between 1930 and 1947, the US averaged about 150 a year, so you hit that 400 pretty fast. Your numerator is high, but arguable. Your denominator is abysmally low. Try again. >> Actually, that came from the book that was written from the paper - Convicting the Innocent. There were 83 overturned convictions out of the 413 convictions that could have/did/or were, punishable by death. The 413 is also from 1930 until 1991 or so when the book was written and the 413 is only the number of the cases that were studied, which, of course, wasn't every single case in that time period. I don't have a copy of the book here at the office or I could probably come up with better stats. I do have some other websites and books that I've used for the basis of my e-mails. If you would like the website addresses, I'll be happy to send them to you. I'm terrible at math by the way - that's how I came up with 83 being 25-27% of 413. I guess it's closer to 20% (give or take). Hey, I can spell! Barbara Jean From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 09:04:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18532 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:04:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18527 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:04:34 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.29.6c928c (7941); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:03:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <29.6c928c.25b5ccce@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:03:58 EST Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" To: LeonStein@aol.com, shelby1051@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/18/00 8:54:59 AM, LeonStein@aol.com writes: << It is not our job to figure out how the results might be used and then adjust those results depending on the criminal charge. >> Unfortunately, there are forensic scientists that do just exactly that, aren't there? That all goes back to separating forensic labs from law enforcement. From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 09:24:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18714 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.3]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18709 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:24:07 -0500 (EST) From: LeonStein@aol.com Received: from LeonStein@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.a7.111f481 (3979) for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:23:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:23:30 EST Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 44 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/18/00 8:07:19 AM Central Standard Time, Sidg@aol.com writes: << << It is not our job to figure out how the results might be used and then adjust those results depending on the criminal charge. >> Unfortunately, there are forensic scientists that do just exactly that, aren't there? That all goes back to separating forensic labs from law enforcement. >> Are there? If so, who are they? Why haven't they been prosecuted for malfesence? I do not disagree that separating labs from law enforcement agencies would give the appearance of impartiality. However, individual biases can occur regardless of a lab's affiliation. The lab I work for is not a part of a law enforcement agency, so I do not receive outside pressures concerning results, so I cannot comment as to whether my fellow forensic scientists within law enforcement agencies receive such pressures. David Epstein From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 09:36:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18842 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18837 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:35:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:29:44 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C24D@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:34:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO First, I don't consider honest questions to be rude, in general. What am I trying to say? That posts should be relevant to the established purpose of the list, which is to discuss the forensic sciences. And that they should represent actual original thoughts on the part of the poster, not merely something he read somewhere else or that someone sent him to read (masculine pronoun chosen purposefully.) If posts don't even refer to either good or bad uses of forensic science or raise forensic science questions, the fact that someone was executed is absolutely irrelevant TO THIS LIST. I'm not saying it isn't an appropriate topic of discussion, merely that that discussion should take place in a forum appropriate to the topic. If someone other than John Kelly and similar posters of irrelevant material found the original rude, my apologies. Otherwise, if the shoe fits, wear it. And while I'm ranting, political affiliations of the group also strike me as irrelevant HERE. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Thompson [mailto:shelby1051@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 5:08 AM To: dwhause@rollanet.org; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" Can I ask you a question that? I am not trying to be rude (even though it seems that everyone on this list is alot of the time) but what are you trying to say? Execution has alot to do with forensics because forensics is a huge part of the conviction process.... Michelle Thompson Pro-life and proud to be!! >From: "Dave Hause" >To: >Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:54:34 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBA4D37030067D820F3AA98015F24E3310; Mon Jan 17 20:28:56 2000 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14361for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:56 >-0500 (EST) >Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org >[208.18.12.6])by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id >WAA14356for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:51 -0500 >(EST) >Received: (qmail 17348 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 >Received: from access-8-17.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.67) by >mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Mon Jan 17 20:29:35 2000 >Message-ID: <00eb01bf6167$bc79fc20$2b0d12d0@dwhause> >References: <85.acb224.25b4a0e8@aol.com> >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 >X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Precedence: bulk > >I try to limit my conscience pangs to my own actions. Does my conscience >bother me that a confessed murderer was executed for killing the old lady >who befriended him? Not a bit. I didn't give him the shotgun or suggest >he >steal $60, her credit card, and car. I didn't raise him. I neither >prosecuted nor defended him at trial. I have never voted in Texas, either >for or against the death penalty or on any other matter of Texas politics. > >My point, which John Kelly and several others seem to have trouble >understanding, is that this is a discussion list about the forensic >sciences. It isn't "alt.stop.the.death.penalty". It isn't even a forum to >ferret out prosecutors who forget that their first obligation is to seek >justice rather than convictions or defense counsel who fail to adequately >represent their clients. It is reasonably concerned with proper and >improper uses of forensic sciences and how to ethically ensure the proper >use of our work products. Sometimes it is a resource on how to do things >IN >THE FIELD OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES. So I'll probably continue the periodic >protests about posts by people which have no question applicable to the >forensic sciences. Especially the ones who aren't even submitting their >own >thoughts. >Dave Hause >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:44 AM >Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" > > >In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, >dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > > > And the forensic science point was? > > Dave Hause > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > > Subject: No Subject > > > > >Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic >scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they >function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a >devise >that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous >fission >of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong point) >were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it necessary >to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to >drop >the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some >uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? >Was >it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and >killing thousands of civilians? >What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work >made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of >nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have >been >the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, >who >committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape >for >any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or >may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and >"irrelevant" >to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative >of >a lack of conscience. > >Bill Holden >Legaleye Investigations >Legaleye1@aol.com > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 09:36:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18860 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:36:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe8.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.112]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA18852 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:36:18 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 99083 invoked by uid 65534); 18 Jan 2000 14:35:48 -0000 Message-ID: <20000118143548.99082.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.173] To: References: Subject: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:11:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Just a quick question for anybody that cares to respond. ----- Original Message ----- From: snip.... > > You are not being rude, just misguided.... > > When we, as forensic scientists, confirm that a bullet was fired from a > particular gun, or confirm that a blood stain on a man's shirt bears DNA > identical to the victim, we do not know, nor care (in the scientific sense), > what the criminal charge will be in court. Fair enough. Please account for the disparity with which some alleged forensic scientists turn up almost exclusively at capital cases and nearly always for the defense, rather than for defense or prosecution? This has been a phenomena that I find altogether curious. If scientists are objective, and their results don't matter, then I can't see why the disparity exists. I will say that past examples have shown prosecutors, particularly those in some jurisdictions, are loathe to retain the services of anybody who testifies for the defense, even after providing expert services for years to the prosecution. But this can hardly be so widespread as to account for the foregoing. > Whether the State charge someone > with assualt, murder, or capital murder, our job is to get the correct > (accurate) answer. It is not our job to figure out how the results might be > used and then adjust those results depending on the criminal charge. And yet in this very forum the argument most frequently advanced by some alleged forensic scientists is that because the consequences are so grave that this ought influence the integrity and accumen to a greater extent. The passion and commitment to accurate science is laudable, but the reality is that integrity of the process results from review of the process not from hanging the guy who delivers the message. Very often, that is the tactic I see from defense attorneys, who attack everything from your grades in elementary school to what you had for lunch that day. > This does not mean we are not interested (one way or the other) about larger > questions such as capital punishment - its just that those questions are not > part of the determination of scientific facts. It shouldn't be. But without belabouring the point ad nauseum, in practice it certainly gives that appearance. Shaun > > David Epstein > From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 10:17:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19387 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19382 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:16:36 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.c3.db766b (7381) for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:16:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:16:05 EST Subject: Hair Analysis To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO For now about two years I have been following the off and on discussions concerning forensic hair analysis on this list. I have a question about all of this that I have heard. If the folks on this list are representative of the forensic science community in general then the community is not decided about the value of hair analysis, whether opinions rendered concerning data in hair analysis are valid, whether such opinions ought to be offered in courts of law. It seems that the level of disagreement is significant among peers. If this is so then how can forensic hair analysis pass the Frye test? If there is so much disagreement among us concerning its validity. And among all the discussions I have not seen anywhere a description of hair analysis' ability to pass Daubert standards. Has it been tested? If so then where are the published results of those tests. What is the error rate? Is that published? Many years ago my Section Chief at the FBI's lab told me that DNA analysis was being pursued for hair analysis because hair analysis was so subjective and prone to error. At the time I was troubled that this opinion would not be part of information presented in courts of law or at least in reports as possible exculpatory information. But it was not. It seems that for close to 20 years now we have known that hair analysis may have a high error rate and yet we have continued to use it. Why? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 10:20:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19422 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.lifepartnersinc.com (mail.lifepartnersinc.com [12.5.166.117]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19417 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 10:19:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from John (pp145.hot1.net [12.14.186.145]) by mail.lifepartnersinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA32633 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:19:46 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jmclemore@lifepartnersinc.com) Message-ID: <003c01bf61c6$7437dc20$1c01a8c0@hot1.net> From: "John McLemore" To: Subject: Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:12:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01BF6194.28A1A700" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01BF6194.28A1A700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If the same knife were used to stab three different people during the = commission of a crime. Would there be traces of all three victim's = blood on the knife or would the blood of the first person be wiped off = duing the stabbing of victims two and three? Thanks John=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01BF6194.28A1A700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If the same knife were used to stab = three different=20 people during the commission of a crime.  Would there be traces of = all=20 three victim's blood on the knife or would the blood of the first = person be=20 wiped off duing the stabbing of victims two and three?
 
Thanks
 
John 
------=_NextPart_000_0039_01BF6194.28A1A700-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 11:39:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20154 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20149 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:38:46 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.88.3eb6e4 (4552); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:38:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <88.3eb6e4.25b5f0ef@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:38:07 EST Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" To: LeonStein@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/18/00 10:55:51 AM, LeonStein@aol.com writes: << << << It is not our job to figure out how the results might be used and then adjust those results depending on the criminal charge. >> Unfortunately, there are forensic scientists that do just exactly that, aren't there? That all goes back to separating forensic labs from law enforcement. >> Are there? If so, who are they? Why haven't they been prosecuted for malfesence? >> There are. As for who: Fred Zain was the most 'famous' (tongue in cheek) of them and there's a few more although true legal punishment is rare. From what I've found out, it seems like a slap on the wrist is the worst thing that happens to them. I think they usually just get promoted. A great source for information regarding a few of the others is the book by John Kelly, 'Tainting Evidence.' Also, see truthinjustice.org for a few more instances regarding 'experts,' 'scientists,' and prosecuters. Remember, these are labs that are attached to law enforcement entities. For information on prosecutors that don't prosecute these people, you can refer to the November 1999 issue of Justice Denied Magazine (www.justicedenied.org) to find a wonderful article by Bob Pauley named 'Prosecuting the Prosecuters' as well as Crime Magazine at http://crimemagazine.com. These can show you that the reason they're most likely not going to be prosecuted is because the prosecutors don't want to take the heat or (god forbid) admit they were wrong. It's a pretty deep-seated problem that runs through the entire justice system from what I can see. Also, try www.criminaljustice.org. Pull up the page and go to the table of contents. There are a couple of interesting law enforcement lab stories there. If even some of these people were prosecuted for their innacurate, non-expert, biased testimony, that surely would clean up the justice system - maybe even pretty quickly - probaby not, but sometimes it helps to at least hope. Barbara Jean From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 12:41:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21030 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:40:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21025 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:40:42 -0500 (EST) From: KJEssling@aol.com Received: from KJEssling@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.49.865963 (3890) for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:39:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <49.865963.25b5ff6c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:39:56 EST Subject: teeth vs dna To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO If a body were found badly decomposed what would be a more reliable way to CONFIRM the identity of the deceased .....dental comparison or dna? This "mock" medical examiner report suggests that the reason they went w/ dental comparrison vs. dna is that : 1. dna methods are more costly and 2. the dna results "may not have been conclusive anyway." that line of thought goes against all that I have heard regarding the reliablility of dna. What am I missing here?? thanks! Kelly Esslinger kjessling@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 12:51:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21209 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:51:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA21204 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:51:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:51:12 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Forwarded mail.... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 11:59:18 -0500 From: Lee Griggs To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >>"Please account for the disparity with which some alleged forensic scientists turn up almost exclusively at capital cases and nearly always for the defense, rather than for defense or prosecution? This has been a phenomena that I find altogether curious. If scientists are objective, and their results don't matter, then I can't see why the disparity exists. I will say that past examples have shown prosecutors, particularly those in some jurisdictions, are loathe to retain the services of anybody who testifies for the defense, even after providing expert services for years to the prosecution.<< It is interesting that this same particular use of alleged forensic examiners also shows up in my field of forensic lock analysis. We have the supposed expert who should be employed directly by the insurance industry. His reports are biased in favor of the insurance company and he does not testify for the plaintiff's position. Insurance companies retain him and refuse to use other forensic examiners who will ethically testify for either side of the case depending on who retains them. Because of this disparity, it becomes necessary for many excellent forensic examiners to work only for plaintiff attorneys, as they are the only ones who offer business. Lee Griggs, CFL Protection Technology, Inc. Forensic lock analysis nationwide. Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Website: http://www.msegroup.com "Just the facts please!" From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 14:19:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22315 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22310 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:18:21 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.54.8ee7fb (4594); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:17:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <54.8ee7fb.25b61637@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:17:11 EST Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" To: davidy@usit.net CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/17/00 3:37:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, davidy@usit.net writes: > Oh great. Now we re-hash whether we should have bombed the Japanese and > prevented thousands of our troops deaths, along with innumerable Japanese, > if we > had been forced to invade the main islands to end the war. > The only thing this has to do with forensics, I guess, is the excellent > study > by Liebow et al in the Yale Journal of Medicine just after the event > detailing > the acute effects of radiation. I don't recall any moralizing in that study, > by > the way. If that is what you got from my post then perhaps you should reread it. The part you reference is as follows: "Was it necessary to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? (question unanswered) Was it necessary to drop the second bomb? (question unanswered) Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? (question unanswered) Was it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and killing thousands of civilians?" (question unanswered) "What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's work made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use of nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have been the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, who committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape for any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may or may not be correct." Do you see where it says "may or may not have been the correct choice."? Do you see where the purpose of the reference was to demonstrate that the QUESTIONS presented were relevant to those who worked on the development of the devices? Do you see any place where I presented my moral view on the propriety of the use and manner of using the bombs on Japan.? If you see the reference as a rehashing of whether the United States should have bombed the Japanese then it would appear that you are simply itching for a verbal fight. I choose not to oblige. In fact I don't have the answers to the questions. I don't know what would have been the right decision and I thank God I didn't have to make it. If, on the other hand, the intent is to distract from the point of the message as if a straw man can be thrown up to give the impression that my point was not valid, then this too failed. From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 14:20:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22334 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:20:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22329 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:20:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:20:24 -0600 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C03DCCDEC@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'KJEssling@aol.com'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: teeth vs DNA Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:20:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO If the decomposed body possessed a full set of teeth, and the teeth show evidence of sufficient ante-mortem dental work, and the ante-mortem records of the suspected deceased are also available, the association of that individual with the deceased's remains will generally be accepted as "positive," whatever that term may mean to different individuals. DNA analysis by some methods (like RFLP) can identify a particular person with a high degree of statistical probability as to its specificity, but RFLP cannot reliably distinguish, by currently available methods, between the DNA of identical twins. Andre A. Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law University of Missouri at Kansas City http://www.forensic-evidence.com -----Original Message----- From: KJEssling@aol.com [mailto:KJEssling@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: teeth vs dna If a body were found badly decomposed what would be a more reliable way to CONFIRM the identity of the deceased .....dental comparison or dna? This "mock" medical examiner report suggests that the reason they went w/ dental comparrison vs. dna is that : 1. dna methods are more costly and 2. the dna results "may not have been conclusive anyway." that line of thought goes against all that I have heard regarding the reliablility of dna. What am I missing here?? thanks! Kelly Esslinger kjessling@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 14:33:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22400 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:33:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22395 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:33:24 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.9.109b074 (4594) for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:32:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9.109b074.25b619e6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:32:54 EST Subject: Re: "Point understood" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In a message dated 1/17/00 8:03:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > It isn't "alt.stop.the.death.penalty". It isn't even a forum to > ferret out prosecutors who forget that their first obligation is to seek > justice rather than convictions or defense counsel who fail to adequately > represent their clients. It is reasonably concerned with proper and > improper uses of forensic sciences and how to ethically ensure the proper > use of our work products. Sometimes it is a resource on how to do things IN > THE FIELD OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES. So I'll probably continue the periodic > protests about posts by people which have no question applicable to the > forensic sciences. Especially the ones who aren't even submitting their own > thoughts. That's seems fair. Of course the protests will no doubt have little effect on what others post. But it seems only reasonable that the right to protest be respected. And the comment about conscience was directed more at the fact that we all possess one, therefore to consider the issue of the death penalty to be irrelevant is incongruent with the conscience. I apologize for the inference that you lack a conscience. Surely you have one. Somewhere. (The apology was serious, the ending was intended as humor) Bill From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 14:59:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22729 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:59:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22724 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:59:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:53:19 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C255@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: teeth vs dna Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:58:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Reason one is certainly true, reason 2 is a "might be", but the best, although unstated, is that, assuming you already have the right antemortem records and a competent dentist available to do the comparison, dental ID is done within minutes after you get the post mortem exam & x-rays done. DNA seems to last reasonably well in tooth roots, so reason 2 is getting worse all the time. When I was in the Armed Forces MEO, we used to tell the DNA lab, on mass disasters, that they weren't "ready for prime time" until the first time they beat the dentists to an ID. They hadn't when I left in Aug. 98. Both methods are reliable; either can be inconclusive. We used to regularly do both, and I don't remember seeing any cases where a positive ID by one method was contradicted by a conclusive answer by the other. Same goes for fingerprints. All are dependent on having the right reference material. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: KJEssling@aol.com [mailto:KJEssling@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:40 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: teeth vs dna If a body were found badly decomposed what would be a more reliable way to CONFIRM the identity of the deceased .....dental comparison or dna? This "mock" medical examiner report suggests that the reason they went w/ dental comparrison vs. dna is that : 1. dna methods are more costly and 2. the dna results "may not have been conclusive anyway." that line of thought goes against all that I have heard regarding the reliablility of dna. What am I missing here?? thanks! Kelly Esslinger kjessling@aol.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 15:02:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22781 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:02:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.usit.net (SMTP1.USIT.NET [199.1.48.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22776 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:02:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from usit.net (DIALUP162.TNNAS2.USIT.NET [216.80.153.164]) by smtp1.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA21995 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:02:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3884C69A.DCE04907@usit.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:01:31 -0600 From: David Yates Reply-To: davidy@usit.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" Subject: Bomb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO In response to LEGALEYE1@aol.com The scientists who developed the bomb apparently were not generally concerned with matters of conscience, but rather those of science and getting the technology to work before the Germans or the Japanese. The matters of conscience were left to the politicians and perhaps the generals who did what they felt was necessary to prevent further deaths and end the war. As far as I know, Truman never regretted his decision. The forensic scientists are really analogous and should/do operate only in the scientific area, and leave the matters of conscience to our "justice system" and society. Dave Yates,MD Nashville, TN From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 16:15:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23444 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.9]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23432 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:14:45 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 7.47.d2d22a (4363); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:14:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47.d2d22a.25b631a0@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:14:08 EST Subject: Re: Hair Analysis To: dave.laycock@dle.state.id.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Dave Do we know the error rate at all? I have heard anecdotal evidence and concern but is there any hard data? This area interests me because it seems to one in which we fail as a profession. Not that hair analysis necessarily fails but that some of us may be calling controversy by another name. Because an area is controversial, we may disagree. But because we disagree, one or the other of us is not necessarily engaged in inappropriate activity. And too often we seem in this profession to describe our "adversary" as immoral, unethical, etc. without looking to the possibility that this may be a position over which reasonable men may reasonably disagree. It may be that hair analysis is such a field. But I am left with concern remembering my Section Chief's description of hair analysis so many years ago, his understanding that it had a possibly unacceptable error rate and yet his willingness to allow its use in courts of law. How is it that it passes Frye and/or Daubert tests if there is so much disagreement and if there is no error rate determined? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 16:45:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23864 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f118.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.118]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA23859 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:45:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 84338 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jan 2000 21:45:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20000118214502.84337.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 209.156.86.222 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:45:02 PST X-Originating-IP: [209.156.86.222] From: "Michelle Thompson" To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:45:02 EST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO OK...you have made your point, but you have to understand, executions, life imprisonments, all that ties into forensics because if it weren't for FS's then what leg would alot of the prosecutors have to stand on??? This is the point I was trying to make... And as for your reference to my 'political affiliation' such as pro-life, I have a right to add that to my signature...it is something that I am STRONGLY against and I don't care whether you or anyone else likes it or not. That is sent out with a majority of my letters/posts, it is something that is very important to me so it is relevant to everything to me as far as I am concerned. I never downed anything you said...I was merely stating that forensics do have a big part in the convictions/aquittals of persons in the courts. And if I misunderstood that last part of your letter about the politics than I am sorry, but you really did not make yourself clear on what you were trying to say. Michelle Pro-Life and PROUD TO BE!!! >From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: "Point obviously not understood" >Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:34:35 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBA4DCE6F0092D82197D698015F24B1E80; Tue Jan 18 07:14:57 2000 >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18842for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:36:02 >-0500 (EST) >Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL >[204.208.124.133])by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id >JAA18837for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:35:58 -0500 >(EST) >Received: by DASMTHKHN463 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)id >; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:29:44 -0600 >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Tue Jan 18 07:15:15 2000 >Message-ID: ><0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C24D@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Precedence: bulk > >First, I don't consider honest questions to be rude, in general. What am I >trying to say? That posts should be relevant to the established purpose of >the list, which is to discuss the forensic sciences. And that they should >represent actual original thoughts on the part of the poster, not merely >something he read somewhere else or that someone sent him to read >(masculine >pronoun chosen purposefully.) If posts don't even refer to either good or >bad uses of forensic science or raise forensic science questions, the fact >that someone was executed is absolutely irrelevant TO THIS LIST. I'm not >saying it isn't an appropriate topic of discussion, merely that that >discussion should take place in a forum appropriate to the topic. If >someone other than John Kelly and similar posters of irrelevant material >found the original rude, my apologies. Otherwise, if the shoe fits, wear >it. > >And while I'm ranting, political affiliations of the group also strike me >as >irrelevant HERE. >Dave Hause >-----Original Message----- >From: Michelle Thompson [mailto:shelby1051@hotmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 5:08 AM >To: dwhause@rollanet.org; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" > > >Can I ask you a question that? I am not trying to be rude (even though it >seems that everyone on this list is alot of the time) but what are you >trying to say? Execution has alot to do with forensics because forensics >is > >a huge part of the conviction process.... >Michelle Thompson >Pro-life and proud to be!! > > > >From: "Dave Hause" > >To: > >Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" > >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 21:54:34 -0600 > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Received: from [152.1.95.36] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id > >MHotMailBA4D37030067D820F3AA98015F24E3310; Mon Jan 17 20:28:56 2000 > >Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost)by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu > >(8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14361for forens-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:56 > >-0500 (EST) > >Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org > >[208.18.12.6])by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id > >WAA14356for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:54:51 -0500 > >(EST) > >Received: (qmail 17348 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 > >Received: from access-8-17.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.67) by > >mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 03:54:38 -0000 > >From forens-owner@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu Mon Jan 17 20:29:35 2000 > >Message-ID: <00eb01bf6167$bc79fc20$2b0d12d0@dwhause> > >References: <85.acb224.25b4a0e8@aol.com> > >X-Priority: 3 > >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 > >X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 > >Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Precedence: bulk > > > >I try to limit my conscience pangs to my own actions. Does my conscience > >bother me that a confessed murderer was executed for killing the old lady > >who befriended him? Not a bit. I didn't give him the shotgun or suggest > >he > >steal $60, her credit card, and car. I didn't raise him. I neither > >prosecuted nor defended him at trial. I have never voted in Texas, >either > >for or against the death penalty or on any other matter of Texas >politics. > > > >My point, which John Kelly and several others seem to have trouble > >understanding, is that this is a discussion list about the forensic > >sciences. It isn't "alt.stop.the.death.penalty". It isn't even a forum >to > >ferret out prosecutors who forget that their first obligation is to seek > >justice rather than convictions or defense counsel who fail to adequately > >represent their clients. It is reasonably concerned with proper and > >improper uses of forensic sciences and how to ethically ensure the proper > >use of our work products. Sometimes it is a resource on how to do things > >IN > >THE FIELD OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES. So I'll probably continue the >periodic > >protests about posts by people which have no question applicable to the > >forensic sciences. Especially the ones who aren't even submitting their > >own > >thoughts. > >Dave Hause > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 10:44 AM > >Subject: Re: "No Point" should be "No Conscience" > > > > > >In a message dated 1/16/00 5:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, > >dwhause@rollanet.org writes: > > > > > > And the forensic science point was? > > > Dave Hause > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: > > > To: > > > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 1:14 PM > > > Subject: No Subject > > > > > > > >Does the field of forensic science function in a vacuum? Are forensic > >scientists able to isolate themselves from the justice system that they > >function in? The scientists that contributed to the development of a > >devise > >that created a massive release of energy by the nearly instantaneous > >fission > >of Uranium isotopes (Or was it Plutonium? Chemistry is not my strong >point) > >were not unconcerned with the ultimate use of their work. Was it >necessary > >to deploy the weapons they contributed to creating? Was it necessary to > >drop > >the second bomb? Would a demonstration of the weapons power at some > >uninhabited location have served to persuade the Japanese to surrender? > >Was > >it necessary to demoralize the Japanese populace by destroying cities and > >killing thousands of civilians? > >What is the scientific significance of these questions to those who's >work > >made "The Bomb" possible? The point is a matter of conscience. The use >of > >nuclear weapons in WWII and the manner of their use may or may not have > >been > >the correct choice. The execution of a confessed and convicted murderer, > >who > >committed the crime at an age that would bring a charge of statutory rape > >for > >any adult who would have had sexual relations with this same person, may >or > >may not be correct. But to suggest that this issue is "BS" and > >"irrelevant" > >to those who work in any area of the criminal justice field is indicative > >of > >a lack of conscience. > > > >Bill Holden > >Legaleye Investigations > >Legaleye1@aol.com > > > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 17:09:22 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24036 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24031 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:08:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from jnh3 (ven-ca7-175.ix.netcom.com [198.211.140.175]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31340 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:08:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000118140757.00a0c590@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:10:22 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: Bomb In-Reply-To: <3884C69A.DCE04907@usit.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO You should rent the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy" and maybe you'll re-think that opinion... At 02:01 PM 1/18/00 -0600, David Yates wrote: >In response to LEGALEYE1@aol.com > > The scientists who developed the bomb apparently were not generally >concerned with matters of conscience, but rather those of science and >getting the technology to work before the Germans or the Japanese. The >matters of conscience were left to the politicians and perhaps the >generals who did what they felt was necessary to prevent further deaths >and end the war. As far as I know, Truman never regretted his decision. > > The forensic scientists are really analogous and should/do operate >only in the scientific area, and leave the matters of conscience to our >"justice system" and society. > > Dave Yates,MD > Nashville, TN ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 18:14:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24532 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:14:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24527 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:14:09 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.47.d3b41a (3871); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:13:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47.d3b41a.25b64d86@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:13:10 EST Subject: Re: Hair Analysis To: MoenssensA@umkc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Do crime laboratories really generally accept hair analysis as valid? I found while at the FBI lab that there was often very heated debate over the validity of particular analytical protocols and yet despite the inside debate, none of the dissention was allowed outside or offered to courts of law. Do we really accept hair analysis or do we simply politically correctly remain quiet? It was only during the revelations that resulted from the IG investigation of the FBI lab that a lot of the dissension came to the surface and we realized that we were not blessed with autonomy within that lab, that dissension was suppressed by that system of inquiry. I ask that because there seems to be very real concern about the validity of hair analysis and I do not see successful mechanisms in place to bring those concerns before triers-of-fact. Certainly that Section Chief of mine at the FBI lab had those concerns and yet, despite his position, did not raise those concerns which seemed reasonably to be potentially exculpatory. Has the Frye standard really been met? Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 18:35:14 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24677 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA24672 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:34:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 23:34:53 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:28:43 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: GHB Analysis Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 18:28:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF620B.C1C1D532" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF620B.C1C1D532 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Hmmm, POWDERS that may be GHB? I have never seen a powdered form of GHB. It is usually found in solution, where it forms a somewhat viscous liquid with an "oily" look to it. Even when the solvent is evaporated off on a hot plate, what remains is a gummy paste, at least in my experience. We have had several submissions of GHB in the paste form, but never in a powder. In any event, analysis is primarily via infrared spectrophotometry, or at least that is what I and most others use, because literature references provide an infrared spectrum for GHB to compare the sample to. No literature source I know of shows a mass spectrum for GHB (Mills and Roberson, for example, shows "no mass spectrum obtained", implying that GHB does not produce a usable mass spectrum by either GC/MS or by direct insertion probe, the methods used for obtaining mass spectra in that reference). I have also read or heard in various places that "GHB does not produce a mass spectrum." However, our Assistant Director has recently shown me a mass spectrum he routinely obtains for GHB, and he has matched it to the MS of a known GHB standard. I'm not certain, however, if this is the actual mass spectrum of GHB, or rather the mass spectrum of some derivative / breakdown product produced in the GC during the analysis of the GHB. Until I know for sure, I'll stick with IR and I recommend you do too. BTW, LC in and of itself is nothing more than a presumptive test for a dosage drug (as is any stand-alone chromatographic method), so I hope no one is reporting any identifications based on LC alone. Chromatography is primarily a separation / isolation technique, not an identification technique (except in a few specialized applications where the possibilities are greatly limited by the type of sample - e.g., alcohol in an ante mortem blood sample, where the possible things that can be found at such high concentrations are extremely limited because such high concentrations of anything else would be fatal). To obtain a positive identification of an in-vitro drug (solid or liquid dosage form), a confirmation method which produces structural information is required, i.e., MS, IR, or NMR. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Arizpaul@aol.com [mailto:Arizpaul@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 2:21 PM To: Melannw@aol.com; plough7537@yahoo.com; catforum@onelist.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: GHB Analysis What method are forensic labs using for powders that may be GHB. LC? LC-MS? What method is NMS using ? ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF620B.C1C1D532 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: GHB Analysis

Hmmm, POWDERS that may be GHB?  I have never = seen a powdered form of GHB.  It is usually found in solution, = where it forms a somewhat viscous liquid with an "oily" look = to it.  Even when the solvent is evaporated off on a hot plate, = what remains is a gummy paste, at least in my experience.  We have = had several submissions of GHB in the paste form, but never in a = powder.

In any event, analysis is primarily via infrared = spectrophotometry, or at least that is what I and most others use, = because literature references provide an infrared spectrum for GHB to = compare the sample to.  No literature source I know of shows a = mass spectrum for GHB (Mills and Roberson, for example, shows "no = mass spectrum obtained", implying that GHB does not produce a = usable mass spectrum by either GC/MS or by direct insertion probe, the = methods used for obtaining mass spectra in that reference).  I = have also read or heard in various places that "GHB does not = produce a mass spectrum."  However, our Assistant Director = has recently shown me a mass spectrum he routinely obtains for GHB, and = he has matched it to the MS of a known GHB standard.  I'm not = certain, however, if this is the actual mass spectrum of GHB, or rather = the mass spectrum of some derivative / breakdown product produced in = the GC during the analysis of the GHB.  Until I know for sure, = I'll stick with IR and I recommend you do too.

BTW, LC in and of itself is nothing more than a = presumptive test for a dosage drug (as is any stand-alone = chromatographic method), so I hope no one is reporting any = identifications based on LC alone.  Chromatography is primarily a = separation / isolation technique, not an identification technique = (except in a few specialized applications where the possibilities are = greatly limited by the type of sample - e.g., alcohol in an ante mortem = blood sample, where the possible things that can be found at such high = concentrations are extremely limited because such high concentrations = of anything else would be fatal).  To obtain a positive = identification of an in-vitro drug (solid or liquid dosage form), a = confirmation method which produces structural information is required, = i.e., MS, IR, or NMR.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Arizpaul@aol.com [mailto:Arizpaul@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 2:21 PM
To: Melannw@aol.com; plough7537@yahoo.com; = catforum@onelist.com;
forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: GHB Analysis


What method are forensic labs using for powders that = may be GHB. LC? LC-MS?
What method is NMS using ?

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF620B.C1C1D532-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 19:30:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA25050 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA25045 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:27:41 -0500 (EST) From: WBirkby@aol.com Received: from WBirkby@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.42.9e46ad (4007); Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:27:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <42.9e46ad.25b65ef5@aol.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:27:33 EST Subject: Re: teeth vs dna To: KJEssling@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Mac sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Kelly: DNA more expensive to do on a J. Doe if you haven't the foggiest with whom you are going to compare your unknown's DNA. Both methods are merely tools to get a job done---but at least the dental comparison system has a method for getting at a large array of Missing Persons thru NCIC and DOJ Sacramento (or other) data bases. I'm not sure, but I do not believe that there is a Missing Persons DNA data base any where that you can send unknown runs for comparisons with a lot of known Missing Persons. But, on the other hand, once the body ID'd, the DNA can be very useful for checking against a suspect crime scene (where blood or tissue traces have been found) or a vehicle has been used to transport the decedent. Dental records not likely to be helpful here to establish ID (unless you have a tooth at the scene). So, what it boils down to is: Do you need a hammer for your job, or do you need a screw driver? I hope I am not too obtuse in my answer. If I am, please net me back at my E-mail address. Sincerely yours, Walter H. Birkby, Ph.D., D-ABFA Forensic Anthropologist Tucson, AZ From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 20:32:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA25560 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA25555 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:31:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA27951; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:31:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:31:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Sidg@aol.com cc: glhurst@onr.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: > From: Sidg@aol.com > > > In a message dated 1/17/00 4:45:35 PM, billo@radix.net writes: > > Actually, that came from the book that was written from the paper - > Convicting the Innocent. There were 83 overturned convictions out of the 413 > convictions that could have/did/or were, punishable by death. The 413 is also > from 1930 until 1991 or so when the book was written and the 413 is only the > number of the cases that were studied, which, of course, wasn't every single > case in that time period. I don't have a copy of the book here at the office > or I could probably come up with better stats. I do have some other websites > and books that I've used for the basis of my e-mails. If you would like the > website addresses, I'll be happy to send them to you. > I'm terrible at math by the way - that's how I came up with 83 being 25-27% > of 413. I guess it's closer to 20% (give or take). Hey, I can spell! ... well, then, you might as well claim that there is a 100% rate of error -- all you have to do is choose the *right* 83 as your denominator. Further, your original claim was that those 83 were all proven *innocent,* not that they were merely overturned. While I chose not to quibble with the dpic data since it made little difference, the bottom line is that acquittal much less certainly means innocent than conviction means guilty, and many of the dpic cases were *not* actually proven innocent, but instead later acquitted. In any case, there were over 4000 executions during the time period you mention. You need to show how those 400 you decided to use were chosen as "representative" of the 4000. If they are, then it would follow that there were, in fact, over 1000 people proven "innocent" out of the entire cohort -- the dpic site, for instance, should have hundreds and hundreds of cases. There were not. Your numbers simply don't add up, and until they do, you do a disservice by quoting them. billo From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 22:46:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26660 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:45:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from sd.amug.org (sd.fastq.com [204.62.193.89]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26655 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [198.182.127.75] (d10-ts05.fastq.com [198.182.127.75]) by sd.amug.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id UAA19631; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:41:37 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:41:37 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: MoenssensA@umkc.edu, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, Cfwhiteh@aol.com From: microfor@sd.amug.org (Mike and Donna Eyring) Subject: Re: Hair Analysis Discussion Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO >Do crime laboratories really generally accept hair analysis as valid? Dear Fred, I can't speak for "laboratories" but some certainly do. Hair analysis has been practiced in varied environments for a couple hundred years. I've been involved in hair analysis for some 20 years and a few of my long gone analyses have subsequently been subjected to PCR/STR analysis due to appeals or retrials. The few that have been retested have validated my prior microscopical results. A few others have been reanalized by "opposing" experts who have come to the same conclusions I did. You might note that I'm known to be a bit of a conservative chap and we have no way of knowing how many of the hairs I've found to be dissimilar were in fact of "common origin". The examiner's judgement and experience are the keys to the validity of the conclusion that's reported. As time goes on, I'm sure that some of my previous comparisons will be found in error. The greater discriminatory and associative power of DNA techniques make that inevitable. The same transition in specificity has been applied to blood and other body fluid examinations, toxicological examinations, histological observations, drug analyses and even the Merrell-Dow case that's the foundation of "Daubert". It's called progress and has nothing to do with bias or conspiracy. The fact is that the conducting of a meaningful microscopical hair examination requires careful training and validation of the hair examiner, just as we carefully develop and validate each instrumental technique and instrument we use in the lab. In hair comparisons the examiner is the "instrument" and many labs fail to appreciate that fundamental fact. Hair comparisons are often tossed off to new criminalists as "beginners work" and the results should be predictable. Trash. The Germans, in the BKA, are in the process of performing DNA analyses on hair shaft fragments without tissue tags or root bulbs. They have a way to go but I'm certain that they will resolve any short comings that develop. The whole field will be in transition but that does not mean that all prior hair comparisons were some kind of voodoo. Observational science has an illustrious history (some might say it is even prehistorical) that underlays almost everything scientists do today and no current science can be effectively applied to the real world without it. The crux of the issue for the present is to carefully critique the technique, experience, available standard hair samples, limitations and conclusions of any scientist that draws conclusions from a microscopical hair comparison. This should be a lawyer's meat and potatoes. Ultimately, hair comparisons may find their way into the catagory of questioned document examinations that have been declared "not scientific" in at least one Federal court. The QD examiner's conclusions were allowed on the basis that QD was an "art". So goes hair...??? Time will tell. Some day, the bomb debris analyses you've performed in the not too far gone past will be seen as "archaic" but that does not necessarily mean that they were wrong. Although, it might. Time, again, will tell. All of us standing in the meandering forensic science stream bed need to be careful about throwing stones, there's always lots of ammo to go around. Just some thoughts. Best wishes, Mike Eyring From forens-owner Tue Jan 18 23:55:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27102 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe49.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.85]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA27093 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 23:54:55 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 85956 invoked by uid 65534); 19 Jan 2000 04:54:26 -0000 Message-ID: <20000119045426.85955.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.171.60] To: References: <29.6c928c.25b5ccce@aol.com> Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:22:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Clearly, only the criminal justice community suffers from obviously false, unscientific or contrived testimony. This is why the newspapers no longer even take notice of it. At the opposite end of the scale, lying, confabulated and unscientific defense witnesses are so rare that I have little doubt if any WERE ever found, why I believe the networks would interrupt their regularly scheduled programming to announce it, that's how rare it is. Shaun ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 8:03 AM Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" > > In a message dated 1/18/00 8:54:59 AM, LeonStein@aol.com writes: > > << It is not our job to figure out how the results might be > used and then adjust those results depending on the criminal charge. >> > > Unfortunately, there are forensic scientists that do just exactly that, > aren't there? That all goes back to separating forensic labs from law > enforcement. > From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 01:25:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27704 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.usit.net (SMTP2.USIT.NET [199.1.48.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA27699 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:24:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ken (DIALUP62.SCCOL.USIT.NET [216.80.194.62]) by smtp2.usit.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id BAA15071; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:24:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000401bf6245$9b30df00$3ec250d8@ken> From: "K. Habben" To: , References: <29.6c928c.25b5ccce@aol.com> <20000119045426.85955.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: "Point obviously not understood" Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:22:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO I never let my emotions effect my testimony. If you do - problems occur. The scientific community (board certified) - never lets the defense -vs- prosecution enter into their testimony - at least, hopefully, with the organizations I am affiliated with. Ken Habben, FFTCB From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 09:01:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01475 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:00:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d10.mx (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01470 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:00:49 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id e.34.65e4a8 (9243); Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:58:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34.65e4a8.25b71d11@aol.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:58:41 EST Subject: Re: Hair Analysis Discussion To: microfor@sd.amug.org, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Status: RO Mike It is that stone throwing that I was leading to. I had seen the stones thrown in the hair arena and, if you remember back a while ago, asked a lot of questions about hair analysis. There seem to be different categories of error in our work. Some of the error is that described by Zain. Then there is "error" that may simply be controversy and one side declares the other to be in error and some poor unitiated picks up on the controversy and declares one or the other side as unethical, biased, whatever. Hair seems to be in that category but I can not decide yet. I hear so much controversy in the hair arena and saw it even at the FBI. One would hope that counsel would be able to work through and present that controversy but I am not so sure. As for the explosives residue problem, I could not be in agreement more with you. It is not written in stone but dynamic. Which leads us to another string of thought. Don Kerr noted to me once that there seems to be no mechanism to revisit old cases once we find that the science is no longer valid. Something maybe he will find a way to fix. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 11:07:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02890 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02885 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.194]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08878; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:06:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3885DA2C.C3425689@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:37:16 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair Analysis References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fred, You raise excellent questions. To respond to the Daubert question, I feel hair exams will be subjected to a Daubert hearing and should be..... Just as questioned documents and even "eye Witness identifications" should be. I do believe there is a place for hair exams but I am thankful every day for DNA. I would compare the value of hair reports to the witness of a crime describing a certain "make model and color" of a vehicle implicated in the crime. This is an observation and a useful one. But everyone should know that there could be other cars in the area that fit that description. It is not unique. I think you will find that experienced hair examiners will be the first to agree that there is an inevitable error rate. I know the FBI has figures on their error rate since they began confirming with DNA but is that open for public scrutiny? I doubt it. I attended the fbi's hair and fiber class in '92. I found them too confident in a hair "match" for my tastes. They made statements such as, "I have looked at 2,000 hair control samples and never found 2 alike so I can state probabities like 1 in 2,000...." That always make me uncomfortable, more so now. I don't think they say that anymore. I have been doing hair exams for 10 years. An inexperienced (and idealistic) hair examiner can be dangerous in this field. (I could have been) They might be over zealous in their belief in the discriminating value of hair comparisons. I have found that the more I see the more conservative I am. I have seen hair controls from family members I could not distinguish.... Even hair controls from a suspect and victim in the same case. With more experience you are more likely to find these instances. They cause you to pause and reflect on the limitations of the exam. You get very conservative. In fact, I feel that if anything your false EXCLUSION is high because your criteria for calling a Q and K similar is so tight. You might find many similarities but implicating someone in a crime is a serious call. I know for certain that a Q hair can be dissimilar to every hair in a control and still be from the same source as the control. An experienced examiner knows the limitations of the exam, qualifies their report and makes sure that prosecutors and juries also know the limitations of the exam. Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > For now about two years I have been following the off and on discussions > concerning forensic hair analysis on this list. I have a question about all > of this that I have heard. If the folks on this list are representative of > the forensic science community in general then the community is not decided > about the value of hair analysis, whether opinions rendered concerning data > in hair analysis are valid, whether such opinions ought to be offered in > courts of law. It seems that the level of disagreement is significant among > peers. If this is so then how can forensic hair analysis pass the Frye test? > If there is so much disagreement among us concerning its validity. And > among all the discussions I have not seen anywhere a description of hair > analysis' ability to pass Daubert standards. Has it been tested? If so > then where are the published results of those tests. What is the error rate? > Is that published? Many years ago my Section Chief at the FBI's lab told me > that DNA analysis was being pursued for hair analysis because hair analysis > was so subjective and prone to error. At the time I was troubled that this > opinion would not be part of information presented in courts of law or at > least in reports as possible exculpatory information. But it was not. It > seems that for close to 20 years now we have known that hair analysis may > have a high error rate and yet we have continued to use it. Why? > Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 11:14:54 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03015 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:14:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from tin.truman.edu (tin.truman.edu [150.243.160.62]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03010 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from truman.edu (sh271001.truman.edu [150.243.68.148]) by tin.truman.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA317494; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:19:11 -0600 Message-ID: <3885E315.2FFCB1BC@truman.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:15:17 -0600 From: Joy Pugh X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair Analysis Discussion References: <34.65e4a8.25b71d11@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Excuse me, but am I missing something here? For the last 15 years or so (and pre-DNA), I have been taught that the absolute, positive association of human hair to a particular individual, based on microscopic comparison, could not be done- but that differing characteristics observed from such comparisons might possibly eliminate the individual from consideration as the source of the material (i.e. "class characteristics"). Does the "error" that you mention refer to disparity between an elimination by microscopy, with subsequent inclusion by DNA analysis? Or vice versa, or both? It would seem that, should a particular individual not be eliminated as a possible source of the hair, using microscopy, that the language of the report would not only indicate that this person could be the source of the hair, but also very clear statements about the uncertainty of such association. If subsequent analysis- say, DNA analysis, that allowed the comparison of more discriminating characteristics, eliminated this individual as having donated the questioned samples, would the microscopist's prior report be in error? (No.) I'm a bit confused over what you consider to be the controversy or the stones thrown. Joy Pugh Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > > Mike > It is that stone throwing that I was leading to. I had seen the stones > thrown in the hair arena and, if you remember back a while ago, asked a lot > of questions about hair analysis. There seem to be different categories of > error in our work. Some of the error is that described by Zain. Then there > is "error" that may simply be controversy and one side declares the other to > be in error and some poor unitiated picks up on the controversy and declares > one or the other side as unethical, biased, whatever. Hair seems to be in > that category but I can not decide yet. I hear so much controversy in the > hair arena and saw it even at the FBI. One would hope that counsel would be > able to work through and present that controversy but I am not so sure. > > As for the explosives residue problem, I could not be in agreement more with > you. It is not written in stone but dynamic. Which leads us to another > string of thought. Don Kerr noted to me once that there seems to be no > mechanism to revisit old cases once we find that the science is no longer > valid. Something maybe he will find a way to fix. > > Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 12:28:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03929 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03924 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:25:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA73330; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:24:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000119091900.00986100@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:27:40 -0800 To: "Christopher J. Basten":; From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Two seperate groups Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi folks, It seems that back when the list manager for the original forens_l changed, two new lists came into existence; one at forens@statgen.ncsu.edu and the other at forensic-science@egroups.com. I've set my address book to post each message to both. This causes just a touch of confusion cuz sometimes it means there's a reply to a message that only some have seen. What are others doing? Is there any benefit? How's this working? Is there overlap between membership? Just curious cuz I'm sure some posts to one list would be of interest to members of the other but I don't think they get cross-posted. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 12:37:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA04022 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04017 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:35:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pnoth (1Cust156.tnt4.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net [63.15.137.156]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA05918 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:35:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000119100327.008808b0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:03:27 -0600 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: RE: teeth vs DNA In-Reply-To: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C03DCCDEC@UMKC-MAIL02> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Kelly's question requires a little reading between the lines, but if I may make an attempt... In a hypothetical situation, the ME chose to determine the identity of a decomposed body based on dental comparison, rather than DNA. That is not to say that comparing DNA samples would not be an infallible means of identification. But DNA degrades over time, whereas teeth can last for centuries, therefore in this case DNA might not have been an appropriate technique. It may also be, in this case, that if antemortem dental records were available and a satisfactory identification could be made using the teeth, it was not considered necessary to go to the additional time and expense of a DNA comparison. Best, Peter Nothnagle >-----Original Message----- >From: KJEssling@aol.com [mailto:KJEssling@aol.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 11:40 AM >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: teeth vs dna > > >If a body were found badly decomposed what would be a more reliable way to >CONFIRM the identity of the deceased .....dental comparison or dna? This >"mock" medical examiner report suggests that the reason they went w/ dental >comparrison vs. dna is that : > >1. dna methods are more costly and 2. the dna results "may not have been >conclusive anyway." > >that line of thought goes against all that I have heard regarding the >reliablility of dna. What am I missing here?? thanks! > >Kelly Esslinger >kjessling@aol.com > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 13:43:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA04945 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:39:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA04937 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 19 Jan 2000 18:39:24 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:33:11 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forensic-science] New Cases Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:33:01 -0500 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF62AB.A3511856" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF62AB.A3511856 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" You certainly have a very limited view of what forensic science is used for. Rapes and murders probably constitute less than 1% (a wild guess, but probably not far off the mark) of the cases handled by the average crime lab in an average year. Forensic science is applied to thousands of "non-rape, non-murder" cases every day: drug offenses, non-sexual assaults, forgeries, frauds, burglaries, larcenies, robberies, DWI offenses, liquor and firearms violations, etc., etc. In fact, there is probably no category of crime which does not have a forensic science discipline used in its investigation. Perhaps what you are really asking is about the application of DNA profiling to non-rape, non-murder cases, since you seem to think that DNA work constitutes the bulk of forensic science. (It doesn't, by the way - there are many, many more kinds of forensic exams and disciplines). Does your show have a regular, qualified forensic science advisor on staff? It seems to me that if you did, many of the questions you have could be answered in-house, and the show's reporting of forensic practices would be more accurate than it has been in the past. I mean no offense, but frankly, my wife and I stopped watching your show because she tired of hearing me point out all the inaccuracies and omissions in the show's descriptions of forensic science methods and applications - nothing I believe was intentionally slanted, mind you, probably more in the nature of condensed/abbreviated reporting for the sake of time constraints - but still resulting in inaccuracies leading the lay viewer to get a mistaken impression of the actual scientific principles and facts involved. I would like to give you a few examples, but it has been so long since we watched the show that I can't think of a specific one right now that I can be certain was on your show as opposed to other shows I have seen. I do know that inaccurate science was why we stopped watching the show, though, as well as others like it. If your show has recently improved in that regard, I congratulate you and ask that you please forgive these remarks. Perhaps I shall sample a few episodes of the new series and see for myself. The suggestion for a full-time forensic science advisor is still a good one, in my opinion, and I hope your senior producers (or whoever controls the money) will consider it if you don't already have one. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Tina Keller [mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:02 PM To: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com' Subject: [forensic-science] New Cases Hello list! How about a nice change of subject? Everybody's favorite show, Medical Detectives, will now be seen on Court TV. We have a working title of "Forensic Files." We have most of the new episodes chosen but we are looking for something a little different. I am searching for cases where forensic science was used in a non-murder, non-rape situation. My guess is there may be a large amount of civil cases that would fit this description. Has anybody worked on such a case or does anybody have a collegue who has worked on this type of case? People always equate forensic science with murder and rape, but I think the field is very vast and I would like to enlighten our viewers with every scope of the field. As always, your help is respected and appreciated. I look forward to receiving your replies. Tina Keller Assistant Producer Medical Detectives??? Forensic Files????---your guess is as good as mine! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Talk to your group with your own voice! -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=forensic-science&m=1 ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF62AB.A3511856 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IgwSAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcBABMADQAhAAEAAwAdAQEggAMADgAAANAHAQAT AA0AIQAKAAMAJgEBCYABACEAAAA4QkVENUM2RjIzQ0VEMzExODFBOTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQArBwEE gAEAIQAAAFJFOiBbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5jZV0gTmV3IENhc2VzAGILAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAED kAYAMBAAADMAAAADAAlZAQAAAAMA3j/kBAAAAwA2AAAAAAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA AABShQAAJ2oBAB4ABIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADkuMAALAA2ACCAG AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAGFAAAAAAAA CwABgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAALAAaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAO hQAAAAAAAAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA AEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAAiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4ACYAIIAYAAAAA AMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAqACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3hQAA AQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgALgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAIBCRAB AAAASgoAAEYKAADMEQAATFpGdRHs328DAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQEDAff/CoACpAPkBxMC gA/zAFAEVj8IVQeyESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwRMwjvCfe2OxgfDjA1 ESIMYGMAUDMLCQFkMzYWUAumIFk5CGAgYwSQAZALgGx5giAT4HZlIGEgHfCqch2wbAdwaQ6wZB4w wwiQB+BvZiB3E+AFQLcCEBggDcIgBPAIkG4dMHIgBAAgdRQQHvAf4S5yIAfwYXAHkQBwHvBt1whw BIEEIHADYGIBoB2h6wWgAIB0HsB1DrAegAeQDQQgdBPgA6AxJSAoax4gA/BsHvBnClAEECzMIGIj 8CLobm8fwQrBHx9gH3AkgB4AAMByaylzH1IngmNhFBAEICSRZDskMB7wYh2wJ4Id4XJh/mcocQUQ B4AegAGgIOADoLMDkSnmeWUKwCGhRh//nSIRcAtQCJAe8HRvJHFdCGBzIjEEIB9hIibAbr4tKhAh 8CXQLyIidCIohUJlHkNkYXk6IbBk+HJ1ZycyLIEHkC+kFBAceHUHQB4QBBBhdWx+dCXBH+EqMAiB M7IqEHX/LrAl0jQAC2A0NDVRHTADAIsyUiMBYjQlRFdJMemZHpBxdQWxIjJmaRgg/QrAbQQgHxAG 8B+wOWAAgLMl0BQgYy459CGwSQOg+ScAY3Ql0CeBGCAg4iY5+yiBDrBnBbAdsB9hKmQfkPUN4Ggx MG8HkSbCHdUf7+5kBAAggC2xbh4AISMrAd8ewAQgC4Ad8COxZzmTIaG2UASQE+BwBCAfk3kdAbcK wB4AOOFsHaEooGsLgP8x0C1iBuAmASmjLaI8sTmx8R9SRE5BIuI4wEChMdD/LhEvLwSBKIQl0ACQ ILJDgtkUEGVtLgQLgGskcgVA/UaidwWwStAjiCRiHgAl8J5sStAfYT8+IaEoSQVAWT4ybic7MSl1 dzFQIO4tO1VDwgOBeSXQUMIiYL0sYSBEkS60PzcOwGE5IeMiMkBIcykuCqIKhAqA7kQ+QkOBBcBz LlAH4B3V/xggJYA1USXQODAHQAaQLdLpPz9hZB8QcwWxRkEjsPphASA/OrEFQEoSJGEuIN8qkUrz BpBDc0BAZFEFKCX/ODBB4iORQ3Md0wWgM4ApUdseAQCAdzuBQSItLlIvkbciMieCVbInBCAYIHAX wf9Eok0qIvA7EQ3gB5FLgF31+1FzANBjCHA8wSR0HsAdwf8EIDawCfAq8ieCCrAjsDqi/1qRA5E8 gTH1JdQ0kUrAHaB/UQEdsAPwMhAiIzdQI7Bv/y2gHuFPwDogSqEx0FVoNrD/KJAhIVWhWrE40R7w H2EnkP81YUSxKpFgoAuABUBFMkQh/ydzC4BjZCCBIhQDcAQBXPP/ZQVgFQEABPRc800vIMEHgP8u QS6xIjJFuQQgUAAmwWmD/zdQNrAtwR3xT8BBkg6wAjD7ObFEI3MLYHVRW7JR0UNy/yXQIvdRc2UF baAj4DuRPUKnAiABADIxZC8BoGIYID8fEDzBHvBgiHEhX8Rha/948yPAKpEjgyoQbJFzoiXy9yOx bSEYIHMzgUSjZOJtuf8kMFiwR0MnkQtgHbAfEhKBfy4RKjBs8XahWWF74EFRbf8i8CRBRjUpozsg MwIgcyPA/zjAYcJJgUCBIgU7AkGTBvB9HfBkZbNihB6Qe+GBImn/HfFDg3EQB9FS4oTiJdRkSv9Y 8B6AAiAx0El0XpBpNC3i/1/lSuQ3UCiQTwFKhR9hHiB+cyHwIICEQgIgQ+FCEGj/BUAmwIwaXiId NXTzRkFVaPuQki2gbyEyLhFz8RKBVbL/BCA3UB3TShFCcjdQPjBRsP+O522WJAEgdnUCH5Bn8V/x /2jeX9Y7QghgjqBfcUMRdJC/MyKSZH+RhxIewFRLSVszt1WXYGI2AXQdoYJCb4Yh/2T0H7FWcQsR JdCMgYpRY6H/VqEkAUODcsJEgErkQ4KE4X8ooTPTh5IngWrBGCAnwnN/QolooRPgbSEugIiiiAZw /1jhcCEoFkDAB+AUEDQyIiNPShF7M2fgFBBsZiGhVH9f4jHAKjBc03szPxEzgGz+LXxDcS9YtiDx fbQeIDzw/wRwjjIl0CsBZ+Fo4AuAObH/X3STMWjgSbNVkTYRBbEi8fZkGtAisigFsR+QPkAeQb8j cnzQBvBMdARgQMB5KAD/JTEDICOCW6ASgWRBWyYCIHeM0QdAOOFkHbWOQVRLQg8jEEKgE/E5w0Yt QUJ2Q1RULFdDJ5CBslRUUu884HWjEiAqc0xFEWOhPQHfVFSMUiJABzADoFKHkQXA7QhQbSJwAwB0 HbAIUEQw7TzgZbZFZaFQCJEdMLXR1kxUWlRULb5iT46BbZH9AyBNJEEqIb5jtkUDYTFwswdgbaAg S5lREoFbAMDrAxAuEDoHgGQBAA6wYhF5QdExQMIBWWEhkAWgbd5dVFQGYAIwMXBXCYBUATsxQSXQ SgBwMwAeYTE5jyXQAdDF8CTAMjowFECUUE1UVFTB4CAnqZajMsAghEBlRwNgdUMAxcNiJ8O1dWJq wmExcGpbx25dB7NDKKK9TwruSJlRiiGBwSHMS5FiRSP/HiADACDBE9FEsHjzfjDJs/1ZsUUeQgbg s6BgUScAhfD/BRCVgphDv0BAQCiQAyFUxP/CRyXQsXOO4l4xk6JZIghS+QVAVFYhocRwHcZLgkdD rx7ApBEfYVRUIixXRgMQ/QeQLjBg1fcEYCOwpSqkp/8T0JHxj7EmAYrxQ8JUVBew/m9Ek3tCWPBy MkSiHiAekP8CQKQRQEAyASxxZaRTAEoB/zXhaYN7QiiUH5A7glRUqZ//dQJA9s8RL9cvpC9iSWGD gf1CRU0dsCWDIOJUVDtkAMD/HbBeMjXCKjFTAAhgbKI9Uf+HkAMRKJRK82KEOMCM43AL8yGgVFQg SGSBUNHREktz/2tiWUEa0D4QHiAokh9QBcD/PjPsZh3VF5G7wQpQr6JkY/9UVOzo6pO7YK3hPUIo oVmx90KwaOCkEmxPwTDBVwEkAf/h3wPwJIDS5UiVIjIvZCXyfzdQSpahMQiQJVEg8R5Ddv9lgWhV hqxUVAnwHpCOodTy/1WBgLRDEfVyMOQE8K3SKCX7+CNUS0EiEfODJdBVYyeQ/GxwIOJ+EY3BHtJy tZyB/3pDZbPc0vRCT8ALIPpYnIL/6PFppmCBLcGikFRawMn+lve28FlhbKFQruXrtNJ201jePwmQ LDnYswmRP75hVWPf5gdkgavTZIF2sWXNq75j/w4fDy8QPxFOxrZCoNnSgZH/v1RJURigQSFFUcch TmDHb/vIeRJXVbbgyaDrAjawE8W/HiAaEGdxE0YUUxTOLbsw/xc3Fc8Nbx1PHl8fbxGvvmD/1aBX IErRLiALNMiS9VRVY39V0OOAhfBiMc2lIZGOsHSgcDovL3clMC6eMPnIly9WI+K3MFrwtWAqMEo/ zWJOUwBlPRTOJihtPTFUWn0psAAAHgBwAAEAAAAdAAAAW2ZvcmVuc2ljLXNjaWVuY2VdIE5ldyBD YXNlcwAAAAACAXEAAQAAABsAAAABv2Kd/gBvXOeNziMR04GpEACWS4V6AAKVqQAAAwAmAAAAAAAD AC4AAAAAAAsAAgABAAAAHgBCEAEAAAAvAAAAPDAxQkY2Mjc1LjBDMzI5MzQwLm1lZGRldGVjdGl2 ZXMxQG1lZHN0YXIuY29tPgAAAwD9P+QEAABAADkAML/znativwEDAPE/CQQAAB4AMUABAAAACQAA AFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAAMAGkAAAAAAHgAwQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAZQAAAAAADAIAQ /////wsA8hABAAAAAgFHAAEAAAA3AAAAYz1VUzthPSA7cD1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIgQ09NO2w9RVhD SDEtMDAwMTE5MTgzMzAxWi0zNjcwAAACAfk/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEA AAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049 UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD4PwEAAAAPAAAAUm9iZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOEABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05T AAAAAAIB+z8BAAAAWAAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1JTkRJQU4gUklW RVIgQ09NTSBDT0xML09VPUlSQ0MvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1SUEFSU09OUwAeAPo/AQAAAA8A AABSb2JlcnQgUGFyc29ucwAAHgA5QAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAQAAHMG5E6p2rYr8BQAAI MFYYUaOrYr8BHgA9AAEAAAAFAAAAUkU6IAAAAAAeAB0OAQAAAB0AAABbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5j ZV0gTmV3IENhc2VzAAAAAB4ANRABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzExODE5NzEwMDA5NjRC ODU3QTM0NzY1RUBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAAALACkAAAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAGEK5v hrUDAAcQBg0AAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABZT1VDRVJUQUlOTFlIQVZFQVZF UllMSU1JVEVEVklFV09GV0hBVEZPUkVOU0lDU0NJRU5DRUlTVVNFREZPUlJBUEVTQU5ETVVSREVS U1BST0JBQkxZQ09OU1RJVFVURUxFU1NUAAAAAAIBfwABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzEx ODE5NzEwMDA5NjRCODU3QTM0NzY1RUBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAABA/g== ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF62AB.A3511856-- From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 14:52:25 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05706 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:50:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us (h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us [207.49.100.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05701 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by h3-exch3.cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:49:41 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Sailus, Jeff" To: "'forens-l'" Subject: RE: teeth vs dna Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:50:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF62B6.5369BB12" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF62B6.5369BB12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You do it in levels. Try dental record comparison first then type the molars for DNA (or bone if possible). DNA is not as expensive today as you might think. We spend about $50 a sample for consumables plus our salary and intangibles. My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of CMPD or its staff. Jeff Sailus DNA Analyst CMPD Crime Lab Ph 704-336-7755 Fax 704-353-0088 Email: jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us <>-----Original Message----- <>From: KJEssling@aol.com [mailto:KJEssling@aol.com] <>Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:40 PM <>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu <>Subject: teeth vs dna <> <> <>If a body were found badly decomposed what would be a more <>reliable way to <>CONFIRM the identity of the deceased .....dental comparison <>or dna? This <>"mock" medical examiner report suggests that the reason they <>went w/ dental <>comparrison vs. dna is that : <> <>1. dna methods are more costly and 2. the dna results "may <>not have been <>conclusive anyway." <> <>that line of thought goes against all that I have heard regarding the <>reliablility of dna. What am I missing here?? thanks! <> <>Kelly Esslinger <>kjessling@aol.com <> ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF62B6.5369BB12 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: teeth vs dna

You do it in levels.  Try dental record = comparison first then type the molars for DNA (or bone if = possible).  DNA is not as expensive today as you might = think.  We spend about $50 a sample for consumables plus our = salary and intangibles.

My opinions are my own and do not reflect on those of = CMPD or its staff.

Jeff Sailus
DNA Analyst
CMPD Crime Lab
Ph  704-336-7755
Fax  704-353-0088
Email:  jsailus@cmpd.ci.charlotte.nc.us



<>-----Original Message-----
<>From: KJEssling@aol.com [mailto:KJEssling@aol.com]
<>Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 12:40 = PM
<>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
<>Subject: teeth vs dna
<>
<>
<>If a body were found badly decomposed what = would be a more
<>reliable way to
<>CONFIRM the identity of the deceased = .....dental comparison
<>or dna?  This
<>"mock" medical examiner report = suggests that the reason they
<>went w/ dental
<>comparrison vs. dna is that :
<>
<>1. dna methods are more costly and 2. the = dna results "may
<>not have been
<>conclusive anyway."
<>
<>that line of thought goes against all that I = have heard regarding the
<>reliablility of dna.  What am I missing = here??  thanks!
<>
<>Kelly Esslinger
<>kjessling@aol.com
<>

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF62B6.5369BB12-- From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 16:02:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06470 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:59:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06465 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:59:33 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001192059.PAA06465@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:01:37 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Impression Comparisons Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:39:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I do shoeprint and tireprint comparisons, not fingerprint comparisons, but I have become interested in some of the discussions about fingerprints and would like to know more about what criteria are being used. What constitutes a point of comparison for a fingerprint? How many points of comparison are needed to identify a fingerprint? How many people are using a continuous approach (Bayesian) as opposed to a cliff type cut-off for interpreting fingerprints? Also, I have been pondering the "no two things in nature are the same" idea combined with how many characteristics do you need to see in something before you can identify it's uniqueness. In a recent discussion about earprints it was pointed out to me that there is no published data about tests in which the range of characteristics for one person's earprint - using different modes (pressure, surface, angle of the body) of deposition - were compared with the range of characteristics for a person with similar, but different, ears to see if there was any overlap. How much detail would you have to see in the earprint prior to being able to identify it as unique? This is complicated by the source being more three dimensional than a fingerprint, so that a two dimensional earprint impression is going to be missing a lot of the detail regardless of the quality. I would enjoy input from people to help my muddled thoughts sort themselves out. Helen Griffin From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 16:56:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07065 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:54:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from co.orange.ca.us (ocnet.co.orange.ca.us [206.194.127.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07060 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:54:10 -0500 (EST) From: JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us Received: from mail.fss.co.orange.ca.us ([172.20.14.8]) by ocnet.co.orange.ca.us with ESMTP id <130930>; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:23:37 -0800 Received: by mail.fss.co.orange.ca.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:52:11 -0800 Message-ID: <56BD820FD7AED211A0DD00902728A4AB02D73D@mail.fss.co.orange.ca.us> To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: forens-l e-mail list MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:23:36 -0800 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Kim Kruglick raised the issue of there being two forensic-type e-mail lists. This is perhaps as good time to expand on this question. There is a large amount of meta-forensics discussion posted to the forens@statgen .... list. By this, I mean topics more philosophical and polemical than operational and technical. Perhaps there should be two separate lists, one for he latter and one for the meta issues. This would spare subscribers from having to endlessly delete postings. Whether or not it would be possible to enforce such a division on unmoderated lists would remain to be seen. However, unless something like this is done, the forens@statgen list... will cease to be of service to many forensic scientists, if it hasn't already. A second suggestion is to offer two kinds of subscription, the conventional one-at-a-time mailings, and a digest form, with multiple postings per mailing. John Hartmann From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 18:48:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07993 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from web1608.mail.yahoo.com (web1608.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.150]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA07988 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28458 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Jan 2000 23:46:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000119234611.28457.qmail@web1608.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [156.29.73.19] by web1608.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:46:11 PST Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:46:11 -0800 (PST) From: Patricia Lough Subject: FTIR Disposable Films To: CAT Forum , forensl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We are looking for a source of FTIR disposable film windows. We were using Nicolet brands, but they are no longer making them. Thanks, Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 21:03:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09162 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:00:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f190.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.190]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09157 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:00:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 70322 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jan 2000 02:00:17 -0000 Message-ID: <20000120020017.70321.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 63.209.90.214 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:00:17 PST X-Originating-IP: [63.209.90.214] From: "chris breyer" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: issues of competence Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:00:17 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk this was forwarded to me. i don't know if the story is real. it could explain a lot about incompetence, a state of being which has enjoyed much alleging of, of late. -------- THIS MAY EXPLAIN A LOT New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they are incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident that they know what they're doing -- even more confident of their own competence than people who really do know what they're doing. The New York Times reports that Cornell University psychology professor David Dunning reached those conclusions in a study he conducted with a graduate student, and wrote about his findings in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The researchers concluded that one reason incompetent people do not know how much they do not know, is that the cognitive skills required to be competent are also required for recognizing actual competence. Researcher Justin Kruger told the Times that the incompetence of incompetent people "robs them of their ability to realize" they have a problem. It also makes it difficult for incompetent folks to recognize competence in others. By the way, the researchers say they also noticed that people who can't tell a joke tend not to realize that they're not funny -- and as a result they persist in telling jokes badly. ----- chris breyer ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 21:15:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09287 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:13:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09282 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:12:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA29648; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:12:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:12:51 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: forens-l e-mail list In-Reply-To: <56BD820FD7AED211A0DD00902728A4AB02D73D@mail.fss.co.orange.ca.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us wrote: > From: JMH@fss.co.orange.ca.us > > Kim Kruglick raised the issue of there being two forensic-type e-mail lists. > This is perhaps as good time to expand on this question. > > There is a large amount of meta-forensics discussion posted to the > forens@statgen .... list. By this, I mean topics more philosophical and > polemical than operational and technical. Perhaps there should be two > separate lists, one for he latter and one for the meta issues. This would > spare subscribers from having to endlessly delete postings... Whether or not > it would be possible to enforce such a division on unmoderated lists would > remain to be seen. However, unless something like this is done, the > forens@statgen list... will cease to be of service to many forensic > scientists, if it hasn't already. The answer is simple. You cannot "enforce" your particular taste in posts on other folk without moderation. The only ways to have a list which only allows you to control what others have the opportunity to write is either to censor the posts directly through a moderation policy or to have some sort of vetting for posting privileges. The forens-l list, as an open, unmoderated list has *never* been a list consisting entirely or, as far as I can tell, even mostly of forensic scientists interested only in discussing technical methodologic questions. This is in *interest* group, not a *professional* group. I personally prefer vetting to censorship. Most folk who complain about metadiscussions actually don't mind metadiscussions; they only dislike metadiscussions which don't interest them. For instance, you yourself have started a metadiscussion -- about kinds of kinds of discussions you would ban. If one wants to allow metadiscussions, but only of limited scope and form, then one is best advised to choose one's partners in conversation with care. Many professional organizations have vetted mailing lists. For instance, I subscribe to the National Association of Medical Examiner's mailing list; this requires membership in NAME, so contributors are almost exclusively MEs, death investigators, forensic photographers, etc. In all, I subscribe to about 10 mailing lists, and only two (forens-l and harplist) are open. The two combined also generate about 75% of my mailing list traffic. Some of the limited lists, such as the ASQ (American Society for Quality) and the SANS (a computer security organization) lists consist almost entirely of educational/meeting/job/etc. announcements and little else. Others, such as a couple mailing lists for companies I consult with for free (I do forensic pathology "reality testing" for a fantasy role-playing company, for instance) have only sporadic posting when particular problems or questions come up. Others, such as the NAME list, can have some spirited discussions, but the invective is limited because everybody knows everybody else personally. A mailing list limited to, say, IAI members, would be less likely to be inundated with advocates constantly bitching about the FBI, robo-posting news articles critical of the forensic science community, or by responses by folk like me who get pissed off about it. billo From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 21:53:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA09609 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from virtual2.microworld.com (qmailr@ip185-139.konnections.com [207.173.185.139]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09604 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:51:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9918 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 02:51:40 -0000 Received: from pm602-14.dialip.mich.net (HELO 003136) (198.110.189.72) by ns.microworld.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 02:51:40 -0000 Message-ID: <004d01bf62f1$ac3bbde0$48bd6ec6@192> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: , , References: <56BD820FD7AED211A0DD00902728A4AB02D73D@mail.fss.co.orange.ca.us> Subject: Re: forens-l e-mail list Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:54:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk John, The e-groups list offers both digest, and web-only message retrieval. It also includes the ability to moderate the list, although I currently have no intention of doing so. And for Kim, Most of the e-groups members are also forens subscribers, but it is becoming more diverse. I don't see any problem with posting to both lists in order to reach greatest number of interested persons. Regards, Daryl Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime & Clues Grand Rapids, MI, USA http://crimeandclues.com Primary e-mail: dclemens@crimeandclues.com Secondary e-mail/MSN Messenger: identtec@hotmail.com Fax/Voice Mail: 1-877-283-8519 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 4:23 PM Subject: forens-l e-mail list > Kim Kruglick raised the issue of there being two forensic-type e-mail lists. > This is perhaps as good time to expand on this question. > > There is a large amount of meta-forensics discussion posted to the > forens@statgen .... list. By this, I mean topics more philosophical and > polemical than operational and technical. Perhaps there should be two > separate lists, one for he latter and one for the meta issues. This would > spare subscribers from having to endlessly delete postings. Whether or not > it would be possible to enforce such a division on unmoderated lists would > remain to be seen. However, unless something like this is done, the > forens@statgen list... will cease to be of service to many forensic > scientists, if it hasn't already. > > A second suggestion is to offer two kinds of subscription, the conventional > one-at-a-time mailings, and a digest form, with multiple postings per > mailing. > > John Hartmann > From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 23:07:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10100 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:05:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA10095 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:05:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from jnh3.ix.netcom.com (ven-ca7-15.ix.netcom.com [198.211.140.15]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01012 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:05:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000119200225.009ff7f0@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:03:54 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: issues of competence In-Reply-To: <20000120020017.70321.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It's real! This is a copyrighted story from the New York Times News Service. The CACNews is seeking permission to reprint the article in the next CACNews. At 06:00 PM 1/19/00 -0800, chris breyer wrote: >this was forwarded to me. i don't know if the story is real. it could >explain a lot about incompetence, a state of being which has enjoyed much >alleging of, of late. > >-------- > > THIS MAY EXPLAIN A LOT > New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they are >incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident that they >know what they're doing -- even more confident of their own competence than >people who really do know what they're doing. SNIP ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Wed Jan 19 23:59:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10459 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:57:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe30.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.25]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA10454 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:57:27 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 57837 invoked by uid 65534); 20 Jan 2000 04:56:58 -0000 Message-ID: <20000120045658.57836.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.171.106] To: , References: Subject: Re: [forensic-science] New Cases Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:10:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Two of the more colorful examples were the analysis of the alleged Maybrick "Jack the Ripper" diaries and the 'hair' analysis of Napoleon Bonaparte. If that's not enough for you, try Alfred Packer, for whom the US Department of Agriculture named one of their cafeteria's with this interesting footnote: "Alfred Packer exemplifies the spirit and fare that this agriculture department cafeteria will provide." A few months later, they found out what Alfred Packer did, and they renamed the cafeteria. Cutting edge, that bunch. Shaun > -----Original Message----- > From: Tina Keller [mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:02 PM > To: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com' > Subject: [forensic-science] New Cases > > > Hello list! > > How about a nice change of subject? Everybody's favorite show, Medical > Detectives, will now be seen on Court TV. We have a working title of > "Forensic Files." We have most of the new episodes chosen but we are > looking for something a little different. I am searching for cases where > forensic science was used in a non-murder, non-rape situation. My guess is > there may be a large amount of civil cases that would fit this description. > Has anybody worked on such a case or does anybody have a collegue who has > worked on this type of case? People always equate forensic science with > murder and rape, but I think the field is very vast and I would like to > enlighten our viewers with every scope of the field. > > As always, your help is respected and appreciated. I look forward to > receiving your replies. > > Tina Keller > Assistant Producer > Medical Detectives??? Forensic Files????---your guess is as good as mine! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Talk to your group with your own voice! > -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=forensic-science&m=1 > > From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 00:12:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10628 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:10:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10616 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:10:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097011.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.11]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id VAA18290; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:09:47 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001200509.VAA18290@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:07:59 -0800 To: , From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: forens-l e-mail list In-Reply-To: <004d01bf62f1$ac3bbde0$48bd6ec6@192> References: <56BD820FD7AED211A0DD00902728A4AB02D73D@mail.fss.co.orange.ca.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 09:54 PM 1/19/2000 -0500, Daryl W. Clemens wrote: >The e-groups list offers both digest, and web-only message retrieval. It >also includes the ability to moderate the list, although I currently have no >intention of doing so. I remember seeing a note about a new forensic science mail list a while back, but I never subscribed. When I went to Clemen's web site all I could find was some deja.com deal with lots of ads, requests for usernames and passwords, and all that stuff. Was I at the right place to sign up for the mailing list? DO I need all of that password nonsense to get mail from this list, and do I also get all of the ads? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 00:35:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10802 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:33:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA10797 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097011.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.11]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id VAA25396 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:33:22 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001200533.VAA25396@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:32:19 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Hair Analysis In-Reply-To: <3885DA2C.C3425689@mail.state.mo.us> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 09:37 AM 1/19/2000 -0600, Jenny Smith wrote: >I think you will find that experienced hair examiners will be the first to agree >that there is an inevitable error rate. I know the FBI has figures on their >error rate since they began confirming with DNA but is that open for public >scrutiny? I doubt it. As I recall from a paper given by one the of FBI people at a meeting a year or so ago, something luke 15% of the cases in which teh FBI lab had made an association based on microscopic comparison the mtDNA results shouldnthat the associationwas incorrect. >I attended the fbi's hair and fiber class in '92. I found >them too confident in a hair "match" for my tastes. They made statements such >as, "I have looked at 2,000 hair control samples and never found 2 alike so I can >state probabities like 1 in 2,000...." That always make me uncomfortable, more >so now. I don't think they say that anymore. Well, I don't know about "anymore", but at least one of their examiners made a very similar statement in court about a year ago. (Of course, there was no indication in the report that such a strong statement would be made.) >[snip}An experienced >examiner knows the limitations of the exam, qualifies their report and makes sure >that prosecutors and juries also know the limitations of the exam. How does the experienced examiner make such limitations known? Do you have data that you can cite which says that a certain percentage of the time, using the criteria used in this case, Ia false association or a false elimination results? The common response is something like "Hair comparison is not an absolute means of personal identification, but no reliable statistics are available." Combine that statement with, "In 5000 hair comparisons I have only one time seen hairs that I could not distinguish, and those were from two brothers in a set of triplets." Any juror, judge, investigator, or lawyer is liable to infer from that statement that only rarely (like once in 5000 or so comparisons) will a false association be made. There is NO data to support such an inference, and to leave that impression in the mind of the jury is perjurious, IMHO. The reason that kind of testimony is given is precisely to allow the inference that hair comparison is highly reliable. The paucity of data which does exist suggests that false associations occur in 10%-30% of the comparisons that are done. But the data is not very good, and getting more seems unlikely since we weren't willing to do the work when microscopic hair comparison was in its heyday a few years ago. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 09:46:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14933 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law-f126.hotmail.com [209.185.131.189]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA14928 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8345 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jan 2000 14:41:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20000120144106.8344.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 152.204.138.175 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:41:03 PST X-Originating-IP: [152.204.138.175] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:41:03 CST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The philosphy of friction ridge identification is: the agreement of friction ridge formation, in sequence, having sufficient uniqueness to individualize (identify). Points of comparison (agreement of friction ridge formation) would be what each individual ridge does, ie abruptly end, two ridges running parallel and joining together to become one (bifurcation), a dot, contour or shape of the ridge, pore location(s) within a ridge unit and accidental characteristics such as scars and dissociated ridges to name a few. Each of these individual characteristics must correspond not only in respect to its position on each print (known/unknown) but also to its position in relation to all other characteristics in both prints with no unexplainable dissimilar charcteristics. Sufficient uniqueness is dependant on the amount of specific details present, the clarity of the print and the ability of the latent print examiner. There must be enough specific detail, either unique or accidental to satisfy the examiner based upon knowledge and experience to form an opinion. Each latent identification should be subjected to peer review as a form of of quality assurance. The opinion of the identification is subjective. After a 3 year study the IAI came to the conclusion that "no valid basis exists at this time for requiring that a pre-determined minimun number of friction ridge characteristics must be present in two impressions to establish a positive identification". However, many countries, individual departments and courts have established a minimum quantative standard for proof of identity. Hopefully this has answered your questions. Lonnette Kendoll Identification Technician Police Dept., Richardson, TX >From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov >To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Impression Comparisons >Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:39:00 -0800 > >I do shoeprint and tireprint comparisons, not fingerprint comparisons, but >I >have become interested in some of the discussions about fingerprints and >would like to know more about what criteria are being used. > >What constitutes a point of comparison for a fingerprint? How many points >of comparison are needed to identify a fingerprint? How many people are >using a continuous approach (Bayesian) as opposed to a cliff type cut-off >for interpreting fingerprints? > > Also, I have been pondering the "no two things in nature are the same" >idea >combined with how many characteristics do you need to see in something >before you can identify it's uniqueness. In a recent discussion about >earprints it was pointed out to me that there is no published data about >tests in which the range of characteristics for one person's earprint - >using different modes (pressure, surface, angle of the body) of deposition >- >were compared with the range of characteristics for a person with similar, >but different, ears to see if there was any overlap. How much detail would >you have to see in the earprint prior to being able to identify it as >unique? This is complicated by the source being more three dimensional >than >a fingerprint, so that a two dimensional earprint impression is going to be >missing a lot of the detail regardless of the quality. I would enjoy input >from people to help my muddled thoughts sort themselves out. Helen Griffin ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 09:46:05 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14949 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:42:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14944 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:42:23 -0500 (EST) From: SPIRAL9@aol.com Received: from SPIRAL9@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id a.47.dec5ec (3924); Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:41:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <47.dec5ec.25b8789b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:41:31 EST Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Re: New Cases To: forensic-science@egroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk what did Alfred do? From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 10:46:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15879 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:44:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15874 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:44:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:37:55 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C26B@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forensic-science] Re: New Cases Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:43:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Got hungry because he was trapped by snow in a mountain pass. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: SPIRAL9@aol.com [mailto:SPIRAL9@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 8:42 AM To: forensic-science@egroups.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Re: New Cases what did Alfred do? From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 10:49:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15911 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:48:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.verio.net (smtp2.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.162]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15906 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from cbrenner (h207-21-136-173.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.173]) by smtp2.verio.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA12448; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:47:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000120074934.00a1d7a0@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:53:12 -0800 To: SPIRAL9@aol.com, forensic-science@egroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Re: New Cases In-Reply-To: <47.dec5ec.25b8789b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 09:41 AM 1/20/00 -0500, SPIRAL9@aol.com wrote: >what did Alfred do? Alferd [sic] Packer ate five prospectors whom he was guiding over a high Colorado plateau in 1874. The judge who sentenced Packer to hang indignantly pointed out that "There was only six Democrats in all of Hinsdale County and you ate five of them." (from "True Remarkable Occurrences") Charles From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 11:12:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16249 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from gwia01.state.mi.us (gwia01.state.mi.us [167.240.253.8]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16244 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from SOM-Message_Server by gwia01.state.mi.us with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:45:33 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:45:04 -0500 From: "Robert McKenzie" To: , , Subject: Re: FTIR Disposable Films Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id LAA16245 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk We have some samples from 3M Disposable Products Division Product KC0061 with a polyethylene disk and Product KC 6200 with polytetrafluoroethylene disk. I tend to use diffuse reflectance more than anything else so have no idea how these will work for your application. There may be other choices of supporting matrix as well. Robert McKenzie, Ph.D. Michigan Department of Agriculture Laboratory Division 1615 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, MI 48823-5224 517-337-5083 phone 517-337-5094 fax mckenzier@state.mi.us >>> Patricia Lough 01/19 6:46 PM >>> We are looking for a source of FTIR disposable film windows. We were using Nicolet brands, but they are no longer making them. Thanks, Pattie Lough San Diego PD __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 11:35:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16625 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:33:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.ncal.verio.com (smtp1.ncal.verio.com [207.20.246.161]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA16605 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:33:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from cbrenner (h207-21-136-173.ncal.verio.net [207.21.136.173]) by smtp1.ncal.verio.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA21288 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:33:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000120081738.00bb9100@uclink.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:38:31 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: RE: Race, Life & Death In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk >On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 Sidg@aol.com wrote: >> Actually, that came from the book that was written from the paper - >> Convicting the Innocent. There were 83 overturned convictions out of the 413 >> convictions that could have/did/or were, punishable by death. At 08:31 PM 1/18/00 -0500, Bill Oliver wrote: >In any case, there were over 4000 executions during the time >period you mention. You need to show how those 400 you decided >to use were chosen as "representative" of the 4000. Apparently these are the Innocence Project numbers -- 83 successes out of 413 cases for which the project agreed to go to bat. Therefore the significance of the ratio, if any, depends on the screening method. The screening procedure, as I have heard, is: The case must be a case of disputed identity (i.e. which can potentially be settled by DNA) There must be a potential DNA sample, that was not tested for the original trial. It is interesting (though of no statistical relevance that I can see) that the majority of those who hoped DNA would prove they weren't at the crime scene, had the exact opposite result. Perhaps when the efficacy of DNA testing becomes better known in the jails there will be fewer futile claims -- especially if there is a downside to a bogus claim such as vulnerability at a future parole hearing. I recall (but can't find) an early post on this thread that reported Barry Scheck (co-founder) as expressing the opinion that probably only a dozen or so of the 83 cases of exoneration genuinely represent innocence. Did I read it right? Is it accurate reporting? It sounds like a remarkable admission if he really said it. Charles From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 11:52:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16870 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16865 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd] bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Two groups redux Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cuz several people have written privately asking how to join the e-groups forensic list, here's what worked for me. I'm not advocating membership, just answering questions. One suggestion that was made was interesting though. I belong to a criminal defense list w/ over 1000 defense lawyer members. We found that there were those who wanted to confine the list to technical info, while others wanted to wax eloquent about matters more philosophical. We divided into two lists, one for each. Every member could subscribe to both or either. Worked just fine. Something to think about. Anyhow, to subscribe to the e-group list, with your Web browser go to: http://www.egroups.com/group/forensic-science/info.html Click on join this group, New User Register Here fill in your e-mail address and further instructions and features will be sent to you. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 11:53:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA16894 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16889 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:52:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:52:01 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [Fwd] bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Pete, The Deja group is the general Crime and Clues forum which is different from the forensic-science list. (and your right the format sucks...) There is a sign up box on the Physical Evidence page at the site for the e-groups list or send a blank email to forensic-science-subscribe@egroups.com Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime & Clues Grand Rapids, MI, USA http://crimeandclues.com Primary e-mail: dclemens@crimeandclues.com Secondary e-mail/MSN Messenger: identtec@hotmail.com Fax/Voice Mail: 1-877-283-8519 ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:07 AM Subject: [forensic-science] Re: forens-l e-mail list > At 09:54 PM 1/19/2000 -0500, Daryl W. Clemens wrote: > > >The e-groups list offers both digest, and web-only message retrieval. It > >also includes the ability to moderate the list, although I currently have no > >intention of doing so. > > I remember seeing a note about a new forensic science mail list a while > back, but I never subscribed. When I went to Clemen's web site all I could > find was some deja.com deal with lots of ads, requests for usernames and > passwords, and all that stuff. Was I at the right place to sign up for the > mailing list? DO I need all of that > password nonsense to get mail from this list, and do I also get all of the > ads? > > Pete Barnett > > > Peter D. Barnett > Forensic Science Associates > Richmond CA > 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com > http://www.fsalab.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Save 50% at MotherNature.com! See site for details. > http://click.egroups.com/1/766/2/_/75397/_/948345088/ > > -- Check out your group's private Chat room > -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=forensic-science&m=1 > > > From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 12:02:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17166 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:01:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17161 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:01:06 -0500 (EST) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 9.74.eb8893 (4068); Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:59:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <74.eb8893.25b89909@aol.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:59:53 EST Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Re: New Cases To: cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu, SPIRAL9@aol.com, forensic-science@egroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 146 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 1/20/00 11:58:46 AM, cbrenner@uclink.berkeley.edu writes: << The judge who sentenced Packer to hang indignantly pointed out that "There was only six Democrats in all of Hinsdale County and you ate five of them." >> Does he have any relatives alive? lol From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 12:04:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17198 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17191 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from pnoth (1Cust207.tnt3.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net [63.15.134.207]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA10380; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:02:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000120110215.0087d8f0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:02:15 -0600 To: forensic-science@egroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Alfred Packer (was: New Cases) In-Reply-To: <47.dec5ec.25b8789b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For the curious... Alfred (or Alferd) Packer led a group of novice gold prospectors into the San Juan mountains of Utah in the fall of 1873. As winter closed in, the the group became stranded in the mountains in heavy snow. Only Packer survived, by killing and cannibalizing five of his companions. He was convicted of murder and served 16 years in prison. It's what you might call a cold case. [Source: "Bloodletters and Badmen", by Jay Robert Nash] -- Peter Nothnagle At 09:41 AM 1/20/00 EST, SPIRAL9@aol.com wrote: >what did Alfred do? > > From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 12:39:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17597 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17592 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:37:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.197]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25116; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:37:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38873FEF.DD0CC092@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:03:43 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joy Pugh CC: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair Analysis Discussion References: <34.65e4a8.25b71d11@aol.com> <3885E315.2FFCB1BC@truman.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi Joy, In re to your question to Fred about the term "error".... I think you are trying to use a laymen's definition of error. When referring to "error rate in microscopic hair exams" I mean error as in "type I" or "type II" errors, where a type I error is an incorrect exclusion, type II being an incorrect inclusion. Won't most exams carry with it an "error" rate even where the examiner has done everything correct? Many tests have errors inherent in the procedure expressed in its CV (coefficient of variation). If one reports "The Q hair of item 1 falls in the range of microscopic characteristics of the K hair control from John Doe; therefore, John Doe can not be eliminated as a source of the Q hair based upon microscopic characteristics". Then, if DNA shows that the Q hair is not from John Doe, you have made a type II error. EVERY hair examiner in the country may agree with you hat the Q hair is similar microscopically to John Doe's K hair, but you have still made a false inclusion. There is no error in the microscopic observations but there is an inherent error in the procedure in that sometimes there are hairs from different people that you can not distinguish microscopically. Just as in the example of the eye witness to a crime who describes a blue late model Pontiac LaMans leaving the scene of a crime. Later someone is apprehended in a car fitting this description but it is the wrong car. The observation of the witness is not incorrect just the association to a given person. Now if the witness also got the license number of the observed vehicle, this is more like having DNA with a microscopic hair exam. NOTE TO PETER BARNETT, That 15% that you give for the fbi hair exams, where the microscopics show similarities, then DNA show differences... this number represents only the "type II" errors, doesn't it? Probably they do not know what their "false exclusion" rate is unless they do DNA on all of their hair exams, similar and dissimilar. With regard to your other concerns regarded the overstatement of significance by some examiners, I am in hopes that the SWGhair group will address some of there problems. Their guidelines are in the draft stage and look promising. Ideally these SWG guidelines in all areas will make us a better profession by publicly expressing the "consensus of the forensic community". When one ventures outside of these stated guidelines they may be on their own. Jenny Smith Joy Pugh wrote: > Excuse me, but am I missing something here? > For the last 15 years or so (and pre-DNA), I have been taught that the > absolute, positive association of human hair to a particular individual, > based on microscopic comparison, could not be done- but that differing > characteristics observed from such comparisons might possibly eliminate > the individual from consideration as the source of the material (i.e. > "class characteristics"). > Does the "error" that you mention refer to disparity between an > elimination by microscopy, with subsequent inclusion by DNA analysis? > Or vice versa, or both? > It would seem that, should a particular individual not be eliminated as > a possible source of the hair, using microscopy, that the language of > the report would not only indicate that this person could be the source > of the hair, but also very clear statements about the uncertainty of > such association. > If subsequent analysis- say, DNA analysis, that allowed the comparison > of more discriminating characteristics, eliminated this individual as > having donated the questioned samples, would the microscopist's prior > report be in error? (No.) > I'm a bit confused over what you consider to be the controversy or the > stones thrown. > > Joy Pugh > From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 13:01:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17871 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from sable.cc.vt.edu (sable.cc.vt.edu [128.173.16.30]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17866 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.vt.edu (gkar.cc.vt.edu [128.173.16.40]) by sable.cc.vt.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26034 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:58:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from acsnider ([128.173.54.171]) by gkar.cc.vt.edu (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.05.24.18.28.p7) with SMTP id <0FON00HZ9B9CER@gkar.cc.vt.edu> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:58:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:52:12 -0700 From: "Anna C. Snider" Subject: forensic geology X-Sender: acsnider@mail.unm.edu To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0FON00HZAB9EER@gkar.cc.vt.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Is anyone a forensic geologist or know anything about the field? Or perhaps where I can go to look to find more info or who I could contact? I am a geologist and I am interested in knowing more about the field. Thanks, Anna Snider acsnider@unm.edu From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 13:06:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA17989 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:04:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from imc.nih.gov (imc.nih.gov [128.231.90.85]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17981 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:04:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by imc.nih.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:05:01 -0500 Message-ID: <0FA44B6A6130D2119B1D00805FEA9902016584AB@nihexchange5.nih.gov> From: "Searfoss, Anjanette (NIDDK)" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: opportunities for PhDs Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:04:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I have recently become very interested in forensic sciences, particularly regarding DNA analysis. I am interested in any information or advice anyone may have regarding opportunities for PhDs. I obtained my PhD in molecular biology and am currently a postdoc. Even though I have no formal training in forensic science, I understand the techniques used in DNA analysis and have had some relevant laboratory experience. I guess I am interested if anyone else has a similar background and was able to switch into this related but distinct area. Thanks, Anji From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 14:47:12 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19563 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:44:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19558 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:44:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097005.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.5]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id LAA24760 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:44:24 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001201944.LAA24760@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:45:51 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: forensic geology In-Reply-To: <0FON00HZAB9EER@gkar.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 12:52 PM 1/20/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Is anyone a forensic geologist or know anything about the field? Or >perhaps where I can go to look to find more info or who I could contact? I >am a geologist and I am interested in knowing more about the field. See the book Forensic Geology: Earth Science and Criminal Investigation, byt Raymond C. Murray and John C.F. Tedrow: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0133274535/qid=948397187/sr=1-2/102- 5449592-7032069 Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 15:00:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19798 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19790 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:59:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:52:46 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C26E@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: opportunities for PhDs Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:58:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For your location, check with Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (301-295-5540)(in Rockville, MD.) On the private side, I think CellMark is also in Rockville. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Searfoss, Anjanette (NIDDK) [mailto:anji@mail.nih.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:05 PM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: opportunities for PhDs I have recently become very interested in forensic sciences, particularly regarding DNA analysis. I am interested in any information or advice anyone may have regarding opportunities for PhDs. I obtained my PhD in molecular biology and am currently a postdoc. Even though I have no formal training in forensic science, I understand the techniques used in DNA analysis and have had some relevant laboratory experience. I guess I am interested if anyone else has a similar background and was able to switch into this related but distinct area. Thanks, Anji From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 19:30:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22621 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:28:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from edvac.idirect.com (edvac.idirect.com [207.136.80.168]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22609 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from rlsitter (ts3-1t-115.tor.idirect.com [209.161.224.115]) by edvac.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA09566 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:27:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b001bf63a6$b00805e0$73e0a1d1@rlsitter> From: "Rachael Schrijver" To: Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Strange but true!] - see attached Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:30:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AD_01BF637C.C64701A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01BF637C.C64701A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: Natalie Broadfield To: Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 18:53 Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Strange but true!] > Check this out, Rach, our friend, Dev sent it to us, very strange indeed!!! > Nat. > > > >From: Dev Singh > >To: Aunty Rehana ,Coreen Sarran > >,Darryl Webster , Faz > >,Gavin Caleb , Harmeet Johal > >,Ian Fenton ,joanne villemaire > >,John Dato , Kimberly Brown > >,"LESLIE KALICHARAN (E-mail)" > >,Mike Traikos ,Natalie > >, Rob Balsdon ,Ryan kodnar > >, Salim Andani ,Stephen Minchopoulos > >,Steve Branscombe , Tash > >,Uncle Faun , Uncle Manny > >,Uncle Wawe > >Subject: [Fwd: Strange but true!] > >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:52:17 -0500 > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01BF637C.C64701A0 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Strange but true!.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Strange but true!.eml" Return-Path: Received: from h1.mail.home.com ([24.0.0.50]) by mail.rdc1.on.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.07 201-229-111-110) with ESMTP id <20000117160802.GXZB29315.mail.rdc1.on.home.com@h1.mail.home.com> for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:08:02 -0800 Received: from mx4-w.mail.home.com (mx4-w.mail.home.com [24.0.0.54]) by h1.mail.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id IAA07363 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:08:01 -0800 (PST) From: Mgruff9518@aol.com Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by mx4-w.mail.home.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA17450 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:07:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mgruff9518@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id t.89.a461d1 (4355) for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:07:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <89.a461d1.25b49853@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:07:47 EST Subject: Strange but true! To: blackdev-ull@home.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 71 This is a true story... At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story: On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned. "Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "A person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." That Mr.Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor,whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mister Opus. When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus. Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten-story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide. (A true story from Associated Press, by Kurt Westervelt) This story was also depicted on a TV episode of 'Law and Order' ------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01BF637C.C64701A0-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 19:55:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22789 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:54:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from pps-2.smartworld.net (pps-2.smartworld.net [216.70.64.23]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22774 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from freewwweb.com (ppp-301.tnt-1.wdc.smartworld.net [216.70.71.51]) by pps-2.smartworld.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA17730 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:53:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3887ADB9.92F7B401@freewwweb.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:52:09 -0500 From: Jim Dietzel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: issues of competence Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk AH! But how do we know that THESE researchers are competent? They seem very confident of their study....... Okay, spare me the replies with the last paragraph of the article pasted in! ;-) Cheers, -Jim Dietzel >It's real! >This is a copyrighted story from the New York Times News Service. >The CACNews is seeking permission to reprint the article in the next CACNews. >At 06:00 PM 1/19/00 -0800, chris breyer wrote: >>this was forwarded to me. i don't know if the story is real. it could >>explain a lot about incompetence, a state of being which has enjoyed much >>alleging of, of late. >> >>-------- >> >> THIS MAY EXPLAIN A LOT >> New research indicates that incompetent people tend not to know they are >>incompetent. Not only that, they also tend to be very confident that they >>know what they're doing -- even more confident of their own competence than >>people who really do know what they're doing. >SNIP From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 21:14:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23290 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:11:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from delta.rollanet.org (qmailr@delta.rollanet.org [208.18.12.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA23285 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:11:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23301 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2000 02:11:46 -0000 Received: from access-7-36.rollanet.org (HELO dwhause) (208.18.13.37) by mx-old.rollanet.org with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 02:11:46 -0000 Message-ID: <030801bf63b4$db5c8500$d37237c0@dwhause> From: "Dave Hause" To: References: <00b001bf63a6$b00805e0$73e0a1d1@rlsitter> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Strange but true!] - NOPE Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:11:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Sorry. The only true part of the story is that Don Harper Mills really told it. Dave Hause ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachael Schrijver" To: Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 6:30 PM Subject: Fw: [Fwd: Strange but true!] - see attached ----- Original Message ----- From: Natalie Broadfield To: Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 18:53 Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Strange but true!] > Check this out, Rach, our friend, Dev sent it to us, very strange indeed!!! > Nat. > > > >From: Dev Singh > >To: Aunty Rehana ,Coreen Sarran > >,Darryl Webster , Faz > >,Gavin Caleb , Harmeet Johal > >,Ian Fenton ,joanne villemaire > >,John Dato , Kimberly Brown > >,"LESLIE KALICHARAN (E-mail)" > >,Mike Traikos ,Natalie > >, Rob Balsdon ,Ryan kodnar > >, Salim Andani ,Stephen Minchopoulos > >,Steve Branscombe , Tash > >,Uncle Faun , Uncle Manny > >,Uncle Wawe > >Subject: [Fwd: Strange but true!] > >Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:52:17 -0500 > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From forens-owner Thu Jan 20 22:22:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA23679 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.janics.com (mail.janics.com [206.102.184.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23674 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mikespooter [208.137.35.192] by mail.janics.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A06017E40278; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:20:00 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01bf63be$95324920$c02389d0@mikespooter> From: "M Davis" To: "Lonnette Kendoll" , , References: <20000120144106.8344.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:21:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The recent attention given the topic of friction ridge skin by David Ashbaugh (I hope spelling is correct, copy not at hand) expands the classical definition of "ridge details" into three "levels" and frees the examiner from being a slave to counting "points", which is what most have done for years without stating such. Please include the work of Mr. Ashbaugh in any current reading materials on the subject, as classical attempts at explaining a complex discipline fall short of the actual process. Mike Davis mailto:mdavis@janics.com ICQ#38952146 From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 01:15:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24765 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:13:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (law-f30.hotmail.com [209.185.131.93]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA24759 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 01:13:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 43774 invoked by uid 0); 21 Jan 2000 06:12:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20000121061236.43773.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.165.118.183 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:12:36 PST X-Originating-IP: [205.165.118.183] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: mdavis@clandjop.com, lonniekendoll@hotmail.com, hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:12:36 CST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You are correct, it is very difficult to explain in this type of format "in a hundred words or less" how comparisons are conducted. Recently David Ashbaugh's book "Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis" was finally published. A forerunner to this book was a treatise he had written several years ago and could be purchased for the mere price of $25, had much of the same material and has been used as a training protocol for latent print examiners on some departments. My belief is that Ashbaugh put into writing what most latent print examiners were doing without realizing it and most importantly, finally addressed why they were able to do it by providing the information from years of research done by others in the field of embryology, genetics and the like. I can remember being extremely frustrated by the lack of published literature, discussion papers and the inability of those training me to fully explain how it can be that one small area of friction ridge skin can be individualized. I was trained the way my trainers were trained. It wasn't until I came across a copy of Ashbaugh's treatise that it begain to fall into place and began using it to train others. Another excellent book, for those that may be interested, is "Friction Ridge Skin - Comparison and Identification of Fingerprints" by James F. Cowger. Lonnette Kendoll >From: "M Davis" >To: "Lonnette Kendoll" >,, >Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons >Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:21:14 -0600 > >The recent attention given the topic of friction ridge skin by David >Ashbaugh (I hope spelling is correct, copy not at hand) expands the >classical definition of "ridge details" into three "levels" and frees the >examiner from being a slave to counting "points", which is what >most have done for years without stating such. Please include the >work of Mr. Ashbaugh in any current reading materials on the >subject, as classical attempts at explaining a complex discipline >fall short of the actual process. > >Mike Davis >mailto:mdavis@janics.com >ICQ#38952146 > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 04:59:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26244 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk [143.53.241.13]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA26226 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 04:57:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from Bruton-Day-PC (bruton-day-pc.chem.brad.ac.uk [143.53.20.40]) by spuggie.cen.brad.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA11570 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:57:08 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20000121095705.00710468@pop.brad.ac.uk> X-Sender: gbruton@pop.brad.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:57:05 +0000 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Geoff Bruton Subject: Work Permits for Foreign Nationals In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000119200225.009ff7f0@popd.calicopress.com> References: <20000120020017.70321.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear List Members, As a Final Year PhD candidate, I am currently trying to determine what requirements there are for State/Private Crime Laboratories to employ foreign nationals It is my intention to relocate to the US upon completion of my research, and to hopefully find gainful employment in the field of forensic science. I am a British citizen. >From my initial enquiries, it has been indicated to me that at least one lab requires me to have a valid work permit before I can be recommended. It was my understanding from looking into immigration visas that a valid work permit is granted after nomination/recommendation from the hiring company. This seems to be a Catch 22 situation. Can anyone tell me if all state/private laboratories have this condition? And, if any don't - which ones? As always, many thanks in advance. Regards to all, -G. Geoff Bruton Department of Chemical & Forensic Sciences University of Bradford United Kingdom From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 08:43:28 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA27860 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from red-2.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.249]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA27846 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by red-2.uspis.gov; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA32639; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:53:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Regional Association Newsletter Addresses Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:46:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk List, I need to post nationally for a vacant position (Firearms/Toolmarks/Impressions with a strong emphasis on the Toolmarks/Impressions part). I'd like to cast a wide net by hitting the regional association newsletters. . . If anyone on the list has (snail and e-mail) addresses for any of the following newsletters: Southern Association of Forensic Scientists Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists Northwestern Association of Forensic Scientists I would greatly appreciate the info. Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist U.S. Postal Inspection Service National Laboratory (703) 406-7141 SLSmith@uspis.gov p.s. I'll post the vacancy notice to the list as soon as we have resolved a pending pay issue. From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 10:25:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA28945 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA28940 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:21:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01544; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:21:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:21:11 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Charles H. Brenner" cc: SPIRAL9@aol.com, forensic-science@egroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Re: New Cases In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000120074934.00a1d7a0@uclink.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk When I was at the University of Colorado many years ago, the Student Union food area was the "Alferd Packer Grill." I heard a couple years ago that somebody took offense at it and was agitating to make it something more politically correct, but I don't know if they succeeded. billo On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Charles H. Brenner wrote: > From: "Charles H. Brenner" > > At 09:41 AM 1/20/00 -0500, SPIRAL9@aol.com wrote: > >what did Alfred do? > > Alferd [sic] Packer ate five prospectors whom he was guiding over a high > Colorado plateau in 1874. > > The judge who sentenced Packer to hang indignantly pointed out that "There > was only six Democrats in all of Hinsdale County and you ate five of them." > > (from "True Remarkable Occurrences") > > Charles > From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 10:39:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29092 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:37:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA29086 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 15:30:56 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 21 07:36:40 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:37:47 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:37:19 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Work Permits for Foreign Nationals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Geoff: As a laboratory that recently hired a foreign national from the Emerald Isle, I can tell you that there was a level of frustration for both parties dealing with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It may seem odd, but the only qualified individual interested in taking our job offer and scoring well in the interview process was the fellow from Ireland. His entry into this country was delayed for six to eight months because of quotas. We had to resort to contacting our congressman to exhort some pressure on the appropriate officials to expedite his entry. So, its a matter of the employing agency applying the proper pressure. It is not what you know but who you know! Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Geoff Bruton 01/21 1:57 AM >>> From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 12:01:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00265 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:59:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00251 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:59:06 -0500 (EST) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id k.58.5103d1 (8329); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:57:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <58.5103d1.25b9ea13@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:57:55 EST Subject: Re: Work Permits for Foreign Nationals To: g.bruton@Bradford.ac.uk, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 40 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Geoff, I believe the law in the U.S. is that no employer can hire anyone who is not a citizen, a resident alien or has a work permit. Work permits, I believe, are granted under certain circumstances, such as when a citizen or resident alien spouse is sponsoring his/her spouse for residency, citizens of El Salvador or Guatemala who meet certain requirements and there may be others. One way of obtaining resident alien status is by having a prospective employer sponsor you. The employer must go through several processes, one of which is obtaining labor department certification that the position you would fill cannot be filled by a citizen of the U.S. or someone who is already a legal resident alien. The employer does this by advertising the position, filling out forms...a whole bunch of stuff. I am not a specialist in immigration law in the U.S. and there may be other ways of obtaining alien residency in the U.S. I do know that whatever the method, the requirements and procedures can be very technical. Miss one step, don't dot the right "i" or cross the right "t" and it doesn't work. Bear in mind also that once legal residency is obtained, there are certain requirements for it to be maintained. So, you must know these requirements, also. You should consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law. If you know the area of the U.S. you think you would like to go to, you can contact the Bar Association in that area for a specialist in immigration law. I always refer my clients to a specialist with immigration questions or problems. Pietrina J. Reda Attorney-at-Law Freeport, New York From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 17:52:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04054 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:48:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04049 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:48:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.194]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28574; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:48:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3888E1CB.99749173@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:46:35 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Peter D. Barnett" CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair Analysis References: <200001200533.VAA25396@mail.crl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C574D3084C71F7AF098363E1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --------------C574D3084C71F7AF098363E1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter, I have forwarded to you a draft of the SWGhair guidelines revised on 12/99. The chairman of this group, Nick Patraco is interested in comments, suggestions. His email address is NLP101648@aol.com. The goal of many of the Scientific Working Groups is to develope a "consensus of opinion" as to minimum standards. You pointed out the obstacles to this goal.... how do you know when you have a consensus? So , you do what Nick Patraco is doing and ask for input from the forensic community outside of their SWGhair group. I can forward this document to any other interested parties. Jenny Smith > > --------------C574D3084C71F7AF098363E1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter, I have forwarded to you a draft of the SWGhair guidelines revised on 12/99.  The chairman of this group, Nick Patraco is interested in comments, suggestions. His email address is NLP101648@aol.com.  The goal of many of the Scientific Working Groups is to develope a "consensus of opinion" as to minimum standards.  You pointed out the obstacles to this goal.... how do you know when you have a consensus?   So , you do what Nick Patraco is doing and ask for input from the forensic community outside of their SWGhair group.  I can forward this document to any other interested parties.
Jenny Smith
 
 
 
 
--------------C574D3084C71F7AF098363E1-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 18:47:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04393 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:43:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04388 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:43:16 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.8.55f33a (4543); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:42:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8.55f33a.25ba48f2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:42:42 EST Subject: Re: Hair Analysis To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us, Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 1/20/00 12:50:11 AM, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us writes: << Fred, You raise excellent questions. To respond to the Daubert question, I feel hair exams will be subjected to a Daubert hearing and should be..... Just as questioned documents and even "eye Witness identifications" should be. I do believe there is a place for hair exams but I am thankful every day for DNA. I would compare the value of hair reports to the witness of a crime describing a certain "make model and color" of a vehicle implicated in the crime. This is an observation and a useful one. But everyone should know that there could be other cars in the area that fit that description. It is not unique. I think you will find that experienced hair examiners will be the first to agree that there is an inevitable error rate. I know the FBI has figures on their error rate since they began confirming with DNA but is that open for public scrutiny? I doubt it. It's next to impossible to obtain the FBI's error rate on DNA testing. As recently as 1997, they were literally claiming infallibility, and the latest few sentences squeezed out of them in a case in Puerto Rico claimed that 5-6 examiners recently tested had no errors. I attended the fbi's hair and fiber class in '92. I found them too confident in a hair "match" for my tastes. They made statements such as, "I have looked at 2,000 hair control samples and never found 2 alike so I can state probabities like 1 in 2,000...." That always make me uncomfortable, more so now. I don't think they say that anymore. I have been doing hair exams for 10 years. An inexperienced (and idealistic) hair examiner can be dangerous in this field. (I could have been) They might be over zealous in their belief in the discriminating value of hair comparisons. I have found that the more I see the more conservative I am. I have seen hair controls from family members I could not distinguish.... Even hair controls from a suspect and victim in the same case. With more experience you are more like ly to find these instances. They cause you to pause and reflect on the limitations of the exam. You get very conservative. In fact, I feel that if anything your false EXCLUSION is high because your criteria for calling a Q and K similar is so tight. You might find many similarities but implicating someone in a crime is a serious call. I know for certain that a Q hair can be dissimilar to every hair in a control and still be from the same source as the control. An experienced examiner knows the limitations of the exam, qualifies their report and makes sure that prosecutors and juries also know the limitations of the exam. Cfwhiteh@aol.com wrote: > For now about two years I have been following the off and on discussions > concerning forensic hair analysis on this list. I have a question about all > of this that I have heard. If the folks on this list are representative of > the forensic science community in general then the community is not decided > about the value of hair analysis, whether opinions rendered concerning data > in hair analysis are valid, whether such opinions ought to be offered in > courts of law. It seems that the level of disagreement is significant among > peers. If this is so then how can forensic hair analysis pass the Frye test? > If there is so much disagreement among us concerning its validity. And > among all the discussions I have not seen anywhere a description of hair > analysis' ability to pass Daubert standards. Has it been tested? If so > then where are the published results of those tests. What is the error rate? > Is that published? Many years ago my Section Chief at the FBI's lab told me > that DNA analysis was being pursued for hair analysis because hair analysis > was so subjective and prone to error. At the time I was troubled that this > opinion would not be part of information presented in courts of law or at > least in reports as possible exculpatory information. But it was not. It > seems that for close to 20 years now we have known that hair analysis may > have a high error rate and yet we have continued to use it. Why? > Fred Whitehurst ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb04.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:50:11 -0500 Received: from brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:49:47 1900 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA02890 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:06:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA02885 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.194]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08878; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:06:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3885DA2C.C3425689@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:37:16 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Hair Analysis References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk >> From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 18:55:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04459 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:52:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04454 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:52:39 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.d8.efe9fa (4543) for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:52:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:52:07 EST Subject: Fwd: Californians Split on Death Penalty To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_d8.efe9fa.25ba4b27_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_d8.efe9fa.25ba4b27_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John: I sent the email to Philip on January 10, 2000. It is attached below. Thank you, Laura -----Original Message----- From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:24 PM To: Oppenheimer, Laura Cc: pk@pwearne.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Fwd: Fw: Remainders of Tainting Evidence Hi Laura, Phillip asked me to forward this to you since he's on his way to Scotland. I know you didn't agree to $1.75, so we assume the $2/book you quoted me on the phone is the price. Please try to phone me on Friday, and I'll try to phone you. Cheers, John Kelly (202) 328-0178 Philip: As per John's request attached is a copy of the Remainder letter. To order copies just fll the order out with a credit card #, ship-to address... Simon & Schuster TRADE Remainder & Hurt Books November 30, 1999 1230 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10020 Fax: (212) 698-2359 Tel: (212) 698-2132 ROBERT I. DUCAS THE BARN HOUSE, 244 WESTSIDE RD NORFOLK, CT 06058 ATTN: JOHN KELLY & PHILLIP WEARNE As part of the general effort to reduce excess inventory, it is necessary for Simon & Schuster to offer slow moving titles to special trade channels at a reduced price. As you know, this type of sale is called a "Remainder" sale. It has been decided that the remaining inventory of the title shown at the bottom of this page will be sold in this way. Before this takes place however, we would like to offer you the opportunity to buy as much of the inventory listed below, as you would like at a discounted price. It is important for you to know that once the stock is sold it may be difficult for you to obtain copies of the book. For this reason I suggest that you buy as many copies as you need now rather than try to obtain them later. We accept credit card payment only. Our accounting office will compute sales tax where applicable and you will receive an itemized invoice when your books arrive. Please return this completed form to the attention of Laura Oppenheimer. We must receive all credit card orders by December 30,1999. Please let us know if more time is required. If you have any questions, please contact me or anyone in the office either by fax or phone. Thank you, If you would like to purchase copies of your book, please fill in the following information: Name____________________________________________________________________ Ship-to Address____________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip_____________________________________________________________ Phone Number_____________________________________________________________ Credit Card Holder's name____________________________________________________ Credit Card name____________________________________________________________ Credit Card number_________________________________________________________ Credit Card expiration date______________________________________________________ Number of Copies__________________________________________________________ Laura Oppenheimer-Sales Coordinator-Fax # (212) 698-2359-Tel # (212) 698-2132 ISBN TITLE, TYPE AUTHOR PRICE INVENTORY 0684846462 TAINTING EVIDENCE, HC JOHN KELLY & PHILLIP WEARNE $3.97 8,580 Thank you, Laura -----Original Message----- From: KJohn39679@aol.com [mailto:KJohn39679@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:24 PM To: Oppenheimer, Laura Cc: pk@pwearne.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Fwd: Fw: Remainders of Tainting Evidence Hi Laura, Phillip asked me to forward this to you since he's on his way to Scotland. I know you didn't agree to $1.75, so we assume the $2/book you quoted me on the phone is the price. Please try to phone me on Friday, and I'll try to phone you. Cheers, John Kelly (202) 328-0178 -----Original Message----- From: phillip wearne To: laura.oppenheimer@simonandschuster.com Date: Friday, December 31, 1999 10:15 AM Subject: Remainders of Tainting Evidence Dear Laura, I haven't heard from you and don't know if you're working today but trust that you've now had time to talk to your boss. As you recall there were issues outstanding. 1. The name of the current distributor of the book. 2. Whether we could continue to warehouse the copies at Riverside NJ after purchase if we paid the market storage price. 3. Whether you would accept $1.75 per copy. 4. Terms of payment. I suggest an electronic transfer of the funds from the UK to youer bank account within 30 days of any agreement, which I suggest should be by January 7, 2000, your deadline for a deal. The purchase will be made from here in Britain so there should be no sales tax. My email address as you can see is pk@pwearne.freeserve.co.uk and my telephone number here is 011-44-181-539-1980. I will be here in Britain for at least the next two weeks. Hope to hear from you shortly. In the meantime have a wonderful New Year. Yours Phillip Wearne -------------------- ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (rly-yb03.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.3]) by air-yb03.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:12:34 -0500 Received: from usrlms006.prenhall.com (usrlms006.prenhall.com [198.4.159.40]) by rly-yb03.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:12:09 -0500 Received: from usrlms004.prenhall.com (168.146.69.20) by usrlms006.prenhall.com (NPlex 2.0.119) for KJohn39679@aol.com; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:11:57 -0400 Received: by usrlms004.prenhall.com (NPlex 2.0.119); Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:10:52 -0500 From: Laura.Oppenheimer@simonandschuster.com To: KJohn39679@aol.com Subject: RE: Fw: Remainders of Tainting Evidence X400-Content-Identifier: RE: Fw: Remainde Message-Id: <"/GUID:QZRWOsarJ0xGtCAAQWgH+Kw*/G=Laura/S=Oppenheimer/OU=schuster{095}exch/O= viacom-ny/PRMD=viacom/ADMD=mci/C=us/"@MHS> Date: 13 Jan 2000 10:12:46 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Encoding: 29 text, 72 text, 26 text, 63 uuencode --part1_d8.efe9fa.25ba4b27_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37]) by air-yc05.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:02:44 -0500 Received: from pimout3-int.prodigy.net (pimout3-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.59.211]) by rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:02:12 -0500 Received: from pavilion (CHCGB806-45.splitrock.net [209.254.84.196]) by pimout3-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA5615062; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:02:01 -0500 Message-ID: <008301bf62af$a1cb0920$c454fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" Subject: Californians Split on Death Penalty Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:01:43 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01BF626C.921E1BE0"; type="multipart/alternative" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BF626C.921E1BE0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0080_01BF626C.921E1BE0" ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BF626C.921E1BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 JANUARY 18, 21:38 EST=20 Californians Split on Death Penalty=20 By BOB EGELKO=20 Associated Press Writer=20 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Defying conventional wisdom, a new poll = says Californians are evenly divided between death and life without = parole as the proper punishment for first-degree murder.=20 The survey, by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of = California, contrasts with polls that have consistently shown support of = about 3-1 for capital punishment, both statewide and nationwide. Those = polls have simply asked respondents whether they favored or opposed the = death penalty.=20 The Public Policy Institute poll asked whether they thought the = penalty for first-degree murder should be death or ``life imprisonment = with absolutely no possibility of parole.'' Those are the two choices = for a jury in the penalty phase of a capital case.=20 Forty-nine percent chose death, 47 percent chose life and the = rest were undecided. The poll, based on telephone interviews with 2,007 = randomly chosen Californians between Jan. 2 and Jan. 10, had a margin of = error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.=20 When the same question was asked nationally by the Gallup = Organization in February, 56 percent favored the death penalty compared = to 38 percent for life without parole, said Mark Baldassare, the Public = Policy Institute poll director.=20 He said a single poll is not enough to signal a statewide shift = in public opinion, but suggests at least that ``opinions are not as hard = on this issue as we might have thought they were.''=20 California has more than 550 people on death row and has = executed seven since resuming capital punishment in 1992 after a 25-year = lapse.=20 =20 home ] us news ] world ] business ] sports ] weather ] search ] = help ] =20 =20 Copyright 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or = redistributed. Comments and questions AP privacy statement =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BF626C.921E1BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



JANUARY=20 18, 21:38 EST

Californians Split = on Death=20 Penalty

By BOB EGELKO =
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Defying conventional wisdom, a new = poll says=20 Californians are evenly divided between death and life without = parole as=20 the proper punishment for first-degree murder.

The survey, by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of = California,=20 contrasts with polls that have consistently shown support of = about 3-1=20 for capital punishment, both statewide and nationwide. Those = polls have=20 simply asked respondents whether they favored or opposed the = death=20 penalty.

The Public Policy Institute poll asked whether they thought = the=20 penalty for first-degree murder should be death or ``life = imprisonment=20 with absolutely no possibility of parole.'' Those are the two = choices=20 for a jury in the penalty phase of a capital case.

Forty-nine percent chose death, 47 percent chose life and the = rest=20 were undecided. The poll, based on telephone interviews with = 2,007=20 randomly chosen Californians between Jan. 2 and Jan. 10, had a = margin of=20 error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

When the same question was asked nationally by the Gallup=20 Organization in February, 56 percent favored the death penalty = compared=20 to 38 percent for life without parole, said Mark Baldassare, the = Public=20 Policy Institute poll director.

He said a single poll is not enough to signal a statewide = shift in=20 public opinion, but suggests at least that ``opinions are not as = hard on=20 this issue as we might have thought they were.''

California has more than 550 people on death row and has = executed=20 seven since resuming capital punishment in 1992 after a 25-year = lapse.=20

home ] us news ] world ] business ] sports ] weather ] search ] help ]

Copyright = 2000 Associated=20 Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be = published,=20 broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Comments and=20 questions
AP=20 privacy statement

------=_NextPart_001_0080_01BF626C.921E1BE0-- ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BF626C.921E1BE0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="?MItabObj=static_images&MInamObj=staticimageid&MIvalObj=201345" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://wire.ap.org/APnews/?MItabObj=static_images&MInamObj=staticimageid&MIvalObj=201345 R0lGODlhyAAhAOYAAEcAAEUAAEoAAEwAAEoBAE8AAEwCAlYAAFQAAFEDA1cBAVsAAFoCAlEGBmAA AGYAAF4DBGkAAGUBAVMJCmEDBG8AAGYEBFkLC2YHBnkAAGsICH8AAF0OD4EAAAAwXnAKCV4SEpAA AGcSEnUMDJgAAJYBAJQCApQEBG0VFH4ODo0ICIUQEG0cHIgSEooUFHwcHJgSEooYGGkmJ4ocHHAp KY0eHpkeH40kJXssLJYlJHwzMo0tKpooJ6UpKIQ3N5IxMZU2NqUwMIQ/P5c6N5c+P6s2N4VFRpZC RJdERas9PJxISYxPTqtDQ51NS7BFRpBTVZxTUq9LTLRPUJ1ZWp9cXq9XVbxRUrhZWaJjYqJnZrdf XqdqaLtjYqlvbLxnZqp0b7xtbKh5e8BydKt8gLOAgMh6e7iEgsuDgLaKi7mPkc6HhM+OjL2WlsKb m9OVk8efn8iko8yrp9GxrdK3sdi7ttrEvt/KyOHP0eXU2eba3ubi5ern6u/s7vXx8fr38f///yH5 BAEAAB4ALAAAAADIACEAAAf/gA+Cg4SFhoeIiYqLjI2Oj5CRkpOUlZaXmJmam5ycXVmGOjgSik91 Gp2pqquXEBoYsBo5XzsWEBgpMyuwLSMQDBQMBQgICsYKFGxjDMcMI3ZsDMzHEAorXWNxfDhfY95j XWFfXVtZWJ9YVFBNSkhK70hHQj70Pz5DSWMsbTleZT9qrlQRcybMGTFHDDQIwIBDAwEEBEicSFHi iosYkSCRqHHFGAEfP1YUgCRMGAFHUh5ZcQTlCgEsX2IcOTGFzZsDcqbIqVPnIGAaNIyAQ4dOGQwX yMiRI2ZFmjp0tDCAsvRIAgVP4MChIkTIBzhx5DwR0QdPGioc0sR5w0IDjjp4/+zsedHNjJw3d/CY IUMnDZ05ZODS+fJFzp06b560gTrGxw0hPZhgsQLGX5k1XtZYiWPlzBk4YlKsCAAChAECBDx6e0lz pAGJLpAYcOeRDGuK7cgIaKeEjDsDYV6GUbIizGyXGG8bMEDmSLvkFmW+/IlMwws7adL0mcImD5o3 eeDc+Y5niZ82bfw8wdJHq561LOqkadMHxx48W/HQGVNnrp85beCRBwpTbGHGH3nUkYceWPzRR4L3 paFff2DZ0cYebcRRxww/MEFEFVEk4YUYV4hRBhdlXLFGGXJYRgQBpCUwQQLLfbSCbzO1pmNrs5Fh QGy+zVacALrBtIILY5Dxkf9vY2xkkUQGjLGCkLdVedEgCjBDASw+fJHHG1ChkIIGeZihgQQa6CWB BG3QsQcZEiyAgRxxSGNEF31AgdgDQtSHAgt/xGHHAxJokccIOexQRR8fjPCCHzj8gcUIZPQxAg5Y 7JGHHRqwkIIdpzT6wQ34VAGGGGO44cYaqoIRh6pljFjGFhcYIEIDHKRgQG1NtvONlE3G5gJMO050 G0UXkTTbbEg02dEYy5FExrRG3jaGCz5+JBsSyRIrAJYMpICBD/e5GccRe/CRxxdY8HFfFn3oEBQS efThwwIKQCAHHErscQcdfVBRRxsOoOFHHXbYkccdYzhAARaH3pCDEn5YEMP/DX3s8IcPK2gDFx53 NLGHpmGIrO4YLwCBRBVVYJEEGFVY4YUWVqDohhpEuVHFF0IEEAAANs3W0kXL3diCN0xopKRHSPhm pEjFUhTtlLvG1k6UGwm5kUxQZnuRklGqlmRJg0CQCwWHRSABHHNI8MEObPwxggY+yOHHHlQA8UNg flDBwAAI9PXemnpMUQccDmDhR1ASOBAHGxJAMMWhM9TARB8aVN7HCxu34AYfEXwgugYr7PDGHzbt 0IbcN+xgwxVO9CCGE05wAYYTVkjRgxZScIGGG7NiMIEBACQAQNOvrbAtty81y8RF7hzNm0e5IWF1 tzQdO9FrUO54kZQgQZtt/5QtEDfGF2XbpIAdeOjwBR+Ph+G+H2+AAUQafrCxBxH9kgHHHkh4Ap3S cAc7+GAMAYtDHujhBzkEMA5k4MMSIHaHD9QgB5frQhXowAcMbMwFTPADHJoAhjfshwgIbAMZhhCG PkTgB0moghfAEIUrWMGGXriCFtTAQzFIoQpO2EIZcHCDnwEAAMQzlgDK16ymjYE4zIJJC6zHrSnG Rmkm2ZqUYpOjqLVmBbmZ1rSkRIajEY0MYcBSMBQggjvwATFk+IKA8DCFMeBBD3hAQgTgoAcMUeAr eggPOGiwoDnQwQgikAsa3hJIOWDgf3dIAxxG0IQjQOE//tqBBu5wAxfUQP8Jd9DUGtCQB39BgQx3 xAMVNGADG/yglUFIQhGK0AMrBKEIQehBD5yQBDGAAQxB0AISAkABCBwRADCJyPaWsyvlxYYJzrLN E5EwxWrOhgkc0U1tSsIbmFCxSBXBXkWYCb0mTTEMCUECliAgAWZYxwIOcAADLDACCkggFy/4QARu MgIHoMkCr3AbA+QEggf4UxofOOgr4skAFFiAUC8IAxnwNyoUoOAHOxiBJ2vgghSMAAMfsMkHKiC6 MVVgBDPYQRSkYIXa4c4KZXDCicAQqyjMIAlMOJUUWHCBn82gVhDxYvcuMkUm3Yh54GOWbMYwRScR SUpK8AZMwPekdnjrqgL/+JEBpqiE5aQAXAyAgCs6qgAEMAADFLCAAjTgUQywdQQ2scXbXKBWt5aV AcVAwB9HoNYsSUMaQWHGDKZlMBR0ARtk2IISgHCDGTg2Bo5dgU1GsIIRwLUFM8hBEZKghRrSlAtc UIMVCFKGJLjhDF7wghNyWYUpoGACEEhADJajTIlATajRgslKrgUS2/jGNk1jjfKY0yMnNk9KTdua 9SZCm2XuagDUESsEttRXZkgDAwx4KwVGEAMgVJYCGnCBCzBwCw0IowDUsCwFspSldmIArhhQwAiw kKQsoGAMElVSkrYABSIwtgY1gKxjK1e5HwBhCjdIQhd6kIQ1XIEHp+0B/6tGKwfKzK4yQeABEhow AiKIhokwiZJQhRu1K06JWxJ5jo86YiQDJI1IzQKSRrzRVBQ3SSJEGAQHOCACFtBAB0IwwhKgcI7D HtYkZjDDGeRAhzeoYS9jMMM3lDTGX+k3SVaG8hj8UhRDFuXLYJ7DHJYSB7DA4Q1wyBAb3HAXJvcg Cmfggg3WIIYiXAamZRjt7MwQBS0w4QY4CEAYoPBNkICEe7KBDomZO6xiUUm4zbsRSFCcVWgxdVrN 89GKfTMsd0Arx4LAazHDCosCQGAEnQyGddm6ghw0YQeTJe+oxeqMFUDArMNghll/8ddRW2MLU8Yy lSUaBvyOgxzpgAIUlP/Q35cVgQt0SILMxCA7LgThl05wgxiuLQYmoOHa/p3BEH7QBCKsIGk3QhKU rtUsj1yEi0fKmlOl5lTpFKtbTYpS2Ng9PiVBaVsCQJ8gChBe867VvGft6Hp/YQxcvLeyvdCAWC3w gRZ8QKwfwEABhIHXjbPXr9IIxgeU0AXC/MobEkX5F8JwWCxgYQpTeAISmg0GHnjBDjpTQxmKoAYf guEM2T5DFKqghjzEQYZc+AEL2CCHG5hbI1xUCx/+8Ic7yKEKylKeNKlogDnYAQhdoMMfDkYDaElk C3Pog4PaQAMBdKEORvAWnbhnADPUQQYu2AIeqN7AOETpakSaTQK6MAj/CrhgBhrIkgY+YIGwTsOs f83u3FIQUhf4IhgpIEIOEs9WDCRgGMVQAD3X+1daU6AFOeCBhqFABSpoYQslV9LKCYPsKSj7CFOI AhIuXAY64I4LOhTDiMTgSzGgCA6BkoIWwKAFFtzBDyI4ItGO5gc/xAFndfgDGGIDE1+RUTZiz8Mf 6LAYBzUhq17oQx/esIY0/IEPMkBCoLKmA6pPwCLuAsEc/qCXMdhtDyDQAsexbylAeKEGCwwgAe81 N9IAeSBnXeTFVhS3CyEnFJdnARawJQqwcWbTAtgFcr9wai0QAzHgAjZweDNgAzlgYESABE1ABVnQ BViQBTA3BUhABVWg/wVU4AVnAAZ2QAenIgZqoG03owZrsCJl4AaBAgNMQAVosAV14Ac30AEFoEwN YAd/8AQJ0AElUAJR4AQqoDzt0ALuRixiJwdJMAQqAANX8AdqwAA08H5VAAQnYAJV8AdzAAH3cQIP IABxQHVgcAICIAN9MAdU8Ad2YAARUIc2sH0RkFVEsxwJ8FWC0F7GcGpBsV7GEHrDkC8hlQIuoARN 4A458FHsBQEZiFZvJQz5El8PGAxmUzk2MGCzWIIpWAM2cEE/MATMBnOsNwVYUAW4lAMzEARroIJB YANOoIy7tIxW0GCBQgIvIwbv0wc1YAIFMCME0AB68Ac6EAIh0AEVkP8BHUACEZBb0gFGYhcEJBAC JJADPdAHdGAC7lcFKkACJ3ACKiB2ISAHfQCPFKMgd0ACKwAFfxAGYvAHcHACJEACKlABJwCOBRAd EpET1GEMFJAClUQEMbBGoicUKWADMfADU0AEJJlYStIEQ1ADvhByaAUBH2BrHreB0uBXC8ddtpiL uYiLkHUDNxBgF+OTOPADGNVYNcADRKB8YlAUZ+AGZnAzcqAGZ7AGauAFTKAFf3AGJBAEZlAGYsAH ftADJ2ADTXBicoAgYkAEIAAlD7AA3EMTp7MD+HgABnADb0QCe/AHbSCVc7AG/PEHNoCVTtACUaCQ SsgEOaAG2tcDVLf/BlMgA8MDE2HoTayRAgkwCAggAS5wAz+AQmQABV0ABDygNzxgYEQJBEDABDY4 BE0AbGTQBeuABIwlLmGFiiFVDR9nVqomDSnQAuIlYAA2AyQ4i8E5Az9JYDawA0TwIZwVO7vkBj2w WVZQS3YGWmXAItFoA5EBBn3gB0FQAjUwBV8AHGkgflQ3fmDQAt6zAnFJAgcgESDAB/N4nvQ5dmHp An8gBiewBn6AmH9QBjUgdi1AAmeQl1S3B3aABd2iBMEhADwxCCNQA0SgkkPQDVjwBSWJBEMABENA BBs6BCAqiiGKWF3QBCZ6okCAeMAwN7spXzWwAo0nVpRFhkciXjCQ/4K0mIK2GAM14JM30ANBMAMi gAJF0AAX8AEQ9AEgcAUoAAEcYAU4MAEi0ANS8AdrQAJVIHQ8oAfeSQIDwAEu0AJhQCN2Bh5UBxjM pQRY1Z7vKQAgsAdzYAJUBwMuAAM3IVIk4Ad0QAJlsgJ5igck0Ad7UAEkkAIocAVqADB/sAdVwBph 4AJHMAZH0AUrMAg/IIpQAKJY8JpbsAUcuqEcipqouYseQgRH0AT6pQWiyA5NsGxEYAOMt3grcHFn NQNAMAKk1ptE5ZsuAFkkCAMkSILCCVk1UDksgAJMcAEo8AFgAAKHRxA2wANikIszAAYzwAGEKQRu SAItUASfsQd9UP8EIZACQtCCJwETNtCQVeoH5ycAJgYsHnEHf8AEBJlVUCCPIbB3TtCQ/NqvyHcC f8ACKlACaACYf6AFMEACw0KoJNAD3QgGLwEc7jYAXUCJD3AEyzkFHrIF09IFvqERstmh/iWqphqi m+oNGmGiq8oOSnADkzVesNAotwCTR5kDPglguZgDPVqsOylgM/ACM0AEL/ACXGCCLQAGRTADLtCU a9ADZzADteQFM1AEUcAFR4AgJPABSIACQACWNmACKMAGbzAFStAGY4MFTNACU6ewbOB3UeICHhEl excFJJAFrwECfWAHJlAGVaewBfC3BSAEn6etb7AHDRACFRCHYnf/ASFQBCyQPCpgA1jIBSbwEj4S HBR7mQ8QAR56g+WWBV9AZYSGBEwAokiwnB4KouPGAxLDPzrYgutwopiaqTsAA+RlC7RmNirjgq6n Dq0KBVNABaPIDqjLBPTQBD/AA1pwA0XAAaUVAy8QU2vgrbpkIjEQBFwQBUzApVIQmPBSfV+rA+qn Aw0AP08AAjYABGd5pUFAdTjibrGBfOzIABKBMXYQAjaQfXPABBMwWNl3EUCgdm5AAO45AftnBxNA AmPgB2MQpRcAL3zQAyTQh1tzBAPgoYPAi0gAc0AABa83LVtwukfQoaoLBDlAhpQ1JjZxQSbsAivI msJLur6oBKWY/4HTNV0rILJNoAWH9QVboIPn4MMuhwVQsAQxNwVgQAQ5BQRRIAJlEAU2wAKipSpN 6wRX4AaaJRCjVZ9wgAd+kK464Ad98ANIWp+BcgEm0L5/oAKCOFweIXZ026ZvWgckYAIXcJb1eQdK UAVmkJdXEAQukAA3YqXuuARTR5978ATl+IgUMQApMASDsJw5sAIwsAIjmQPuQMMpKF4eBVcjEFKi 8skaFWA/4LKiEQM80KouGLyrugO4iFYWEIqle6rAOA6tpwUF8gWtVw7AiwRXoFimEkMowGezuAa0 4wZ20JRs5gVcQAZl4GenogZvwFlMYAX5yAJUYAQwUAIQwAJacP8GZpAFgluOKSBkDTlOQ1AFOeCe U9UGa9ACNiBZSVAGZyBJMuAADGkASpCeJHCCSVIGPEACNXAEE+AD4EwGVcABEdCObVqRDyoImgdX LLkCmEVuSACrovPJizc6JQVXITXKLjzJHuWbOQAEmDoFJroOQ8ADr8BVGsGaLVNy7EIFBcJfU0CD NggFW9AEpnKV98U7UhADsFMEx3hDbjBaKdJZWpAEJdCQTR0ECetjDJCPDGAAG1DH/doBL7EA50wT 5djQAlAAJAADTUMEGdCvDQkDJPEFDdkDyuMR63wCTGAAD+CO/RoCfegtljkABTAILhBSrTYDZNib E/oDFmdZotzQyZ8sOhndKLMY0jdxETaRvsBrosELBS3AVkBwoqerBFPweqHbBVTgcjCXbEswBPSw AzRwrCIwNxpATysgAS0gDS5QAEqQAAngm9yzAgUQAQ85kXEyAEuUAo0qEQcQARVgAyrwA8rjrj+Q 18eiBF8l3BMxAO1kLAtQASqw3UPwEnArAT9wBBrRDi4wBXRZkQuw3RXwABNJkTxRAB4Q3/I93/Rd 3/Z93/id3/q93/zd3/793wAe4AI+4ARe4AZ+4Aie4Aq+4Aze4A7+4BAe4fQdCAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BF626C.921E1BE0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="tabs2.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/WIREtabs/tabs2.gif R0lGODlh2AAhAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAEALAAAAADYACEAAAL/hI+pu+HBYnqyWkSv3vNBDhre SJaQiaYlQKko68DubMoyjdP3mfe8HwPibELervhqIZe745LkHD5TRCEsOlVis67bdvpVhZlBa5m7 OqNz3jUUeRxLf0CWPOmJq+nutPKJdfc2Iti112NHljfY1Cf2p+hXByUSc3WQQbV3RVjZopf4sXiG +dZUyWkZWiqacdm2iepl8+p6ODe6epKYWsPXy/dpuluma5TWSHysFZQKSwgJ67xcNeqjp8y7y4oM /evkKWwsfRvK3Ita/OHJnvytfuzeejuDras9Zg7vnQearTZtRTJjwuL5grQMWkB9ykiZ8XapmZFw AimtYpfJYkY6/7RexKFVi5qqkesY9Qtp6RDKYDocdQLk8mXMlizpPUQ0M2WkmRRzJgmEppDNoEIH +Szah6HLoiE6rGvaQBVUBa6mhqhqtcLJrBKsXUMIB2yRakfFriGb1Gw9tV+H4nR7lm0WtG7osoF7 t+ZDpGPxRuJLU+9awW0Bm/TJzOhcv30Z+5Gn6XDgg3ztUpY0OLJhxfvMQMYDMS+eynIVYj5IczO/ xLbmgePYrh/JRR87suLWUJtrWShjF2wVcSSG4NwYlvJth3g4YORYGk/MCVjDYbl9EdE98JzEH+P+ ubvn8FnCbdo5vvvVzRoG8+jBiRDf0xy+2+nUDad+/756g9zPr3vHBB9AzolUEW3o/SNTLuaJpxMx zxkUnVcZtcHgddtZSJ19CjIHW0f0xNcacCq5t8lssoVIn4ITKbXbRb1d1NlyvpV0SoyE1aNaglz0 dFSOOCLGY1tx1YUYZzEFWZdqPkq4WJFMLrVkZE5OSWWVVl6JZZZabslll15qWQAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BF626C.921E1BE0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="aplogo_clear.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://wire.ap.org/APwire/static/images/general/aplogo_clear.gif R0lGODlhHwAVAID/AP8AAMDAwCH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAAfABUAQAJPjI8Gu+l/mGRBRlsxmrnBP1Eh 9YxhB6DeB5IsdL6smdLrhnEad9mN5ZLBgsIesZgYIYcn24ymijl0wKDGaEJFk76f6Krifm9TcNi8 FKcgBQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01BF626C.921E1BE0-- --part1_d8.efe9fa.25ba4b27_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 21 20:39:57 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05170 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:38:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05165 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:37:57 -0500 (EST) From: Amflaw@aol.com Received: from Amflaw@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.77.d44764 (5739); Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:37:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <77.d44764.25ba63ce@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 20:37:18 EST Subject: Re: issues of competence To: crimguychris@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk to continue from my last post...the story re: incompetence may have been on Medscape's Healthwatch. Wherever I saw it, it's definitely real. A. FitzGerald amflaw@aol.com From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 13:29:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11608 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:25:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11603 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:25:48 -0500 (EST) From: Elycezahn@aol.com Received: from Elycezahn@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.57.f39df1 (4323) for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:25:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <57.f39df1.25bb500e@aol.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:25:18 EST Subject: Forensics in the '30s & '40s To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I'm researching a mystery series which I will be setting in San Francisco from 1933 - 1947. What forensics procedures were typically used during that time period? Also, does anyone know of a web site (or book or magazine(s)) that I could contact/research to learn about police/investigation procedures for that same period? Thanks, in advance, for your help. Elyce From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 13:43:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11742 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:41:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe41.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.36]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA11737 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:41:51 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 23847 invoked by uid 65534); 22 Jan 2000 18:41:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20000122184124.23846.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.132] To: Subject: Dismissal of Complaint Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:01:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For those of you who followed the allegations made by Mr. Turvey against Barbara Corey-Boulet, they were dismissed this past December, a portion of which is described herein: Part of the 3 page dismissal letter authored by the Washington State Bar Association stated: "In contested matters, an active investigation into the qualification's of the opposing party's experts is not necessarily inappropriate. Ms. Corey-Boulet's activities were designed to acquire information that could be used to rebut the opposing party's position that your expert testimony would be admissible at trial. Ms. Corey-Boulet, apparently through the efforts of a paralegal, discovered information that was inconsistent with representations you made in your resume and in during the interview. For example, you claimed that following receipt of the by the prosecution of your profile in State of Oklahoma v. Larry Kenneth Jackson, a sentence reduction was granted. Ms. Corey-Boulet learned that the defendant in fact had been sentenced to death. We note that ultimately your testimony was ruled inadmissible by the court in Rasmussen. Under the circumstances, we do not see that Ms. Corey-Boulet went beyond the bounds of vigorous advocacy expected of a prosecuting attorney." From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 15:08:48 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12251 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:07:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca (jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca [142.177.1.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12246 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from v6h6e9 ([142.177.75.8]) by jubilee.ns.sympatico.ca (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 607-63094U73000L73000S0V35) with SMTP id ca for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:06:25 -0400 From: pcraig@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul Craig) To: Subject: Memphis, Tennessee Request Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 16:14:53 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF64F3.D10290A0" 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 V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF64F3.D10290A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings: I am wondering if anyone on the list is from Memphis, Tennessee or knows of any forensic scientists or crime scene investigators from that area. I am a writer in Canada who is searching for someone who can assist in research for a mystery novel. Please e-mail me at: pcraig@ns.sympatico.ca Thank you very much. Kindest regards and best wishes, Paul C. Craig Boutilier's Point, Nova Scotia ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF64F3.D10290A0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+IjUUAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANAHAQAWABAADgAAAAYAEgEB A5AGAEQGAAAlAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAB4AcAAB AAAAGwAAAE1lbXBoaXMsIFRlbm5lc3NlZSBSZXF1ZXN0AAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABv2UVVmGCQAwC 0OUR05vPREVTVAAAAAACAR0MAQAAABwAAABTTVRQOlBDUkFJR0BOUy5TWU1QQVRJQ08uQ0EACwAB DgAAAABAAAYOAPQfOBVlvwECAQoOAQAAABgAAAAAAAAA66odcWJZvxGVQn6GZhnNLMKAAAALAB8O AQAAAAIBCRABAAAA5gEAAOIBAABhAgAATFpGdfP6xcMDAAoAcmNwZzEyNRYyAPgLYG4OEDAzM08B 9wKkA+MCAGNoCsBzsGV0MCAHEwKAfQqBknYIkHdrC4BkNAxgTmMAUAsDC7UgRwnRdHELgGdzOgqi CoQKgEngIGFtIHcCIASBFCEmIAaQFUBueQIgZSDRAiAgdGgWoGwEAAVADQQAIANSBdBlbXBo8QQA LCBUCfAWkAQQCeBDFrAFwGtub3cEIG/fFjMXoAWwCfAN0SAE8AiQ/wIwF0EZoQXABQEHgBqxCfAb FqALgHYHkBQQZ2F0PwWwF5UW8BzgFUAJcGEutCAgFTNhFXAFEHQEkEkcUSBDAHBhZB6haP5vF3IR IArAEOAV4hoxGrCtA3BlFoIf0mMDkWEEED8XQwOgCXAgRCDTHqBteV8XUASQGhAZcByAbB4hUMZs HgARICBlLQDAAxHPG9Ec4BRrDIIgcAUAC3DkZ0AAgC5zBsAKsBQQLQWgLiHgFHpUEPBua7IgFnB1 IByAJAFtEsD0aC4UeksScRyRIrEc0McLIAQgAHBkIGIrYgPxnxcAGGAl+wsCJKBhdQMg2kMeIEMn IhR0QghgFBBLFzAEkCcEIFBvC4B07RhwTiRAHqBTBaAUEChbFwr1FJIR4QAzAAAACwABgAggBgAA AAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMA B4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFKFAAAnagEAHgAJgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUA AAEAAAAEAAAAOS4wAB4ACoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAuA CCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAMgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYA AAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAsADYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAIKFAAABAAAACwA6gAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUAAAAAAAADADyACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAA AAMAPYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAAAwBbgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAA AYUAAAAAAAALAJCACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAIB+A8BAAAAEAAAAOuqHXFi Wb8RlUJ+hmYZzSwCAfoPAQAAABAAAADrqh1xYlm/EZVCfoZmGc0sAgH7DwEAAACCAAAAAAAAADih uxAF5RAaobsIACsqVsIAAFBTVFBSWC5ETEwAAAAAAAAAAE5JVEH5v7gBAKoAN9luAAAAQzpcV0lO RE9XU1xMb2NhbCBTZXR0aW5nc1xBcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBEYXRhXE1pY3Jvc29mdFxPdXRsb29rXG91 dGxvb2sucHN0AAAAAwD+DwUAAAADAA00/TcAAAIBfwABAAAANgAAADxMUEJCSkZFQ0pGQ01ITEdJ S1BIRk1FSktDQUFBLnBjcmFpZ0Bucy5zeW1wYXRpY28uY2E+AAAAAwAGEGKK1ccDAAcQRgEAAAMA EBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABHUkVFVElOR1M6SUFNV09OREVSSU5HSUZBTllPTkVP TlRIRUxJU1RJU0ZST01NRU1QSElTLFRFTk5FU1NFRU9SS05PV1NPRkFOWUZPUkVOU0lDU0NJRU5U SVNUU09SQ1JJTUVTAAAAAFNO ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BF64F3.D10290A0-- From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 15:56:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12510 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from alpha.urdirect.net (root@alpha.urdirect.net [216.136.28.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12505 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 15:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (pm3a-06.satx.urdirect.net [216.136.28.85]) by alpha.urdirect.net (8.8.8/8.8.8/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA25097 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:54:29 -0600 Message-ID: <001401bf651b$3a40a260$551c88d8@default> Reply-To: "Mike" From: "Mike" To: References: <57.f39df1.25bb500e@aol.com> Subject: Re: Forensics in the '30s & '40s Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 14:56:58 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You might check out "The Casebook of Forensic Detection", by Colin Evans, published by John Wiley & Sons, 1996. He details 100 actual cases through the years, including many in the time period you mentioned. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 12:25 PM Subject: Forensics in the '30s & '40s > I'm researching a mystery series which I will be setting in San Francisco > from 1933 - 1947. What forensics procedures were typically used during that > time period? > > Also, does anyone know of a web site (or book or magazine(s)) that I could > contact/research to learn about police/investigation procedures for that same > period? > > Thanks, in advance, for your help. > > Elyce > From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 23:39:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15619 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:36:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from nfstc.org (server49.aitcom.net [208.234.0.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15614 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:36:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from kevin (98AF9C9E.ipt.aol.com [152.175.156.158]) by nfstc.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18671; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:36:46 -0500 From: "Kevin Lothridge" To: , Subject: Job Announcement Chief Scientist Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:36:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000120020017.70321.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk List members The National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) expects to recruit a Chief Scientist this Spring. The incumbent will be responsible for scientific management of the NFSTC's Crime Laboratory quality support programs, including the new Proficiency Testing program. The ideal candidate will have a sound awareness of quality systems in forensic science (for example the ASCLD/LAB and ISO accreditation programs, the DAB standards for DNA analysis, and the work of the various TWG and SWG groups). The person appointed needs to have the committed attention to detail that is critical for successful delivery of these programs. The Chief Scientist must also have the ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with operational forensic scientists. The post is not tenured and its continuation will depend on the performance of the person appointed. Please let us know if you are interested in being considered for the position. A formal application packet will be sent out to you when ready. Please send a resume and a short description of why you are interested to Dr William J Tilstone, Executive Director NFSTC, 3200 34th Street South, St Petersburg FL, or by email to wjt@nfstc.org. Kevin Lothridge Director of Strategic Development National Forensic Science Technology Center 3200 34th Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070 www.nfstc.org From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 23:40:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15634 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:38:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from nfstc.org (server49.aitcom.net [208.234.0.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15629 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:38:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from kevin (98AF9C9E.ipt.aol.com [152.175.156.158]) by nfstc.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19088; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:38:44 -0500 From: "Kevin Lothridge" To: , Subject: Job announcement Consultants Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:38:16 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01BF6531.C189CE20" 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 V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01BF6531.C189CE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To List Members Forensic Quality Consultants The National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) expects to need several forensic quality consultants in the next several months. The incumbents will be responsible for supporting the NFSTC's Crime Laboratory quality support programs, including the new state forensic services planning program. The ideal consultant will have a sound awareness of quality systems in forensic science including the ASCLD/LAB and ISO accreditation programs. To work on the forensic services planning program the consultant must have experience in Forensic Laboratory management. Please let us know if you are interested in being considered for a consultant position. Please send a resume and a short description of why you are interested to Dr William J Tilstone, Executive Director NFSTC, 3200 34th Street South, St Petersburg FL, or by email to wjt@nfstc.org. Kevin Lothridge Director of Strategic Development National Forensic Science Technology Center 3200 34th Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070 www.nfstc.org ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01BF6531.C189CE20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To List Members
 

Forensic Quality Consultants

 

 

The National Forensic Science Technology Center = (NFSTC)=20 expects to need several forensic quality consultants in the next several = months.=20 The incumbents will be responsible for supporting the NFSTC's Crime = Laboratory=20 quality support programs, including the new state forensic services = planning=20 program.

 

The ideal consultant will have a sound awareness of = quality=20 systems in forensic science including the ASCLD/LAB and ISO = accreditation=20 programs.

To work on the forensic services planning program = the=20 consultant must have experience in Forensic Laboratory management.

 

Please let us know if you are interested in being = considered=20 for a consultant position.  =

Please send a resume and a short description of why = you are=20 interested to Dr William J Tilstone, Executive Director NFSTC, 3200=20 34th Street South, St Petersburg FL, or by email to wjt@nfstc.org.

 

 

Kevin Lothridge
Director of Strategic=20 Development
National=20 Forensic Science Technology Center
3200=20 34th Street South
St.=20 Petersburg, Florida 33711
Phone=20 727-549-6067
Fax    =20 727-549-6070
www.nfstc.org
 
------=_NextPart_000_0013_01BF6531.C189CE20-- From forens-owner Sat Jan 22 23:46:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15684 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:45:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15679 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:44:46 -0500 (EST) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.99.79f071 (7878) for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:42:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <99.79f071.25bbe0b5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:42:29 EST Subject: Re: Bomb To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 1/18/00 12:08:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, davidy@usit.net writes: > The scientists who developed the bomb apparently were not generally > concerned with matters of conscience, but rather those of science and > getting the technology to work before the Germans or the Japanese. The > matters of conscience were left to the politicians and perhaps the > generals who did what they felt was necessary to prevent further deaths > and end the war. As far as I know, Truman never regretted his decision. > > The forensic scientists are really analogous and should/do operate > only in the scientific area, and leave the matters of conscience to our > "justice system" and society. > Indeed forensic scientist ought to be analogous in terms of conscience when it comes to how their work is applied or exploited. The implication that the physicists, nuclear chemists, and other scientists who contributed to the development of atom splitting technology were "apparently were not generally concerned with matters of conscience" is erroneous. There were a number of predominant scientists, including Einstein and Openheimer, the top civilian scientist with the Manhattan Engineer District (or Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21037 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:45:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21032 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097011.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.11]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id KAA14663 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:44:55 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001231844.KAA14663@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:02:40 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons In-Reply-To: <20000120144106.8344.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 1/20/2000 -0600, Lonnette Kendol wrote: [snip] >Sufficient uniqueness is dependant >on the amount of specific details present, the clarity of the print and the >ability of the latent print examiner. [snip] The allegation that individualization of evidence is based on the "ability of" [sometimes stated as the "experience of"] the examiner is oft-repeated with respect to various types of physical evidence - usually impression evidence, firearms evidence, handwriting evidence, or trace evidence. I have never understood how the experience or ability of the examiner has any effect on the "uniqueness" of the evidence. This "ability" or "experience" is an attribute of the examiner - not of the evidence. "Ability" or"experience" may allow one exminer to see something in the evidence that another examiner might not have seen, but the feature that the "experienced" examiner does see should be apparent to anyone once it is pointed out. If the "experienced" examiner claims that the feature has some extraordinary value, there should be some justification for such opinion. Too often, it seems to me, the "ability" and "experience" of the examiner is simply used as a basis to make an assertion for which there is no justification. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 13:51:15 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA21067 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:49:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA21062 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from pnoth (1Cust201.tnt2.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net [63.25.167.201]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01544; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:49:29 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000123123306.00823100@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:33:06 -0600 To: Elycezahn@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: Forensics in the '30s & '40s In-Reply-To: <57.f39df1.25bb500e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Elyce, You should certainly research the life and work of the forensic scientist Edward Heinrich (1881-1953), "The Wizard of Berkeley", "The American Sherlock Holmes", "The Edison of Crime Detection" as he was called. He was a professor of criminology at the University of California/Berkeley. -- Peter Nothnagle At 01:25 PM 1/22/00 EST, Elycezahn@aol.com wrote: >I'm researching a mystery series which I will be setting in San Francisco >from 1933 - 1947. What forensics procedures were typically used during that >time period? > >Also, does anyone know of a web site (or book or magazine(s)) that I could >contact/research to learn about police/investigation procedures for that same >period? > >Thanks, in advance, for your help. > >Elyce > > From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 15:32:01 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21710 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:30:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.zebra.net (mail.zebra.net [209.12.13.2]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21705 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:29:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from zebra.net ([209.12.69.76]) by mail.zebra.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with ESMTP id net; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 14:29:13 -0600 Message-ID: <388B646E.1A7535BF@zebra.net> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 14:28:30 -0600 From: wscully@zebra.net (William Scully) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Pretty Park.exe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk If you have received any mail from me recently with the file "Pretty Park.exe" attached, DO NOT OPEN IT!!! Pretty Park.exe is a worm virus. If you have opened Pretty Park.exe, it is important that you get it off of your computer. You must do so manually. The following is a clip from the Norton Antivirus web site. It tells you how to get rid of the virus. You can also go to http://www.mcafee.com, and they have a fix you can use. This is pretty aggravating. I'm sorry if you received this virus from me, and I promise to use my viruscan in the future. Now on to Norton: > First, go to http://www.symantec.fr/avcenter/venc/data/prettypark.worm.html > > This worm program was originally spread by email spamming from a French > email address. > > The attached program file is named "PrettyPark.EXE". The author or > distributor of the worm can obtain all manner of system information > (computer name, product name, product identifier, product key, registered > owner, registered organization, system root path, version, version number, > ICQ identification numbers, ICQ nicknames, victims email address, and Dial > Up Networking username and passwords). > > In addition, it opens a security hole in which the client can potentially be > used to receive and execute files. From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 16:08:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21999 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21994 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:06:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA08676; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:06:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:06:38 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: "Peter D. Barnett" cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons In-Reply-To: <200001231844.KAA14663@mail.crl.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > From: "Peter D. Barnett" > > At 08:41 AM 1/20/2000 -0600, Lonnette Kendol wrote: > > This "ability" or "experience" > is an attribute of the examiner - not of the evidence. "Ability" > or"experience" may allow one exminer to see something in the evidence that > another examiner might not have seen, but the feature that the > "experienced" examiner does see should be apparent to anyone once it is > pointed out. If the "experienced" examiner claims that the feature has > some extraordinary value, there should be some justification for such opinion. > > Too often, it seems to me, the "ability" and "experience" of the examiner > is simply used as a basis to make an assertion for which there is no > justification. > Yes and no. I think there are is an area of perception where there is such a thing as a "trained eye," and there is little that one can easily measure to replicate it. As an example in pathology, I remember being a second-year medical student taking Intro to Pathology. In the lab, we were looking at tissue samples under the microscope learning the difference between the appearance of acute and chronic inflammation. I remember looking at all these little dark dots in the microscope and wondering what the hell the lab instructor was talking about. The lab instructor would point to a little cluster of dots and tell me how this was what a polymorphonuclear leuckocyte looked like, and then to another cluster of dots and tell me that this was a classic infiltration of plasma cells. They were all just dots. Then, six years later, I was the lab instructor sitting across from a student, pulling my hair out because the idiot couldn't see what was right in front of his face -- that PMNs and plasma cells look *entirely* different. One of the interesting things to observe in pathology is to see an experienced pathologist make a diagnosis and explain why that diagnosis is made. What happens is that the pathologist usually takes a fraction of a second to make the basic diagnosis, and then, when asked why, go from field to field to find fields that actually demonstrate the criteria well. The bottom line is that visual perception is still not as well understood as many folk would like to think -- and that's why computerized image-based diagnosis is still such a challenge. It's why folk have made careers of measuring every little thing they can think of and still can't do as well as a second-year resident. Systems like neopath have finally gotten to the point that they can, under extremely controlled circumstances, detect the difference between cold normal and not cold normal; they are still incapable of making robust computer-vision based diagnoses. Humans have a tremendous ability to extract data from visual stimuli, and that ability can be trained. I have heard it joked that Anatomic Pathologists are moderately-expensive highly-trained neural nets. Another example is an apocryphal one about when an early Westerner took a portrait of royalty to the Emperor of Japan. The Emperor asked if all the court wore such strange makeup -- the shadows which westerners used as depth cues were perceived as dark makeup. Similarly, there are relatively few westerners who look at a Japanese or Chinese landscape and perceive depth. Instead, we perceive layers of mountains stacked on each other. I will never forget the first time I looked at such an painting and actually perceived depth; it transformed the image and the perception of the image. One of my areas of interest is in how to process images to move feature vectors around to more percptually-friendly areas of visual perception space. For instance, most humans see colors and arrangements of colors with different efficiencies. Humans are very bad a noticing color edges and very good at noticing greyscale edges. We are good at distinguishing among color textures and (relatively) bad at distinguishing among greyscale textures. This has been a very active area of research in data visualization -- displaying the same data to different people using different visualization methods results in very different perceptions. It's a little like looking at those random dot stereograms. Indeed, a perceiver *can* describe many of the little bits that go into the perception, but that does *not* mean that a random other person can actually perceive it, any more than telling a person how to look at a stereogram guarantees that the other person will actually "see" what you see. I, for instance, was trained to look at side-by-side stereograms which usually meant crossing eyes rather than widening vision. Thus, I tend to see random-dot stereograms inverted in Z. Faces, of course, are another area where humans are hard-wired to excel. Many folk make much of the poor quality of visual identification, but the bottom line is that it is actually very good under usual circumstances - and certainly better than any similarly stressed computer vision method. I doubt seriously that you take a pair of calipers to bed every night to make sure you are not indavertently sleeping with the wrong person. It takes experience to notice some things. It also takes experience, sometimes, to put them together. billo From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 16:52:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22325 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:49:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22320 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:49:03 -0500 (EST) From: Ddillonqd@aol.com Received: from Ddillonqd@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id f.13.669469 (3962); Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:48:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13.669469.25bcd129@aol.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:48:25 EST Subject: Re: Forensics in the '30s & '40s To: pnoth@earthlink.net, Elycezahn@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Elyce, If you are interested in forensics in San Francisco in the 30s and 40s, forget Heinrich, he was active elsewhere in California. In San Francsico what passed for forensics in that period was by Francis X LaTulipe the SFPD "Criminologist." Other forensic work was performed in the SF coroner's office. There is only one good book covering some of the more important cases it was written by a former Captain of the Department and it did not have wide circulation. I sorry I can't give you the title but my copy in boxed and not easily accessible. Duayne From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 16:58:03 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22380 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:56:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.245]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA22375 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:56:15 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 15490 invoked by uid 65534); 23 Jan 2000 21:55:41 -0000 Message-ID: <20000123215541.15489.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.171.78] To: References: <200001231844.KAA14663@mail.crl.com> Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:03:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter D. Barnett snip > > The allegation that individualization of evidence is based on the "ability > of" [sometimes stated as the "experience of"] the examiner is oft-repeated > with respect to various types of physical evidence - usually impression > evidence, firearms evidence, handwriting evidence, or trace evidence. I > have never understood how the experience or ability of the examiner has any > effect on the "uniqueness" of the evidence. >snip > > Pete Barnett Good point. In one interesting case both the evidence and the experience of the examiner were very much tied to one another. The FBI had an examiner who compared variations in marks left from the production of trash bags. The analyst compared runs to find that within minutes the marks changed and over hours there were virtually no similar bags produced with an identical pattern. This was used to show that the bag a childs body was disposed in most probably had to have come from the childs home, and her parents. This evidence and opinion, to which no rebuttal was offered, were so intrinsic to one another that I don't believe it is possible to separate one from the other. Perhaps Mr. Whitehurst can shed more light on that case than I can. Another example is one of our list contributors from Canada who examines knots. Though he probably shares considerable research with his peers, I have little doubt that most of his opinion rests on his own competent analysis over time. I would be hard pressed, after reading his opinion in two cases, to say that his experience or ability didn't have a lot to do with the quality of his work or the weight of his testimony. A rebuttal witness with less experience would not have the basis to refute substantively his testimony or comment on the 'uniqueness' of it. Shaun Wheeler From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 17:07:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA22474 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:06:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22469 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:05:57 -0500 (EST) From: Ddillonqd@aol.com Received: from Ddillonqd@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id q.8c.944c28 (3962); Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:05:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8c.944c28.25bcd51d@aol.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:05:17 EST Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons To: pbarnett@crl.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Pete, I'll have to take issue with you on this one. I'll agree that experience, alone is not important. It is the quality of that experience. An experienced examiner who continues to error, gains nothing from experience, except a bad reputation. However, ability is of the utmost importance. If an examiner involved in comparative analysis (pattern analysis) does not possess graphic cognition, he can never succeed. If that same examiner does not acquire experience, he will be unable to qualitatively evaluate agreement or difference in elements of the patterns of the items compared. Duayne From forens-owner Sun Jan 23 22:03:56 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24668 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:59:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.janics.com (mail.janics.com [206.102.184.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24663 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:59:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mikespooter [208.137.35.169] by mail.janics.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A0281B440252; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 20:59:52 -0600 Message-ID: <003101bf6617$3c914ea0$a92389d0@mikespooter> From: "M Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:00:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk As a latent print examiner, I find two things in my own work and learning progress: 1) The more latent prints I examine, the more often I see comparisons which could be mistaken by an inexperienced examiner. As a result, I tend to become a bit more conservative in my personal threshhold of "calling" an ident. 2) The more latent prints I examine, the more quickly I am able to eliminate or confirm matches. This lends itself to somewhat less conservatism which perhaps offsets #1 to some degree. The real value of a latent print examiner is the ability to find matches that others (including AFIS) miss by quick and skillful elimination of non-candidates and by being able to quickly see similarities devoid of discrepancies. Training and experience, I once thought, was an attempt to keep the field closed to would-be LE personnel who wanted to moonlight in latent print comparison. I now understand the value and necessity of "training and experience." Mike Davis mailto:mdavis@janics.com ICQ#38952146 From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 00:59:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA25684 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:58:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA25678 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:58:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from laptop (A097019.sfx1.as.crl.com [168.75.97.19]) by mail.crl.com (8.8.8/) via SMTP id VAA05598 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:58:39 -0800 (PST) env-from (pbarnett@crl.com) Message-Id: <200001240558.VAA05598@mail.crl.com> X-Sender: pbarnett@mail.crl.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:58:39 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons In-Reply-To: <8c.944c28.25bcd51d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 05:05 PM 1/23/2000 -0500, Ddillonqd@aol.com wrote: >Pete, >I'll have to take issue with you on this one. I'll agree that experience, >alone is not important. It is the quality of that experience. An experienced >examiner who continues to error, gains nothing from experience, except a bad >reputation. However, ability is of the utmost importance. If an examiner >involved in comparative analysis (pattern analysis) does not possess graphic >cognition, he can never succeed. If that same examiner does not acquire >experience, he will be unable to qualitatively evaluate agreement or >difference in elements of the patterns of the items compared. I think, Duayne, you slightly misconstrued my point. I agree with you that experience is important - indeed, at our ages it is perhaps the only advantage we have. But no matter how much experience we have, the intrinsic value of the evidence. It is the features that are present in the evidence that the forensic scientist must discern in order to be able to compare the features of the evidence with the features present in reference (e.g., known or exemplar) materials. The fact that some people lack the ability to discern these features, or that some people can discern them in a trice and others take longer (e.g., they have to learn), is not the point. And, Billo, I think you also missed the same point. Surely there are features of things that people don't readily recognize as important. But that does not mean those features are not there, that the recognition of them cannot be taught and that it is only experience that makes them visible. But even if it were the case that experience allows the pathologist to see something that cannot be seen by someone without experience, the context is different: In medicine, the laboratory analysis is an adjunct to a clinical diagnosis, and there are usually multiple laboratory and clinical observations supporting a decision - diagnosis and/or treatment plan. In forensic science that is not always the case: A fingerprint may be the ONLY evidence against a person. Even in some cases a hair comparison, if not the only evidence, it may be the only apparently "unbiased" evidence in the case. If, in a trial, one scientist says "I do not see the features in this evidence that allow it to be individualized" and the other says "Based on my great experience, I see features which allow me to conclude that the [fingerprint or hair] is from the defendant" the evidence is no longer scientific - it is based on faith, the faith of the scientist in the value of experience. No, admittedly, forensic scientists are usually not so brazen as to simply suggest that the opinion is based solely on experience. Usually, the experience is described in some apparently reasonable context: I have examined 20,000 hairs and only two that I could not distinguish on three occasions; or, in the millions of fingerprint cards that have been collected an filed, identical fingerprints from the different individuals have never been found; or, I have never in my 30 years of experience seen this many similar fibers on two objects that had not been in contact with one another. The deficiencies in each of these arguments should be obvious. Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@crl.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 01:58:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA26006 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:58:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA26001 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:58:19 -0500 (EST) From: Ddillonqd@aol.com Received: from Ddillonqd@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id q.b0.8401dc (4546); Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:57:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:57:44 EST Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons To: pbarnett@crl.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 189 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Pete, Not to pother the issue, but it still remains of little value if one can discern the elements of a pattern in a trice and yet be unable to qualitatively evaluate an element. In the absence of empirical data, experience is the primary means (if not the only significant means) of acquiring the ability apply meaningful qualitative assessment for opinion generation. Duayne From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 05:09:42 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA27050 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA27045 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:06:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA01309; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:06:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:06:04 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Ddillonqd@aol.com cc: pbarnett@crl.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 Ddillonqd@aol.com wrote: > From: Ddillonqd@aol.com > > Pete, > Not to pother the issue, but it still remains of little value if one can > discern the elements of a pattern in a trice and yet be unable to > qualitatively evaluate an element. In the absence of empirical data, > experience is the primary means (if not the only significant means) of > acquiring the ability apply meaningful qualitative assessment for opinion > generation. > Duayne > ... and thus you discount tissue diagnosis of disease? I would argue that traditional anatomic pathology, which is in large part the practice of discerning of elements of a pattern without real quanitification, is of fair value. I would also argue that the practice of medicine, which is in large part the discernment of such patterns and the decisions based on them, are also of some value. The use of the kind of quantification you mention adds incremental value to morphologic diagnosis, and is becomming increasingly important, but is not the basis of the diagnosis of disease. I would say that it is important that one be able to distinguish the rash of measles from that of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever or syphilis, even if one does not count the spots. I would also argue that insisting that counting the spots is the only way to "really" make a valid diagnosis ignores the real value of experience and training. The fact is that real and useful information can be gained by exploiting the qualitative analytical capabilities of the human visual system and the human brain. In spite of our digital hubris, we cannot replicate it and we often do not even know what to measure. Relying on a bad metric just for the sake of being "quantitative" is worse than relying on no metric at all, and denying the value of qualitative data denies the majority of human experience. billo From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 09:09:52 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28531 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:05:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28526 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:05:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:59:14 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C278@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Impression Comparisons Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:04:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The classic expression of this, attribution not remembered, is "Napoleon's mules had seen a hundred campaigns, but they were still mules." Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Ddillonqd@aol.com [mailto:Ddillonqd@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 4:05 PM To: pbarnett@crl.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Pete, I'll have to take issue with you on this one. I'll agree that experience, alone is not important. It is the quality of that experience. An experienced examiner who continues to error, gains nothing from experience, except a bad reputation. However, ability is of the utmost importance. If an examiner involved in comparative analysis (pattern analysis) does not possess graphic cognition, he can never succeed. If that same examiner does not acquire experience, he will be unable to qualitatively evaluate agreement or difference in elements of the patterns of the items compared. Duayne From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 11:51:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00428 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:49:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA00423 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:49:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 16:41:55 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Jan 24 08:47:51 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:49:04 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:48:18 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Impression Comparisons Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It seems to me that for several years we have had computer technology that was supposed to evaluate both striated and impression evidence. Some of these technologies are AFIS for fingerprints and Drugfire and IBIS nee NIBIN for cartridge case and bullet evidence. These systems evaluate images input iinto them, then correlate them and output some time of numerical ranking. Often the rankings are very good. Sometimes they are atrocious even when knowns are entered into the system. What this all boils down to is that it is a human being that must make the confirmation. That confirmation is based upon traininig and experience. The human can explain his or her justification for an elimination or a match. So far, the computer cannot. I prefer it this way. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" 01/24 6:04 AM >>> The classic expression of this, attribution not remembered, is "Napoleon's mules had seen a hundred campaigns, but they were still mules." Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Ddillonqd@aol.com [mailto:Ddillonqd@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 4:05 PM To: pbarnett@crl.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Pete, I'll have to take issue with you on this one. I'll agree that experience, alone is not important. It is the quality of that experience. An experienced examiner who continues to error, gains nothing from experience, except a bad reputation. However, ability is of the utmost importance. If an examiner involved in comparative analysis (pattern analysis) does not possess graphic cognition, he can never succeed. If that same examiner does not acquire experience, he will be unable to qualitatively evaluate agreement or difference in elements of the patterns of the items compared. Duayne From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 15:37:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA02657 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02652 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:34:04 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.27.e1ea3d (4248); Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:33:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <27.e1ea3d.25be10fc@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 15:33:00 EST Subject: Re: Hair Analysis To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Jenny Is it possible for me to get a copy of those hair analysis guidelines of which you have spoken? Fred From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 17:08:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03737 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sumter.awod.com (sumter.awod.com [198.81.225.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03732 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:05:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from tim (wa0041.tnt2.awod.com [208.140.97.41]) by sumter.awod.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA09271 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:05:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tkulp@awod.com) Message-ID: <013a01bf66b5$fa4060a0$29618cd0@tim> From: "Tim Kulp" To: "Forens L" Subject: Fw: Speed Detection by Pacing Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:57:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0137_01BF668C.10E59840" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0137_01BF668C.10E59840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Timothy Clay Kulp, Esquire Board Certified in Criminal Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy Riesen Law Firm 3660 West Montague Avenue North Charleston, SC 29418 843.760.2450 Fax 843-767-3282 Handheld 24 hrs. 1-888-TIM-KULP www.kulplaw.com (under construction) "Summa ius summa iniuria" ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tim Kulp=20 To: Forens List=20 Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:50 PM Subject: Speed Detection by Pacing Anyone out there in list land have a web reference to foundational = requirements for testimony of vehicular speed establishment by pacing? I am helping out a cop tomorrow who was ticketed by a bad cop from = another jurisdiction who shouldn't be a cop. Thanks, Tim Timothy Clay Kulp, Esquire Board Certified in Criminal Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy Riesen Law Firm 3660 West Montague Avenue North Charleston, SC 29418 843.760.2450 Fax 843-767-3282 Handheld 24 hrs. 1-888-TIM-KULP www.kulplaw.com (under construction) "Summa ius summa iniuria" ------=_NextPart_000_0137_01BF668C.10E59840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 

Timothy Clay Kulp, Esquire
Board=20 Certified in Criminal Law by the National Board of Trial=20 Advocacy
Riesen Law Firm = 3660 West Montague Avenue North Charleston, SC=20 29418
843.760.2450 Fax 843-767-3282 = Handheld 24 hrs.=20 1-888-TIM-KULP
www.kulplaw.com (under construction) "Summa = ius=20 summa iniuria"

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Tim Kulp =
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Speed Detection by Pacing

Anyone out there in = list land have=20 a web reference to foundational requirements for testimony of vehicular = speed=20 establishment by pacing?
I am helping out a cop = tomorrow who=20 was ticketed by a bad cop from another jurisdiction who shouldn't be a=20 cop.
Thanks, = Tim

Timothy Clay Kulp, Esquire
Board=20 Certified in Criminal Law by the National Board of Trial=20 Advocacy
Riesen Law Firm = 3660 West Montague Avenue North Charleston, SC=20 29418
843.760.2450 Fax 843-767-3282 = Handheld 24 hrs.=20 1-888-TIM-KULP
www.kulplaw.com=20 (under construction) "Summa ius summa=20 iniuria"

------=_NextPart_000_0137_01BF668C.10E59840-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 17:29:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03888 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:27:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03883 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:27:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 22:27:21 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:20:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forensic-science] FW: New Cases Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:20:51 -0500 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF66B9.4685AF94" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF66B9.4685AF94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" My reply follows: >From: Tina Keller[SMTP:meddetectives1@medstar.com] >Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 3:24 PM >To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' >Cc: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com' >Subject: FW: [forensic-science] New Cases > >Dear Mr. Parsons: > >May I please re-phrase my question and statement. It seems that most >television shows about forensic science seem to only profile the rapes and >murders. I am very aware of the voluminous uses of forensic science. I >was looking for a case in particular, not some child asking, "what is >forensic science and how is it used?" Our half-hour show is not meant to >cover the wonders of DNA or a mass spec in one episode. We tell a >story...interview the investigators, scientists, etc...and show viewers a >brief glimpse into the science. I have never had a complaint about major >inaccuracies during my tenure with the show. I have found the response to >be very positive and the show seems to garner more respect than many shows >of this genre. I have befriended numerous people from the list, many of >whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the IAFS Conference and the AAFS >Conference. I must say I am quite shocked by your efrontery. I will send >you some copies of the show if you so desire. >I would like to thank everybody on the list who has helped me in the past. > I have made some wonderful friends and I look forward to catching up with >a lot of you in Reno. > >Tina... Dear Ms. Keller, (I'd prefer less formality but since you used formal titles I feel obligated by courtesy to do the same) Effrontery? Hardly. In retrospect, I regret not having been more careful to hit the "Reply" button rather than the "Reply to all" button on my screen, as I did not intend to cause you or your show any embarrassment. I should have made the communication private and simply was not thinking in that regard, and for that I do apologize. However, since your reply has appeared on this list, to be fair to you I am posting this publicly as well. If you would rather take the discussion to a private exchange, I will be happy to do so. I was trying to urge you to seek a regular advisor for your show because based on my viewing of past episodes, one is sorely needed IMHO. Admittedly, I tend to be a perfectionist and I have not watched the show for a while, but my recollection was that at least a few oversimplifications and/or misstatements, mixed in with otherwise good reporting, were a fairly common occurrence in the episodes I watched; common enough to annoy me to the point that I stopped watching. Major or minor, an error is an error, and a qualified advisor on staff could do much to prevent them. I would agree the show was better than most of its ilk, but that is not necessarily saying a great deal. That you have had no complaints (until now) is not telling, because erroneous statements regarding forensic science in both the entertainment and the reporting media are so commonplace that most of us threw our hands up in resignation long ago, and no longer bother to complain to producers who, as a group, ignore us and couldn't seem to care less so long as they get the ratings they seek. You, on the other hand, _DO_ seem to care, which is the only reason I bothered to reply. I am sorry you did not receive my comments in the spirit with which they were intended, and I understand the pride you have in your work, but getting defensive is counterproductive to accurate reporting, which I am sure is your goal. A more fruitful response would be to address the alleged problem by investigating to see if it is true, and the best way to do that is to hire a qualified consultant, have him/her watch some of your old shows, and see what she/he has to say about them. I stand by my opinion that there were scientific accuracy problems in many, if not all, of the episodes that I watched, and colleagues have told me that they noticed the same things. One even e-mailed me in response to my post, noting not only that she agreed with me, but also that she had personal knowledge that your producers were advised to obtain the services of a regular forensic science advisor at the outset of the program, however they replied that they didn't want to go to that expense and were not convinced they needed one. I am trying to tell you, as constructively as I can and for the good of your show, that you DO need one, and should retain one ASAP. His/her job would be to read the entire script of the narration for each episode. If you hire a competent advisor, she/he should easily catch the kinds of errors (large or small) that I'm referring to, and will greatly assist you in reaching your goal of accurate reporting on forensic science. My comments are sincerely intended to be helpful, not derogatory, and I hope you will heed them. If you like, I would be glad to review an old episode or two of the show (is it still on cable in it's old incarnation, or is it on hiatus pending the launching of the new show?) to provide you with the specifics I cannot recall from memory. As for the kinds of stories covered, your question indicated to me that you perhaps thought that non-murder, non-rape cases were unusual in crime lab work, so I apologize if that was a mistaken impression. Examples of other types of cases are legion, and are of course the vast majority of cases worked in crime labs, so they should be easy to find. I wish you luck in your endeavor, and look forward to sampling episodes of your new show when it airs (hopefully produced with the assistance of a qualified consultant). I fully support any attempt to provide accurate science reporting to the largely science-ignorant public, but have so far been disappointed with most of what I have seen on TV. It is my hope that you can change that, but I firmly feel you will need a regular consultant on staff to achieve it. Once again, good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL P.S. Just because you're mad at me doesn't mean you have to call me "Mr." - "Bob" will do fine in this forum, so long as I can call you "Tina" in return. :) ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF66B9.4685AF94 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjYWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcBABgAEQAUADMAAQBJAQEggAMADgAAANAHAQAY ABEAFAA0AAEASgEBCYABACEAAABGMDk1NzU0NTJFRDJEMzExODFBOTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQDtBgEE gAEAJgAAAFJFOiBbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5jZV0gRlc6ICBOZXcgQ2FzZXMAeQwBDYAEAAIAAAAC AAIAAQOQBgD4FAAAMwAAAAMACVkBAAAAAwDeP+QEAAADADYAAAAAAAMAA4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA AABGAAAAAFKFAAAnagEAHgAEgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUAAAEAAAAEAAAAOS4wAAsA DYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAaFAAAAAAAAAwAFgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAYUA AAAAAAALAAGACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAsABoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwACgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAeACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMACIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABiFAAAAAAAAHgAJgAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4ACoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA ADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAuACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AgEJEAEAAAAJDwAABQ8AAEwaAABMWkZ1SlxldwMACgByY3BnMTI14jIDQ3RleAVBAQMB9/8KgAKk A+QHEwKAD/MAUARWPwhVB7IRJQ5RAwECAGNo4QrAc2V0MgYABsMRJfYzBEYTtzASLBEzCO8J97Y7 GB8OMDURIgxgYwBQcwsJAWQzNhZQC6YF0HleIBggC1AdAAIQbBewd5xzOgqiCoQKgD5GA2EWOgMw AZEgB2BuYSAMS2UdoASQW1NNVDRQOgeAZAEADrBjdKRpdgeQMUAgkXMBkORyLgWgbV0eZQZgAjAV HxVXCYBuB5BkYXloLCBKAHB1CsAdADEOOSPwAdAk4CAzOjKQNCBQTR5lVG8fFS4nAhAYIACAQCGx dGeBCfAubmNzdS4JgGR1Jx5lQ2MmLA3gLYcE8AiQJ5BlQGVHA2AYdXBzIfIoFlN1YqZqIPEfFUZX HxBbKT7SXQezQ2EUEHMeZR5l9ERlCsFNIeAlYBPxAiCLHeYutk0j0CBJIAtQhy9AFBAdES1waHIx slptHQBxClAhsGkCICDpAHBkICcSZQeAAjAvoN8xUAVAFBAz0AQgdBPgBUC/BGAhsArjHqEOsCAA dgQAuTMSc2gdwTNABuB1BUCfKTYzgCnUNHM00G8gAiD1HVFwA2BmAxAx0DTgMdHcYXAHkTNSHmVt CHAEgT8qoDQxM0A4oCEwJGFhdy8KwDHQOWA5s3YG8HVt/wuACGAEID2gB5E8sTduO4NPHmU8YAQg F7BvawuAZ/M+QjNAIGMxsguAMXAKwOkhEGN1C2ByI/A9gDRh/wNwMdAT0AMQM3AuEECCI/D8Inc0 8gQANXY3bzNSNrGNRDJpBUA90WQ/IjQwnCBPCHBGIAdAZi02sP9HcTaiRDJCcgeAAHAFQDjB7x5l BaA8ATmzdwIgO0I8onhETkE44EDyAMAEEXP/OiA30EGBAiAx0B0wBAAEcf80ISNgNNAf4UEBHmUh sAWw3HkuTvALgA6wcjYwB9FvOcILgCExIRBnJzAFsHO/I/ApwyEQIbBQwRQgY07x3zNTRjJPckri ThdiCIE8wPxnbAdwKpBBYjjBOcI+6v8T4CEwQmA2IBKBE+BDQUEg3wNwC1MFQDcEAMBqBbEeZf0f kWNCADJAKdEEICfwBRD/QKEykQ6wJDA8gQPwNOBU1Hc2sVWYAhB1M2E5wweQcPcwATmhSXdiPQE8 ElzgAJD/IRIzQ1r2NHY40FBwBKASgf8EYDyBXLIg8TTSA6ADgR0A/zakHmU8s0RBJ1EYIFWYXeD/ A1Ap4QEAM3AkMAeAKmEEIP06IG8xgR1wA2E5s1QgIbD/I/Bh4zyxP6Y2sDigVcJcVP8xg1piPLEH gBQgQJI1ATnCmElBRgXwCFBuZgSQ+0WnOcJBarIoJmsHO4M7EH01UXMxMzvRMsBGoFsTY+prZPFi HQB5SAJkgQIh/zwRO4MD8E3hFBA6eG/BQqX/ZdBZUjy1SEQ8wHIEWYAHkP5pY7EeC3DRCGBDMVQg b1C7OLJhkmtM4DwCBuBkZ0F/A6BmdkqQNrBHkQQgOdBs/zogM3BC0UGBaLMuEDQRHmXfVbYAwAEA QqRKpGZCEGYR/2SyOkQxYEBSPkI8YVxROND/QTBRwEMQQKEqgFqUHmUfsF8XsAVAPLFyAkGBUgnw b/90xS62H4JO8R4KLzQ7cR/U4iweCihJJzNwOUABEL8SgSAABBEmoQDAVCB0HQD+YjcxAJA4MnIC RtKGBTTQ/0aghcExUWsgH+A44AJgUGLvb2QFoAhwDrBzWhF0QVTFaTvQZSkeCkUBIHA1P300MEgL ER1QNCIDoBggdP8DYGEzI/AxYBggCcEFQEJy/1XhQJJd4AnwYLRBMIVhfFH3OMFDEGpEIoDgHUFH IIax/zjAjbEnMDnQSkIDkZFoOLL9B0BskgczITKRBPEJ4SPw80AhMWBkaWUBQoFPIlxC/35CPdFz 4wWxb8NIQ2HyM9D2YgrAMkFzM+Y2knXievj/OcIiATsQAwB+YTMSOUAhIP8zsTNEVDEdUUASQnJj MXbQ/0CSeYM1AY6xCxGVsTNhQNIfNOOWAZQRXOAXsGdpev0/QkgdwFZCUNGHBgXAHST/eKI6EDog PHEzcHejREFmtPs4wV3hZgtwSkE40HICO7O3XmFp42MzcCuAVCBjHVF/QCFS0B2gNCJz1HXEkpZh /3ZCOdGWIATwPaA2U5QCnDf3DsAT0UCgZY5ycPNd4RPgf6NQinYv8HTLcNFAIY3wef+mYzjQCHAn UHPjOME0gXbg7x+wjrFCEjNAZDYxBbFA0v+YGF3gl0SZEIeilPRPckCS/zyxefJM5lDBTLJEQbFR H+APHQAjkAmAZPFJTUhP+TQhQWQ9YAJACYAdUI5y/5bGXeGq0XwhIPICIHgifQT/VeRCgTxgfoFk 8V83QNRD8P85gSPwhrIykRggF5EgALkT/650NPI1ATGSV3GI0QfgShLvnQMGkJvFOkMvBbE9YAQQ 9zOmUME9YHhk8UGBWqNCgPeSwQPxMdBnQGCo0R0wF8H/Q5NS0biCpRIdUZtilMJY8t9rRHmFtLZw wrqkO8UmgPHsdWda0ZQRbj2AHQBC0f9UtVzgV1KgBU6ho1EzcLqT/0CRNCExIFgSwLM9gEJBA5H/ BJADYAXAREHNFp9kH7AywP+GUTlwZPGxFjZyAZABIIny/0MxisE7EBPQOLKFUSEwykP3M9BwpHXT YQnCXyhAEl3gP7dRkuU1MzyxRqBGgWxr/7xUNONIlSOQKhAEEArAAxD/YhEj0GnzVAAYIDUBAQAH QP00IVQ08nICVeNWkj2AVug9BCAoXDAhEAMgPYB3Kf9Ihk3CQ5Oyds1CI5A9ksEY/571QJU3nEGB BuBaxSLBBJD/AZALgDPiXufDp0jxliAfsP88cnQxxTQLUThBNOg8sT2h/zTgGCC/EUdzfMJ+8UGB XLH/UGAfoDMDF7BqAsNQn2TaQf/n0hKB4JJKMtpY0VQEcBrQ/0riaAGVs9gyKnEj8OdBYNLnPaEz UtCDbic0ZH4kPIHvhcN0MefUNMJlHQAnUGpEv5KRQJHvhbAiNCEeClkIYB+1Mjmz6WTmUiPwX0RP /l/ty8QxQxDRMURB8vM5Av/YYS/xMVHpVLriONAdIzuG37FRJGFyApYmvOFlXrIykf+bYt5jeYVM MHSQRqFao/Uk/++jxFOWpAmAn2QxYFwxO1H/AZBcRZxBe2HZd0GBb8NKoP5y1dXv8WnjDxEpYv+i BCD/igFPMuq0XqOUAljzbuHDqv/1M/gUWmJEQW/Dw1DY00tw/2DDDnBuwXxCXLd1xF3hlAL/ILBc sfWUlDGOwGTxOUEX8P84kW+RUAiu9TSBc7JGofWC/wdAq+Fe9l3geDIxMYqWRBT/kPPEc87Y0IBF IEIQ/lFm4fvZtL+AL5LCupNCpIBEzFG/QzE2o59kDBJD828QZRGx/3iTr/IxMTcE0hf+RG+RMpH/ cqG5UHejajRacsRiUPW/0f0DhWM5IwqC+qNnEuxBPMD/QnKUMbUxPMTGx6AFupWfZP+9A9MAMtFV 1DjAQzHJchgV/7YRQoBFQLrmi0Gd4/DANCHuT0zC0cFM4C17QDmBeTb/XLoykaYiQlNAkkJyOPM0 4/8UsdL0y0FaskLQvFRHsHQx3yX3VpK4wS/xiCFr25EjAf+vgTTjb8PqucRjsSL3NIkw/+FyVNRP UtchPKKweN9fsRZ/ajU3ITHAgCP+pKDgWSBt/xERoXTvlKKizzIf6JYh7ZLffeBJNMNQdmW0kXg6 IF0C/7mixFNCchBxj4EgxbYXTLH/O4auyE3DpZGVsxByDOEDA/+nVI6Q7lDgcJ+IwzUSthNy/6SR 2Tb0ALYjTKITxZokjdHD6kJMskFTQVChMsDw+xGzWBBiCEvYYWvEUSIY0/37YHAwt4IwmTHng7ui HqD/0TFM+KglD2VW8lGw4cOxJP9Q0RTEmhX2UdeCfmPwI54x/3zRYwHNQ9sBsNGvgVghmXD3lDHb wKAEJ2ZQhWNZs9Fg/59kcPPYUzrz36C+oYB12GF/fpQGBy2DA693ki5udMtN//oZ44OHArXj/Pak pXjifEH/JNN0UTFRqQC7sBsxuaVyoP+HNHDz8EC65BZjc9R2Iqvz/QhmZ+Rg90Wzss0CEzLGxe3M YnQAUHL7KM2h+3ELQb+sUfaB7lAKgebS+3AncuH/0tGHAbDg52S1Mc2D+3H2gf+8EKkAZYO5sKZk ZpGyoIcQ736jQ8bl4RNyP0vx6pMvkP//FX8j+vSOQL/COzX5RZQx33xxclDjEZAhcJJBhfNJvP/K 4XyRAiJ3Ef1Sb8NusAsy//aBShGbwvc0H7alkrjBrLHvCXLIkspV25BuIsDF0HwR/yTSb4AZ8Fih 7lAkACs1/fD/srDO4ebSQ2EjQeRgQXIAcv90MaXRoLYMQuSznXLjYMDhP6liYCHakAlC55EGkUV4 7zGQ2qAtZOlleY4wLXNwtP/uZKDwYWLOcxjRd8KKESQC//BBnHC+oZrQzDGGcnfHAFL/wgRyF8Gh J+PxEpokpOH2Uf+Kc7/QubDSVMDw/DBaU+rwv7BQ/9ZV0roQzjag0G+wUP+7oXSA3vAVVL+S2AHG xxK2/2Sm60F1Qr6xpTDbAViCB4H/OvHqtSbVCZNOozRA5IEtk/sP3zRBKZnDhgQQoKNQ4rH/mKOp AN4xQ5FlWVDX3+biiO/JpUsT15JS1C3sYzRCpvT/vFS6A+7xpRDpMZWBqeKjQf/KIibH1QUUY7nl DBFAAtkQ/laZwtZzvLFYgz2nO3KrlO/ko7xUigGlMG068bjw3GD/WMg+Y7B4EHjP6ANjvBAyAf/V YSHzL0KfIGDQ89DDU4ACda2bQkFhULDg9nHBoUZQLUFCQ64ERi52Q7fSIaRhrgRSeKMpQUNyI/5M FdFREVfRrgSTsmLxzRH2UgHRu8BDxUH98HsSpHDXCeOfxZxBUFxQciDAn1HWTK2qQJBTBpBKsrC+ sPuydpZRJxjRItDOkeTh4mD/0OAe4O2SI0DNEdl37iNoQQEjQSJNci4iIC3/q7CeoawATcPQ4X7h xjXNoX27oXUxoe75O1RoI5ZSIvpUYNBhrADm42KQYRAGkBQ6KVOkfbGwAAAAHgBwAAEAAAAiAAAA W2ZvcmVuc2ljLXNjaWVuY2VdIEZXOiAgTmV3IENhc2VzAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAbAAAAAb9ivq4jZG7K 1s6mEdOBqRAAlkuFegD1bmSwAAMAJgAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAALAAIAAQAAAB4AQhABAAAALwAAADww MUJGNjI5NS41MzcwOTcwMC5tZWRkZXRlY3RpdmVzMUBtZWRzdGFyLmNvbT4AAAMA/T/kBAAAQAA5 AKCky0W5Zr8BAwDxPwkEAAAeADFAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAADABpAAAAAAB4AMEABAAAA CQAAAFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAAMAGUAAAAAAAwCAEP////8LAPIQAQAAAAIBRwABAAAANwAAAGM9VVM7 YT0gO3A9SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTTtsPUVYQ0gxLTAwMDEyNDIyMjA1MVotOTMyNgAAAgH5PwEA AABYAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT01NIENP TEwvT1U9SVJDQy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPVJQQVJTT05TAB4A+D8BAAAADwAAAFJvYmVydCBQ YXJzb25zAAAeADhAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAACAfs/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0 uQgAKy/hggEAAAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQ SUVOVFMvQ049UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD6PwEAAAAPAAAAUm9iZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOUABAAAACQAA AFJQQVJTT05TAAAAAEAABzAakcRFuWa/AUAACDCUr4VGuWa/AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAA HgAdDgEAAAAiAAAAW2ZvcmVuc2ljLXNjaWVuY2VdIEZXOiAgTmV3IENhc2VzAAAAHgA1EAEAAAA9 AAAAPEE2NjNFMDFCRkY1N0QzMTE4MTk3MTAwMDk2NEI4NTdBMzQ3NjYyQGV4Y2gxLmlyY2MuY2Mu ZmwudXM+AAAAAAsAKQAAAAAACwAjAAAAAAADAAYQEFtoKAMABxA/EwAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAA AB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAE1ZUkVQTFlGT0xMT1dTOkZST006VElOQUtFTExFUlNNVFA6TUVEREVURUNU SVZFUzFATUVEU1RBUkNPTVNFTlQ6V0VETkVTREFZLEpBTlVBUlkxOSwyMDAwMzoyNFBNVE86Rk8A AAAAAgF/AAEAAAA9AAAAPEE2NjNFMDFCRkY1N0QzMTE4MTk3MTAwMDk2NEI4NTdBMzQ3NjYyQGV4 Y2gxLmlyY2MuY2MuZmwudXM+AAAAALSK ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF66B9.4685AF94-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 17:29:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA03896 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:28:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03891 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:27:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 22:28:01 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:21:33 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Smith, Stephanie L'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Regional Association Newsletter Addresses Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:21:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF66B9.5E5F95EE" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF66B9.5E5F95EE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" SAFS POC (Point of Contact) is: Dave Baer Editor, SAFS Newsletter c/o FDLE Orlando Regional Crime Laboratory 500 W. Robinson St. Orlando, FL 32801 Email: DavidB7818@aol.com Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Stephanie L [mailto:SLSmith@uspis.gov] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:46 AM To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: Regional Association Newsletter Addresses List, I need to post nationally for a vacant position (Firearms/Toolmarks/Impressions with a strong emphasis on the Toolmarks/Impressions part). I'd like to cast a wide net by hitting the regional association newsletters. . . If anyone on the list has (snail and e-mail) addresses for any of the following newsletters: Southern Association of Forensic Scientists Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists Northwestern Association of Forensic Scientists I would greatly appreciate the info. Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist U.S. Postal Inspection Service National Laboratory (703) 406-7141 SLSmith@uspis.gov p.s. I'll post the vacancy notice to the list as soon as we have resolved a pending pay issue. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF66B9.5E5F95EE Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Regional Association Newsletter Addresses

SAFS POC (Point of Contact) is:

Dave Baer
Editor, SAFS Newsletter
c/o FDLE Orlando Regional Crime Laboratory
500 W. Robinson St.
Orlando, FL  32801
Email:  DavidB7818@aol.com



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


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Stephanie L [mailto:SLSmith@uspis.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:46 AM
To: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Subject: Regional Association Newsletter = Addresses


List,

I need to post nationally for a vacant = position
(Firearms/Toolmarks/Impressions with a strong = emphasis on the
Toolmarks/Impressions part). I'd like to cast a wide = net by hitting the
regional association newsletters. . . If anyone on = the list has (snail and
e-mail) addresses for any of the following = newsletters:

        =         =         Southern = Association of Forensic Scientists
        =         =         Southwestern = Association of Forensic Scientists
        =         =         Midwestern = Association of Forensic Scientists
        =         =         Mid-Atlantic = Association of Forensic Scientists
        =         =         Northeastern = Association of Forensic Scientists
        =         =         Northwestern = Association of Forensic Scientists

I would greatly appreciate the info.

Stephanie L. Smith
Senior Forensic Chemist
U.S. Postal Inspection Service National = Laboratory
(703) 406-7141
SLSmith@uspis.gov

p.s. I'll post the vacancy notice to the list as soon = as we have resolved a
pending pay issue.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF66B9.5E5F95EE-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 17:43:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04026 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04021 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:41:01 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.46.c3a651 (4563) for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:39:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <46.c3a651.25be2ebe@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:39:58 EST Subject: Forensic Hair Analysis Error Rate To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am reading "Errors in Human Hair Association by Microscopy" by S. L. Smith and C.A. Linch in the Am. J. Forensic Med Pathol. Vol 20, No. 3, September 1999. A good paper it seems. A question: Under "Quality of Hair Exemplars" there is the statement: "An insufficient number of known victim or suspect hairs which do not represent the full range of an individual's variation present a problem to the hair examiner for the obvious reasons. The most essential tangible factor promoting an error-free examination is the provision of a suitable hair standard. Suitable standards are large enough to adequately represent the variation of the contributor, possess intact roots, represent active and resting growth phases, and are collected as soon as possible after the event. Casework experience has shown that on most occasions, about 40 to 50 head hairs and about 20 pubic hairs are adequate if taken from different areas of the scalp or pubis. Occasionally, this number does not adequately represent the variation exhibited by an individual." How do we arrive at the number of 40 to 50 hairs? What is it that actually happens during case work that allows us to use that range of number? I can imagine that we might during training acquire from known folks 40 to 50 hairs and see if those hairs represent the range of different hairs with different characteristics. We would collect 10 hairs and describe them. Then 20 hairs and see if any are different. Then 30, then 40 then 50. If at 50 we found that we were repeating, having hairs indistinguishable from previous hairs, and all the new hairs fit into the range of hairs analyzed before, then maybe we could stop at 50. But the paper says "occasionally." How often is this true? How occasionally? How do we know that the fellow whose hairs we are looking at fits into the norm or into the "occasionally?" Do we have published studies to this effect. When an examiner does a hair analysis, is a sheet of comparison data maintained with rows and columns and data indicating the results of the analysis of each characteristic? Does all of this mean that when a hair examiner compares hairs found at a scene to a suspect that the hair examiner always should look at at least 50 hairs from the suspect? Boy, that seems like a lot of work. Is that what always happens? Does the forensic hair analysis community agree with the number of hairs that should be analyzed from the suspect? And if we don't do the analysis of but 10 or 20 hairs, then what would the error rate be? Do we know this? And I think that this is a good paper. It raises a lot of questions. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 18:11:47 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA04237 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:09:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA04232 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2000 23:09:04 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: GHB analysis Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:02:29 -0500 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF66BF.18F6DBE2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF66BF.18F6DBE2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" My thanks to the several people who replied to my own reply regarding GHB analysis, to tell me that the MS we were seeing when analyzing GHB was in fact GBL, which GHB converts to under typical GC conditions used in drug analysis. This is exactly what we thought was happening, but lacking both a standard for GBL and a literature reference for its mass spectrum, we were unable to verify. We have found that GHB exhibits are often a combination of what we believe may be GHB and GBL, in that we often see two peaks in the TIC during a low temperature run, but when analysis is repeated in a high temperature run, one peak will almost disappear while the other will increase considerably in abundance. This leads me to believe we might be seeing the conversion of GHB to GBL at the higher temperature, but that would mean that the mass spectrum of GHB is in fact obtainable using a low temperature run, since we are seeing both peaks in that kind of run. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that the disappearing peak will not appear at all if one first washes the sample with chloroform, which makes sense due to the differential solubilities of GHB and GBL (GBL soluble, GHB insoluble, in CHCl3). Yet I have nowhere found any published MS for GHB. Why would that be so if the disappearing peak is GHB? Anyone have any ideas what the other compound the disappearing peak might be if it is not GHB? Without standard spectra to compare the unknown peaks to, we are unable to identify them with certainty. Fortunately we are able to separate the components by washing with CHCl3, and so get a good IR spectrum for GHB, so identification of GHB is not a problem. We are curious though, so I have ordered standards of GHB and GBL so that we can experiment further and hopefully come up with some definitive answers as to what is going on in the GC/MS with regard to these samples. If we succeed, I'll let the list know. In the meantime, we find the dry extraction of GBL followed by IR of the GHB residue to be quicker and simpler than derivitization techniques. Of course we would love to hear of any methods anyone has for derivitizations or other techniques that are even quicker. We are starting to see more and more GHB cases every month. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF66BF.18F6DBE2 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiUXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcBABgAEgACAB0AAQAiAQEggAMADgAAANAHAQAY ABIAAgAhAAEAJgEBCYABACEAAAA5RDU2OTg0Njk3RDJEMzExODFBOTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQDwBgEE gAEAEQAAAFJFOiBHSEIgYW5hbHlzaXMARgUBDYAEAAIAAAACAAIAAQOQBgAIDAAAMQAAAAMACVkB AAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAb9mv+zS9Gt4TtJAEdOHNhAAa0u84wAAAwDeP69vAAADAAOACCAGAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAJ2oBAB4ABIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAA ADkuMAALAA2ACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAAGFAAAAAAAACwABgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAALAAaACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAAiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAA AB4ACYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAqACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgALgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAAB AAAAAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAiAYAAIQGAACKCgAATFpGdW06/qkDAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQED Aff/CoACpAPkBxMCgA/zAFAEVj8IVQeyESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwR MwjvCfe2OxgfDjA1ESIMYGMAUHMLCQFkMzYWUAumBdB5JCB0E+BuawQgdG9pHRFlIBQQdgSQB0Ag mHBlbwtQHeB3aB2gVxggC1AIkGQdgm0dAG/edwOgHzIdABggZwsRC4DAZyBHSEIgAHAHQJJ5AJBz LB2DZWwDIN8HgB0SBUAdwgXhdx7RBJC9HeJlIRIe8AnwIYR6IRbMd2EEIAuAIGYA0AVAuEdCTCIQ HvAN4GghQ5UFoG4eIXQdc3VuBIGZHRB5cA3gHlFHQydi2SEAdGkCIAQgdRQQH5AxJgFkcnUhMCGW LiD8IFQm4CXhBCAOwCZBIIGfHvAjASOhHSAIYGdoLKF7JdET4HAegAMAISAiEGLmdQVAC2BjayES BuAdIP8hgB3wAZAoQAsRJiAFsSaBvyGBH5AvcB9gDrAeQHQIcMsd4BggZiPhbmMd4DAi7ymABCAA wAQRcx6AJlAqgP5tJrEjtSgwAaAewR2RHiG5BpB5LgqiCoQKgFcd4P8T4B4gMBEoMSLUIVIOwCbg 7mIykgrAHeBvAYAksidhvwbQC4AjACmhOEEsZ2IicP8IkDZhAMAdADpAIUUfkCaDvyYBIuMjoThU JCEdEHcdoJ0egGEdYTwDHeBUSSkgvmQIcSEhMOEgECJRbR6A/zFGKDAuRCSYIeErsh8xPaB/DrAq Iy9wJuAtMD9vIABu/x3gPZIe4AMQAyAHQARgL5D/KmAEAC3CCsEm0TSCHdEvMf8SgUSjC4AFAD2g FBAnYgCQ/wSBNGEdAEJiLmAvwTIRK0Z5HsBhZDKxNJM6RiOhbf9CwQVAOwEkJR3CJ3QAkDlk/yFS HZEwYyMUQrIoYj+ILkT7PDQIYGwfkAeAA5Ei5zLb501GK5ImFW9iAZA5ETRy/ynwPt8/6FRxMiEj oTgSJCX/LyM9mSMBLtEfkDmRQDErRm5oKKBGokFlZghwRrNz7nUt0BfBH4FiHQIyMSZC7yLnRWch EkRYbi8wIYBFpJ8jAQdARzE5oEQSZmkUAPctU1ohHbRhP5AewimAJxB/E9AXsThQBbAzkibjAMBr /weRFBAAgF0BClAdhiEAASDXMeIpkB5RcwbwdTfAMQHPCJAEIE1VO3UgKDBiZVM/HsAiEFLDAIBn diYBQ0hQQ2wzKStBWRQgIP5JNjRekCSRI/E2lABwHQD+cGeRBAAd0B+QBeEwIyFg/StBV1nQUGUi 40vCHaBfsa9c70RTK5EhUT8rUEFrQP9EEjZDazJIISXRLHNGaDjR/1nwNrRuj0RxS2dfsSmAK7L7 XpJv9FdhsQhgBUAvlzMkvy9wHZFyojgSHcIoMGtqUf8DoD2UHZAzozgSNEhIIWTx/zUgHbJScGGk J7ELcSiQK0D9NVpGF8E0QSJhLFFWpDRm/xQQCrFCEUxVcsFEIAIwBCD/W9FggiRTYbJpEyIQMKJu AWZnabEvcGdvBHBp0FL/UfhsRVYReucowTlGUsVek7cecANgNHFtbLJWpGMIcf8IYGDSLRKEk2nl BbAEgR+B/y+WZg9uATw2KNADoA7AP6H/B3ECMFqnMKIfAB6AWrAigPcdADjRNCFwYZRlUCKxAQH/ C4ApgXDjA+BM4SGAHXMsc78rkYMQIRI5YT31KRAvI3K/YbIgtB2FR7FhNCsySTmhnx3hGtAyIAmA IhBJJyKB/x7AIxRroViBalGU4j4EUNLfKZAHgDOjj9FzFXIdAA7B/x5AJlBNFjBxAhAigCAQW6T/ g2E5kZKDIWEYIEgRY+Q7AfxxdQ3gYzCNlACQYVIocdcdMY+hBRB2KYF6OTQOsO8T0AMAnUCUw085 oAWgCHD/R7EjolCDF7A2YR2RHdAKwf85kWsyB4As8UohazFwhFqR/wWxntyKgaJxRrOfyCLUOBL/ HhEDoJ1Fh0gvkQAgTCN/Mv86oQWwcPJQsamyJzNHoSvRVx4houECIWg1S0JTsCAOUBPxKbEiEEYt QUL+Q31HY4EN4BIge6GW4TVULlIgwCmhHlFDjMIgTO8BoAWwIwAFsHk1VCMBl5A7IQADkVKQIQXA CFBtbb8oMCmAHQAIUCKAIMBlfUW6dCtAUAiRMiCtUUw1WgJ9tZADACYAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAACwAC AAEAAAADAP0/5AQAAB4AcAABAAAAEQAAAFJFOiBHSEIgYW5hbHlzaXMAAAAAQAA5AIAYxBa/Zr8B AwDxPwkEAAAeADFAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAADABpAAAAAAB4AMEABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJT T05TAAAAAAMAGUAAAAAAAwCAEP////8LAPIQAQAAAAIBRwABAAAANwAAAGM9VVM7YT0gO3A9SU5E SUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTTtsPUVYQ0gxLTAwMDEyNDIzMDIyOVotOTM4MwAAAgH5PwEAAABYAAAAAAAA ANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT01NIENPTEwvT1U9SVJD Qy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPVJQQVJTT05TAB4A+D8BAAAADwAAAFJvYmVydCBQYXJzb25zAAAe ADhAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAACAfs/AQAAAFgAAAAAAAAA3KdAyMBCEBq0uQgAKy/hggEA AAAAAAAAL089SU5ESUFOIFJJVkVSIENPTU0gQ09MTC9PVT1JUkNDL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049 UlBBUlNPTlMAHgD6PwEAAAAPAAAAUm9iZXJ0IFBhcnNvbnMAAB4AOUABAAAACQAAAFJQQVJTT05T AAAAAEAABzAoRbgWv2a/AUAACDDi2/YYv2a/AR4APQABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAB0OAQAAABEAAABS RTogR0hCIGFuYWx5c2lzAAAAAB4ANRABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdEMzExODE5NzEwMDA5 NjRCODU3QTM0NzY2NEBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAAALACkAAAAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAG EBUdwIYDAAcQgQcAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABNWVRIQU5LU1RPVEhFU0VW RVJBTFBFT1BMRVdIT1JFUExJRURUT01ZT1dOUkVQTFlSRUdBUkRJTkdHSEJBTkFMWVNJUyxUT1RF TExNRVRIQVRUSEVNU1dFV0VSRVNFRUlOR1dIAAAAAAIBfwABAAAAPQAAADxBNjYzRTAxQkZGNTdE MzExODE5NzEwMDA5NjRCODU3QTM0NzY2NEBleGNoMS5pcmNjLmNjLmZsLnVzPgAAAAAMKw== ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF66BF.18F6DBE2-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 23:25:09 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06566 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06561 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:23:04 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.6e.609dbb (4470) for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:22:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6e.609dbb.25be7f01@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:22:25 EST Subject: Fwd: Moratorium in Charlottesville, Va. To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_6e.609dbb.25be7f01_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_6e.609dbb.25be7f01_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_6e.609dbb.25be7f01_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:20:23 -0500 Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.100]) by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:20:12 -0500 Received: from pavilion (CHCGA010-1325.splitrock.net [209.254.181.55]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA11026; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:20:06 -0500 Message-ID: <001801bf66eb$681f6960$37b5fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" Subject: Moratorium in Charlottesville, Va. Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:18:19 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF66A8.27E4ACE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF66A8.27E4ACE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Moratorium. On January 18, 2000, the Charlottesville, Virginia, City Council= became the first Virginia jurisdiction to pass a resolution calling for mor= atorium on the death penalty. The resolution urges members of the state legi= slature, the President, and representatives in the U.S. Congress, to halt ex= ecutions, citing the increased risk of executing the innocent, discriminatio= n in capital sentencing, and Virginia's low reversal rate of death sentences= on direct appeal. (Resolution for Moratorium on Executions in Virginia, 1/1= 8/00, and The Daily Progress, 1/22/00) ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF66A8.27E4ACE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Moratorium. On January 18, 20= 00, the=20 Charlottesville, Virginia, City Council became the first Virginia=20 jurisdiction to pass a resolution calling for moratorium on the death penalt= y.=20 The resolution urges members of the state legislature, the President, and=20 representatives in the U.S. Congress, to halt executions, citing the increas= ed=20 risk of executing the innocent, discrimination in capital sentencing, and=20 Virginia's low reversal rate of death sentences on direct appeal. (Resolutio= n=20 for Moratorium on Executions in Virginia, 1/18/00, and The Daily Progress,=20 1/22/00)
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF66A8.27E4ACE0-- --part1_6e.609dbb.25be7f01_boundary-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 23:27:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06592 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06587 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:26:00 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.9b.be1d43 (4470) for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:25:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9b.be1d43.25be7fab@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:25:15 EST Subject: Fwd: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_9b.be1d43.25be7fab_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_9b.be1d43.25be7fab_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_9b.be1d43.25be7fab_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (rly-yg04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.4]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:35:17 -0500 Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.100]) by rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:34:45 1900 Received: from pavilion (CHCGA010-1325.splitrock.net [209.254.181.55]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23674; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:34:38 -0500 Message-ID: <002401bf66ed$7021aa40$37b5fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Gail" , "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" , Subject: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:34:12 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF66AA.5FD60C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF66AA.5FD60C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE ABOLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY SINCE 1976 1976: PORTUGAL abolished the death penalty for all crimes. CANADA abolished=20= the death penalty for ordinary crimes. 1978: DENMARK abolished the death penalty for all crimes. SPAIN abolished th= e death penalty for ordinary crimes. 1979: LUXEMBOURG, NICARAGUA and NORWAY abolished the death penalty for all c= rimes. BRAZIL, FIJI and PERU abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes= . 1981: FRANCE and CAPE VERDE abolished the death penalty for all crimes. 1982: The NETHERLANDS abolished the death penalty for all crimes. 1983: CYPRUS and EL SALVADOR abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes= . 1984: ARGENTINA abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes. 1985: AUSTRALIA abolished the death penalty for all crimes. 1987: HAITI, LIECHTENSTEIN and the GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC (1) abolished=20= the death penalty for all crimes.=20 1989: CAMBODIA, NEW ZEALAND, ROMANIA and SLOVENIA (2) abolished the death pe= nalty for all crimes. 1990: ANDORRA, CROATIA (2), the CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC (3), HUNGA= RY, IRELAND, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA and S=C3O TOM=C9 AND PRINCIPE abolished the= death penalty for all crimes NEPAL abolished the death penalty for ordinary= crimes. 1992: ANGOLA, PARAGUAY and SWITZERLAND abolished the death penalty for all c= rimes. 1993: GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HONG KONG (4) and SEYCHELLES abolished the deat= h penalty for all crimes. 1994: ITALY abolished the death penalty for all crimes. 1995: MAURITIUS, MOLDOVA and SPAIN abolished the death penalty for all crime= s. SOUTH AFRICA abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes. 1996: BELGIUM abolished the death penalty for all crimes. 1997: GEORGIA, NEPAL, POLAND and SOUTH AFRICA abolished the death penalty fo= r all crimes. BOLIVIA and BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA abolished the death penalty for= ordinary crimes. 1998: AZERBAIJAN, BULGARIA, CANADA, ESTONIA, LITHUANIA and the UNITED KINGDO= M abolished the death penalty for all crimes. 1999: EAST TIMOR abolished the death penalty for all crimes. LATVIA (5) abol= ished the death penalty for ordinary crimes only. Notes: 1. In 1990 the German Democratic Republic became unified with the Federal Re= public of Germany, where the death penalty had been abolished in 1949. 2. Slovenia and Croatia abolished the death penalty while they were still re= publics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The two republics b= ecame independent in 1991. 3. In 1993 the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic divided into two states, th= e Czech Republic and Slovakia. 4. In 1996 Hong Kong was returned to Chinese rule as a special administrativ= e region of China. Amnesty International understands that Hong Kong will rem= ain abolitionist. 5. In 1999 the Latvian parliament voted to ratify Protocol No. 6 to the Euro= pean Convention on Human Rights, abolishing the death penalty for peacetime=20= offences. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF66AA.5FD60C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE ABOLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY SINCE=20 1976

1976: PORTUGAL abolished the death penalty for all crimes.=20 CANADA abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

1978: DENMARK abolished the death penalty for all crimes.=20 SPAIN abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

1979: LUXEMBOURG, NICARAGUA and NORWAY abolis= hed=20 the death penalty for all crimes. BRAZIL, FIJI and PERU= =20 abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

1981: FRANCE and CAPE VERDE abolished the death pena= lty=20 for all crimes.

1982: The NETHERLANDS abolished the death penalty for all=20 crimes.

1983: CYPRUS and EL SALVADOR abolished the death pen= alty=20 for ordinary crimes.

1984: ARGENTINA abolished the death penalty for ordinary=20 crimes.

1985: AUSTRALIA abolished the death penalty for all crimes.=

1987: HAITI, LIECHTENSTEIN and the GERMAN DEMOCRA= TIC=20 REPUBLIC (1) abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

1989: CAMBODIA, NEW ZEALAND, ROMANIA and=20 SLOVENIA (2) abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

1990: ANDORRA, CROATIA (2), the CZECH AND SLOVAK=20 FEDERAL REPUBLIC (3), HUNGARY, IRELAND, MOZAMBIQUE,= =20 NAMIBIA and S=C3O TOM=C9 AND PRINCIPE abolished the death pena= lty for=20 all crimes NEPAL abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

1992: ANGOLA, PARAGUAY and SWITZERLAND abolis= hed=20 the death penalty for all crimes.

1993: GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HONG KONG (4) an= d=20 SEYCHELLES abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

1994: ITALY abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

1995: MAURITIUS, MOLDOVA and SPAIN abolished=20= the=20 death penalty for all crimes. SOUTH AFRICA abolished the death penalt= y=20 for ordinary crimes.

1996: BELGIUM abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

1997: GEORGIA, NEPAL, POLAND and SOUTH=20 AFRICA abolished the death penalty for all crimes. BOLIVIA and=20 BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes.

1998: AZERBAIJAN, BULGARIA, CANADA, ESTONIA,=20 LITHUANIA and the UNITED KINGDOM abolished the death penalty f= or=20 all crimes.

1999: EAST TIMOR abolished the death penalty for all crimes= .=20 LATVIA (5) abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes only.

Notes:

1. In 1990 the German Democratic Republic became unified with the Federal= =20 Republic of Germany, where the death penalty had been abolished in 1949.

2. Slovenia and Croatia abolished the death penalty while they were still= =20 republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The two republics= =20 became independent in 1991.

3. In 1993 the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic divided into two states,= the=20 Czech Republic and Slovakia.

4. In 1996 Hong Kong was returned to Chinese rule as a special administra= tive=20 region of China. Amnesty International understands that Hong Kong will remai= n=20 abolitionist.

5. In 1999 the Latvian parliament voted to ratify Protocol No. 6 to the=20 European Convention on Human Rights, abolishing the death penalty for peacet= ime=20 offences.

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01BF66AA.5FD60C00-- --part1_9b.be1d43.25be7fab_boundary-- From forens-owner Mon Jan 24 23:37:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06685 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:36:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.6]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06673 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:35:56 -0500 (EST) From: KJohn39679@aol.com Received: from KJohn39679@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id y.60.95ac2e (4470) for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:35:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <60.95ac2e.25be820a@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:35:22 EST Subject: Fwd: Moratorium effort intensifies in Illinois To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_60.95ac2e.25be820a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 66 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_60.95ac2e.25be820a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --part1_60.95ac2e.25be820a_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (rly-yb02.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.2]) by air-yb04.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:46:43 -0500 Received: from pimout1-int.prodigy.net (pimout1-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.100]) by rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:46:20 -0500 Received: from pavilion (CHCGA010-1325.splitrock.net [209.254.181.55]) by pimout1-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA20444; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:46:15 -0500 Message-ID: <00a901bf66f7$6fee32a0$37b5fed1@pavilion> From: "Diane" To: "Jan" Cc: "Barbara Jean" , "John Kelly" Subject: Moratorium effort intensifies in Illinois Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 21:45:48 -0800 Organization: Prodigy Internet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A6_01BF66B4.6093AB20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01BF66B4.6093AB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Moratorium effort intensifies in Illinois=20 By Debbie Howlett USA TODAY=20 CHICAGO -- The release Tuesday of the 13th inmate from Illinois' death row h= as intensified efforts to impose a moratorium on all executions in the state= .=20 The Union League Club, a group of 4,000 business and civic leaders, announce= d on Wednesday its support for a moratorium.=20 Next week, a 17-judge panel appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court will hol= d hearings on reforms to capital punishment laws. At least one member of the= court, Justice Moses Harrison II, supports a moratorium.=20 ''So many mistakes'' have been made, Harrison said in one death penalty opin= ion. ''The system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to dea= th. If these men dodged the executioner, it was only because of luck and the= dedication of the attorneys, reporters, family members and volunteers who l= abored to win their release.''=20 The latest person to be released from death row was former Chicago police of= ficer Steve Manning. Prosecutors chose not to retry him for a 1990 murder wi= th mob overtones. Manning's conviction, based largely on the testimony of a=20= jailhouse informant, was overturned on appeal.=20 Manning was not freed from prison Tuesday because he must still serve two li= fe sentences plus 100 years in Missouri on an unrelated kidnapping convictio= n.=20 Of the other 12 inmates released from death row since 1996, five were exoner= ated by DNA testing that ruled them out as killers. Several others were clea= red when other men confessed to the crimes of which they were convicted. One= of these, Anthony Porter, came within two days of being executed before he=20= was freed last year when a Wisconsin man confessed to the murder of which Po= rter had been convicted.=20 Concern about wrongful convictions increased after the Chicago Tribune publi= shed a five-part series last year in which it looked at all 285 death-penalt= y cases in Illinois since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. The new= spaper concluded that as many as 40% of the cases were somehow mishandled.=20 Sponsors of the moratorium want a temporary halt to executions so that the c= ases of all 161 inmates on Illinois' death row can be reviewed to ensure tha= t errors were not made in their arrests and trials.=20 Illinois is not the only state where a moratorium is at issue.=20 Former U.S. senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon is leading a drive there to put=20= a moratorium referendum on the November ballot. The city council in Raleigh,= N.C., has voted to support a moratorium. Nebraska's unicameral Legislature=20= passed a moratorium last year, though it was vetoed by Gov. Mike Johanns, a=20= Republican. Lawmakers in Kentucky, Indiana, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are=20= studying similar legislation.=20 ''It's a fledgling movement,'' says Richard Dieter, director of the Death Pe= nalty Information Center in Washington, ''but it's cropping up more and more= .'' Nationwide, 85 condemned inmates have been cleared and released from dea= th row since 1976, according to Dieter's organization. Florida leads the sta= tes with 18, followed by Illinois with 13, Oklahoma and Texas with 7 each an= d Georgia with 5.=20 Manning's release prompted the Union League, whose members include Gov. Geor= ge Ryan, to demand a halt to all executions until substantial changes can be= made to capital laws so that defendants are adequately represented and fair= ly tried.=20 ''There are real problems with the death penalty here in Illinois,'' says Wi= lliam Nissen, a club board member and a Chicago lawyer.=20 A chance to enact a moratorium likely will come later this year during the L= egislature's annual session in Springfield. A legislative task force is exam= ining the moratorium proposal, as well as reforms. Its report is due in Apri= l.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01BF66B4.6093AB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Moratorium effort intensifies in Illinois=20

By Debbie Howlett
USA TODAY=20

CHICAGO -- The release Tuesday of the 13th inmate fro= m=20 Illinois' death row has intensified efforts to impose a moratorium on all=20 executions in the state.=20

The Union League Club, a group of 4,000 business and civic leaders, annou= nced=20 on Wednesday its support for a moratorium.=20

Next week, a 17-judge panel appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court will=20= hold=20 hearings on reforms to capital punishment laws. At least one member of the=20 court, Justice Moses Harrison II, supports a moratorium.=20

''So many mistakes'' have been made, Harrison said in one death penalty=20 opinion. ''The system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to= =20 death. If these men dodged the executioner, it was only because of luck and=20= the=20 dedication of the attorneys, reporters, family members and volunteers who=20 labored to win their release.''=20

The latest person to be released from death row was former Chicago police= =20 officer Steve Manning. Prosecutors chose not to retry him for a 1990 murder=20= with=20 mob overtones. Manning's conviction, based largely on the testimony of a=20 jailhouse informant, was overturned on appeal.=20

Manning was not freed from prison Tuesday because he must still serve two= =20 life sentences plus 100 years in Missouri on an unrelated kidnapping convict= ion.=20

Of the other 12 inmates released from death row since 1996, five were=20 exonerated by DNA testing that ruled them out as killers. Several others wer= e=20 cleared when other men confessed to the crimes of which they were convicted.= One=20 of these, Anthony Porter, came within two days of being executed before he w= as=20 freed last year when a Wisconsin man confessed to the murder of which Porter= had=20 been convicted.=20

Concern about wrongful convictions increased after the Chicago=20 Tribune published a five-part series last year in which it looked at all= 285=20 death-penalty cases in Illinois since capital punishment was reinstated in 1= 976.=20 The newspaper concluded that as many as 40% of the cases were somehow=20 mishandled.=20

Sponsors of the moratorium want a temporary halt to executions so that th= e=20 cases of all 161 inmates on Illinois' death row can be reviewed to ensure th= at=20 errors were not made in their arrests and trials.=20

Illinois is not the only state where a moratorium is at issue.=20

Former U.S. senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon is leading a drive there to p= ut a=20 moratorium referendum on the November ballot. The city council in Raleigh, N= .C.,=20 has voted to support a moratorium. Nebraska's unicameral Legislature passed=20= a=20 moratorium last year, though it was vetoed by Gov. Mike Johanns, a Republica= n.=20 Lawmakers in Kentucky, Indiana, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are studying sim= ilar=20 legislation.=20

''It's a fledgling movement,'' says Richard Dieter, director of the Death= =20 Penalty Information Center in Washington, ''but it's cropping up more and=20 more.'' Nationwide, 85 condemned inmates have been cleared and released from= =20 death row since 1976, according to Dieter's organization. Florida leads the=20 states with 18, followed by Illinois with 13, Oklahoma and Texas with 7 each= and=20 Georgia with 5.=20

Manning's release prompted the Union League, whose members include Gov.=20 George Ryan, to demand a halt to all executions until substantial changes ca= n be=20 made to capital laws so that defendants are adequately represented and fairl= y=20 tried.=20

''There are real problems with the death penalty here in Illinois,'' says= =20 William Nissen, a club board member and a Chicago lawyer.=20

A chance to enact a moratorium likely will come later this year during th= e=20 Legislature's annual session in Springfield. A legislative task force is=20 examining the moratorium proposal, as well as reforms. Its report is due in=20 April.=20

------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01BF66B4.6093AB20-- --part1_60.95ac2e.25be820a_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 02:29:50 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08053 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:27:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe10.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.114]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA08048 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 02:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 57439 invoked by uid 65534); 25 Jan 2000 07:27:11 -0000 Message-ID: <20000125072711.57438.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.164] To: References: <9b.be1d43.25be7fab@aol.com> Subject: Re: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 01:35:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Would I be safe in assuming that EC notwithstanding, that Turkey is willing to consider at least a temporary re-instatement of it? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: <> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 10:25 PM Subject: Fwd: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 > > From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 08:33:23 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10221 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:29:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d09.mx.aol.com (imo-d09.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.41]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10216 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:29:37 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id 7.67.f4a22c (3982); Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:28:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <67.f4a22c.25befef7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 08:28:23 EST Subject: Re: [forensic-science] FW: New Cases To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Bob I have noted the same thing with most of such programs that I have watched on television in the past. The entertainment is fine but the accuracy is wanting. I also have quit watching the shows feeling at times that they are more public relations efforts than good science reporting. It is too bad that Tina has taken offense at your comments, a reaction which I don't understand. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 10:06:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10881 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from nfstc.org (server49.aitcom.net [208.234.0.35]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10876 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:04:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from kevin (fwx.spjc.cc.fl.us [207.239.248.66]) by nfstc.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23609; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:03:53 -0500 From: "Kevin Lothridge" To: "Ascld" , "Forens" Subject: Job Announcement Chief Scientist Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:03:49 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk List members The National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC) expects to recruit a Chief Scientist this Spring. The incumbent will be responsible for scientific management of the NFSTC's Crime Laboratory quality support programs, including the new Proficiency Testing program. The ideal candidate will have a sound awareness of quality systems in forensic science (for example the ASCLD/LAB and ISO accreditation programs, the DAB standards for DNA analysis, and the work of the various TWG and SWG groups). The person appointed needs to have the committed attention to detail that is critical for successful delivery of these programs. The Chief Scientist must also have the ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with operational forensic scientists. The post is not tenured and its continuation will depend on the performance of the person appointed. Please let us know if you are interested in being considered for the position. A formal application packet will be sent out to you when ready. Please send a resume and a short description of why you are interested to Dr William J Tilstone, Executive Director NFSTC, 3200 34th Street South, St Petersburg FL, or by email to wjt@nfstc.org. Kevin Lothridge Director of Strategic Development National Forensic Science Technology Center 3200 34th Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070 www.nfstc.org From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 11:18:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11457 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:15:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.turk.net (mail.turk.net [212.57.1.10]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA11452 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:14:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from atasoy (unverified [195.214.155.199]) by mail.turk.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.6) with SMTP id ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:11:21 +0200 Message-ID: <004701bf6750$15580d80$04000005@atasoy> Reply-To: "Prof. Dr. Sevil Atasoy" From: "Prof. Dr. Sevil Atasoy" To: , References: <9b.be1d43.25be7fab@aol.com> <20000125072711.57438.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:20:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Members of the list: Please take your time and read the article postes by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey regarding the situation of Death Penalty in Turkey http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupb/bb5/archive/2000/01/14012000%2D02.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 9:35 AM Subject: Re: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 > Would I be safe in assuming that EC notwithstanding, that Turkey is willing > to consider at least a temporary re-instatement of it? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: <> > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 10:25 PM > Subject: Fwd: Countries which have abolished the Death Penalty since 1976 > > > > > > From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 13:30:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12445 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:28:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.i2020.net (mail.i2020.net [204.77.129.19]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12440 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:28:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from i2020.net ([204.232.10.42]) by mail.i2020.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 153-54218U5000L500S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:35:09 -0500 Message-ID: <388DEAEA.6F3F652@i2020.net> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:26:51 -0500 From: Sheila Berry X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens-l Subject: voice stress testing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Does anyone on the list have information regarding voice stress testing: 1) How it works. 2) Qualifications of examiners. 3) Reliability. 4) Admissibility. Thanks. Sheila Berry -- Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: dberry@i2020.net Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." - Will Durant (1885-1981) From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 14:15:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12697 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:13:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12692 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by umkc-mail01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:13:44 -0600 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C03DCCE16@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'Sheila Berry'" , forens-l Subject: RE: voice stress testing Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:13:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For a brief overview of all four of the questions you asked, see the text, Moenssens, Starrs, Henderson & Inbau, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, 4th edition (1995), in Chapter 20, pages 1227 to 1230. Andre Moenssens -----Original Message----- From: Sheila Berry [mailto:dberry@i2020.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 12:27 PM To: forens-l Subject: voice stress testing Does anyone on the list have information regarding voice stress testing: 1) How it works. 2) Qualifications of examiners. 3) Reliability. 4) Admissibility. Thanks. Sheila Berry -- Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: dberry@i2020.net Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." - Will Durant (1885-1981) From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 17:39:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14118 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:35:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA14113 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:35:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2000 22:35:47 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:29:16 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" , Robert Parsons , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forensic-science] FW: New Cases Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:29:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF6783.9D06ABA0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6783.9D06ABA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Fred, I understand her reaction all too well. When you pour your heart and soul into a project, and take justifiable pride in it, it is all too human to have a blind spot regarding it's flaws and to become very defensive when it is criticized, no matter how constructive the criticism and no matter how objective you try to be. That's why we all recognize the value of peer review - the problem for journalists reporting science is that the review they need is not of their journalistic peers, but rather of scientists, the "peers" of their subject matter. I forgive her reaction and regret causing her offense. I do hope she does some introspection and considers carefully WHAT I said rather than how I said it. I do believe she cares about a good product, she just needs to realize that she needs scientific help on a routine, regular basis to produce it. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 8:28 AM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forensic-science] FW: New Cases Bob I have noted the same thing with most of such programs that I have watched on television in the past. The entertainment is fine but the accuracy is wanting. I also have quit watching the shows feeling at times that they are more public relations efforts than good science reporting. It is too bad that Tina has taken offense at your comments, a reaction which I don't understand. Fred Whitehurst ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6783.9D06ABA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [forensic-science] FW: New Cases

Fred,

I understand her reaction all too well.  When = you pour your heart and soul into a project, and take justifiable pride = in it, it is all too human to have a blind spot regarding it's flaws = and to become very defensive when it is criticized, no matter how = constructive the criticism and no matter how objective you try to = be.  That's why we all recognize the value of peer review - the = problem for journalists reporting science is that the review they need = is not of their journalistic peers, but rather of scientists, the = "peers" of their subject matter.  I forgive her reaction = and regret causing her offense.  I do hope she does some = introspection and considers carefully WHAT I said rather than how I = said it.  I do believe she cares about a good product, she just = needs to realize that she needs scientific help on a routine, regular = basis to produce it.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 8:28 AM
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: [forensic-science] FW: New Cases


Bob
I have noted the same thing with most of such = programs that I have watched on
television in the past.  The entertainment is = fine but the accuracy is
wanting.  I also have quit watching the shows = feeling at times that they are
more public relations efforts than good science = reporting.  It is too bad
that Tina has taken offense at your comments, a = reaction which I don't
understand.
Fred Whitehurst

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6783.9D06ABA0-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 17:39:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14110 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA14105 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:34:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2000 22:34:49 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:28:17 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" , "FORENS-L POSTING (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [forensic-science] Re: FW: New Cases Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:28:16 -0500 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BF6783.799DFEFC" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF6783.799DFEFC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" EJ, Thanks for your kind comments. I wasn't addressing issues of differing professional opinion however; I was talking about factual error, as in mistaken explanations of how a test or instrument works, how it is used, what the results mean in terms of what is revealed rather than what the strength of the evidence is, etc. I agree that in the more controversial fields, a panel might be needed to obtain consensus opinion about what constitutes individualization of trace evidence (probabilities regarding hairs, DNA, etc.), but any single competent forensic scientist would catch errors like: misidentifying a screening test as a confirmatory test, calling an inclusion an identification or an inconclusive result an exclusion, mislabeling one instrument as another, calling a mass spectrum a chromatogram, saying that a GC/MS uses X-rays to analyze drugs, or that PCR creates new (rather than replicates existing) DNA etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. These are the kinds of simple but terribly misleading errors that lay journalists make which could be easily caught by simply running the script by a consultant for a quick proof-reading. It isn't necessarily that the writers of these shows don't care about accuracy, it's just that even when they do care they don't realize the errors they make because they lack the scientific background to recognize them. That's why they need our help, and why I and others are more than happy to answer their questions in this forum, but it is the questions they DON'T ask (because they don't know enough to ask them) which continually trip them up. The only solution to that is to have a qualified consultant on their staff who will recognize these errors, or at least recognize ambiguities which need to be researched further before they are recorded or broadcast. That's why national news programs on the major networks and cable news networks hire doctors to report on health and medicine, meteorologists to report the weather, and other scientists to report on a wide variety of science stories. They all have consultants on staff, yet even then they sometimes get the facts wrong because deadlines cause them to skip or abbreviate their expert's review. Now come the cable networks who do the public the great service of reporting on the less well-known sciences (like forensics), ones which do not generate enough interest for the broadcast networks; but then they do the public the disservice of misrepresenting those sciences because they don't budget for the consultants they need to accurately report them. I find it very frustrating. In the rush to win the ratings/circulation competition, there has been a continuing and disturbing decline in concern for achieving accurate reporting as goal #1 (above deadlines, above ratings, etc.). I have found that even when we take the time to explain things thoroughly in a interview with a reporter, by the time they edit our comments into sound bites for a broadcast report, or rehash our comments in their own words for a print article, we wind up being misquoted with an implied meaning we didn't intend, and sometimes are represented as saying something diametrically opposed to what we actually said or meant. It is ignorance, more than negligence, which is mostly at work there. I greatly appreciate those few reporters who make the time and effort to run their copy by us over the phone to make sure that what we said or meant is what they heard and understood. Even beyond scientific and technical issues, I find that, in general, much of journalism today is very sloppy in it's use of language, which often results in unintended meanings being conveyed to the public. A perfect example is the tendency to report "not guilty" verdicts as "innocent" verdicts (e.g., "the jury found the defendant innocent"), when of course there is no such verdict as "innocent," and "not guilty" really means "not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;" it does not usually mean "proven innocent," for even when the defendant is in fact innocent, that innocence is rarely proven (fortunately, it doesn't have to be because the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case). As I recall, at least two jurors in the OJ case candidly stated they felt he was actually guilty, but that the prosecution simply failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in their eyes, so they were obligated by their oath to return a "not guilty" verdict. Yet the headlines said "Jury finds OJ innocent!" Conversely, how about the highly prejudicial practice of referring to an untried suspect as a "perpetrator" or "offender?" Suspects are often tried in the media long before a jury is seated, causing expensive changes in venue, or even worse, use of potentially biased jurors. A trivial and off-topic example, but illustrative of the laxity in concern for accurate language usage prevalent in the media today, is the common reporting of ratios as "margins," as in "Al Gore won the caucus by a margin of 2 to 1." How many times have you heard something like that? "2 to 1" is of course not a margin, it is a proportion or ratio. A margin is the mathematical difference between two numbers, as in "Al Gore won by a margin of 250,000 votes." A generation or two ago, this kind of journalistic sloppiness would never have been tolerated. To paraphrase Paul Simon, "Where have you gone, Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, whoo whoo whoo..." Obviously, we've struck another pet peeve of mine (among many), so I'll get off the soapbox now. To Tina and any other journalists on the list - we in the forensic sciences like to think you really want to get it right, and we really want to help you do that, but asking a few questions here or there isn't enough. The issues you are dealing with are simply too technical and complex, and errors will be inevitable if you try to go it alone. To get it right, you need one of us on your staff or at least retained as a consultant to review your work before you publish it. Like EJ did, you might even find volunteers who will do it gratis (it makes a nice addition to a resume' at least), but one way or another, you need to obtain that kind of regular assistance, just as the big news programs do for other sciences, or you will continue to fail to achieve your goal of excellence in forensic science reporting. That's all I'm trying to say. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: E. J. Wagner [mailto:EJWagner@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 11:52 AM To: forensic-science@egroups.com Subject: [forensic-science] Re: FW: New Cases Dear Bob, I very much admired your kind and instructive response to Tina's post. I've never met Tina, but she and I have something in common. We both rely on information on the forensic sciences freely given to us by generous professionals. I think I have it easier than Tina. My presentations are usually for academic groups, and since I specialize in historic cases,my sources feel free to criticize how these cases were handled many years ago.Also, academic budgets being smaller than an ant's derriere, I appreciate enormously the thoughtful imput I've received without charge. I too have noticed constant errors in the treatment of forensic science on television, and wish a professional consultant might be engaged.But aside from the intrinsic cheapness of TV producers, (who are willing to pay themselves, the actors, the guy who goes out for coffee, but not the professionals they interview) there remains the fact that many forensic folks do not agree among themselves as to proper procedure. I ask for several opinions about a case before I present it- " "In your opinion, Dr. X,would these 150 year old false teeth have been adequate to establish ID?" "And you, Dr. Y, do you concur?" Inevitably, and I wind up having to call it. So I suspect that a TV show would need a panel of experts in a number of specialties to doa really accurate job. I just saw a TV program about the Coppolino case in which Milton Helpern was not mentioned. This is like discussing the civil war without mentioning Lincoln. In short-I have only a little hope. I do feel that we owe you thanks for your help. EJ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/forensic-science/ http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF6783.799DFEFC Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhIWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQWAAwAOAAAA0AcBABkAEQAcABAAAgAwAQEggAMADgAAANAHAQAZ ABEAHAAQAAIAMAEBCYABACEAAAA5OTY4OEFFNDM2RDNEMzExODFBOTEwMDA5NjRCODU3QQD5BgEE gAEAKgAAAFJFOiBbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5jZV0gUmU6IEZXOiAgTmV3IENhc2VzAIoNAQ2ABAAC AAAAAgACAAEDkAYAkBoAADMAAAADAAlZAQAAAAMA3j/kBAAAAwA2AAAAAAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAJ2oBAB4ABIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAAADku MAALAA2ACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAGhQAAAAAAAAMABYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA AAGFAAAAAAAACwABgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAALAAaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMAAoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAggBgAA AAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAAiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4A CYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAqACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgALgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAA AAAAAAIBCRABAAAAohQAAJ4UAACyJAAATFpGdbrmhBYDAAoAcmNwZzEyNeIyA0N0ZXgFQQEDAff/ CoACpAPkBxMCgA/zAFAEVj8IVQeyESUOUQMBAgBjaOEKwHNldDIGAAbDESX2MwRGE7cwEiwRMwjv Cfe2OxgfDjA1ESIMYGMAUDMLCQFkMzYWUAumIEVcSiwKogqECoBUE+BuLmsEIAIQBcB5CGEga2kL gGQgBaBtB4ACMHMALiAgSSB3YXPEbicFQGFkZBggBBA5C4BnIAQBClAEIG9mtCBkBpBmBnEg8XAD YN8h8CDBAiAHQCGAcAuAItFAIGhvd2V2BJA79R/UIAGQbB7hIQABoAhg5QVAZgDQdHUjAQSQA2Cc ciwgYAQgC4AgbQQAbQGQawnwJfB4C1Ei8HT/ItEhcyOxIGAkkAeQBUAFsfMLgCbwcnUfYh/wBbAe IJsmUChiaQVABAAgdRQQGmQmUHcT4AVAdGhlsiAgoXVsH5AmwGUDkfMmoQ6wcm0hcytjKtEYIP8j 8AdACYAr4CfAK8AFwCuw7wORK2cpYQnwZyuwIYIrsuUj4GkBAG5jK9AEACZQ9RQgYx+zYQnCLvIq sSzR/yvBBGAYIB8hAjADYCPxAJDlIwFmCJBsZCoxKKAKsKZuNKAmwWdoBUBiK9CnNUAJgC5hdG8h gGIBkP8moTOhFBAAgCsAIyclJCtj/zciJ9AlsCjBJpEhwDDxJcF8aXonwzBjLpAxQTDnKH0iYWIB oAMQKqAIkC3iZzcLESDiE+BpFAAmUEROakExlCkmUGIlUQBwee8v0CDhLlAfInAUICmyHlH3N2EN 4C/QYwiQAjAm4Snh/ywgHxEnwBPQJfQEIDpAJyCeOh/AJtExAifQZnkk4/9AwQnSIOIowyRxKKAz oTSAfy0QJ8AFsD8QKMImUEHQbPc6QCTyLKJjCkAiwkcDQ1T/DeA6dQXARxQCIEdjI/Ar5f9HAg7A R2UmUCbRC2A14EbDzwIgMVEpWEUSbm8uskZ59ybAIBAEIHM/0CWgKYFFMk5oA2I2gAnAYW0mUHOO YUOzMpMooEdDLwXh0ysBBCBYLS6QeSSBNpAxJ6FseXor0CCQdWfHKjEFsTKTUENSHyAYIO8nwAeR NUAH4CgumhggC1DfSIIHkQ7AJuEg4Sk94jGj/zGUJlEfEAuANIADACWwUEH/WDEi8CsBKZAfsQrj HWgHkP8r0ArAMnIr0B7iIXMAkD/A/z9xPrIs8QUQAmA/EEuCLIDfPTNCNTKTC2A/EGoIYSLx/ybh LFEnEStRDeAwUAWgQZL/NeEsgACQXTFB0FNANbI/EvdcQT8QKYBuRHQvsgUEYfGfRUMsEgBwQCMo kXF1DeD+ayJSIZBSEF2kH7IqsiAyfzVAMUAEEArAYUIykyuyd98FECzxIXMrsVrhcyOxBCB+ZAIg IEFB0DNxJSQA0GNbCHAA0HkmUCqgJwQgav8rACuSK4Ej4S8yJzErsT8Q/2nQaiRtFSAyVGE6QVs0 Xhf/bTFf0zXgYYFa4W0TC2BlUf9jFEDzSHE10HFBCcAIYB8B9zaBGCAFoGcDAG7kWaId4f9rkitg Z7JtMTYSIYAesSvA/GxwJlEfAXTSMhEfAU2Dn0UhM3EzUy8DE+BwcEYR91KCA+Au02U9oGURKNEn 4/8y4yrRHlFY0j6yKqQrsnnowW0TRE9OJ1QmYWVg9ihwa2nUa01wB+AJ8AhgfzWgUmN9sXPyVxBg JkERbt8lwWeiBRFz4yrwcHQzK9D7AiBdMXMG8CVQI3I2gTKU/1JTE+BKAWUCOjE0gR8SZDf/g7J5 kybxASArUTaQA/BGsP9zTFrhQjRTc16iYRFucnN2+1AwPFBnZTA8k2AkdWM2gbc14SChLIByE9Au YWYIcP8uszXgQEJtBFsSc1ILIHWC/43BA2AgcEHQJvB0PCe0IwG/VNEEICJhUBIhcTL1YV8Q+wXA NUB0KfN2Q0HQAmA18v9poZNXYDAzcWnQJaBeQ3My/nAXwYZyK8AHQDBBdlIHgH8hwEDgNUBLYT/h BbAXoWf/X4OWOGgjVHFNo3b3QMiWHecooAPwAQAgdmdxFCA/EP9b8kDiMUEm8AWwPKGClGPRv4fR hMNkGJJjhxMmUHkUIL9sZCuxbPWDUJhRB3NnoWH/K7IlgnSxA2Ag8XBmAQAgcP9GwQeRcIdPUDaB fbCB8UkC/mKPoDDhVIF5dSdhBJBrkvenEgfQH7FOKHEfMVs0lCbPk3WHcm1hK7JwdQJgQKHvK7IJ wSuBFBByMPAxQSGRf5ZkTAQroy5QBBEj0EawLW9/IqDBngQEIChCokA3c/8+gUxBi4ZtYU1xoxE1 QC6R/zDBf4QLgCzxKNIeUiuyj6f/k0ckIFyTbNqrTSHABBCsqN8m0VXhjLKBMlDCb2lCr2bzff81 wXVkoyKztp/6dRj/UnJq8w6wYmKZh1mhH+BYgf9YQQVAI/E/EANQa+EukWYi/R0qSTL0wHF/wwPw wfXAw/xzL0DgjQAsIDp0P6Q8gf9LQi6yK9AT4LoiJzFFQ4FC70bUHxC3cSWwcjxQIPEFgf+lIiaS SYIEkmTDE9AIkDDwbyTyvgWtOSRxZ4/AAyAj/jE74CUhSgGk5yZRzCPDVf8+JR+zhMMCEHLjbDwj 0CSR/1/xK7KiwjZyJ2N6hMORuUL/csE1oF0xJqEooLMjqKKHof+XQpZVTbJh8dDYbSKXwSjx/x6x HzazEqZBctM8UDlyZMT/tDiWZFNzGCDFwTBR1qx5df+vEinxW8FkxCJgsyFbASfQ/0dgmCHQUcLR HxCCcDXRIOL/JtFlIE2ALmHUJCyhXEGFku8sciDi0FEhwGQgMrMiHwD/djSiiI6kuKUuYSRxUHWi g//SIiGxUDAUIAUQRpKdoXig/7lxNmMrY9BRJZSDIgtwj1P/LHKQImaDIRBzkAWwAHAxQP9LYXf3 NUA/YDWQMSIrQmBC/yrRBGAm8F0x5wIqAcVUH7P/rDPsMnigc1GnRblyIfAH4P/Ulqq0X9PQ13ZS ARGZo3Mx/2KgeXUFoHixYfE3kiPxqzT/I7BMUTaBX9MhQHgEOIXQUf/n+yrCK2Y/EJcBCyB2Q3Lh 7zQRNoAEcMEbRWyCNeAekP/iQnHYdlIOsBPQAwBGkSEVvyZQv3UykmthA6CyJGxLYe8a0DBTXxem EmRe4SrRwBP/S6DmMdMTa4NwoiGRJ5GLIP8yMOs3IZA/8SvnJqFioOG0/+BouiIg4jOhI/ChUDZj q0j/H7FXUKgRIfAloCdRUDBcUt975QOzMTB4w5ZlIrHjZTB5LDB5IsACl9EsQSRxIt9HQE1wMUAP oAoZKO0gZkD9JlAiK7Jr0MAyzxWkwiHw/x8A9nMLFj6BbMMhkWCBFAF/xVUq0U1w9KFCAQo1Crss /woQdlIJa26SXTIsgQrRseL/ImFsggm0+dbUciAQIuGUQvNp0KuQdDsKECqhadBUou+x8SsAgXQs cyIU5RIJ2HL/bHsN2iaDo6IZiDKGCyMxQ+8ugTJQXTEU5SjxcmKgvkP/a2IXo7syhMOMVHBpPqGP If9H8ZJnkfFZcGsAg5YU4/Im9RZwZc5SQUUgMhBzUZ9hPzThicaTcQziQmIy5U9K/yUDQcE5waUQ PxGHIN9SbRP/7xBKcWgyRRLndgm0PpRn1/8jamIlo6A8YDZUJFTWYRXP/xbW21gFUYlRg1BtBHlB guH/q6E9AN9S1TTbwppBcxTHke/GMglvCnHowVmjNZcBpRV55/MiSg0DW6MoEQsGIfkSkCBDBSIP 8R/yaYFqdf82M+lQ0vK4oWvQl9L7sZHw/+dhrNfvEFzxRJJSgvgR5aH/KWH8AE7jRQQZEMkAxMHA sXfYgBKQ2IEiD5AOAskAP/044VM+NHeEAmQ9xCell7L/UTCYwKQzjgNRMAzz/4GM0f/fUUZyR4Fd 4qgBsIGfwnhB/6Mg20MfEfwQU3NsdF5BmCH/APWWgOHRfJAq48fAJSGFsP8nNMEbV1Dloacxn4B2 8/Fg+i0uIHC3AQdFe1WfcMCF/ySBaORewVagnZHIn8pFAWb/GDFQ4rihnUCuUA5TQon/I//9EXv0 1tKcoa1JrSGRIgqkPZLwcpjgsIASgttDIkH9n4BHd/K1ACe0YYFrALohl2PSVcT+MjIuEjEuOOH2 SKkhkvBuZ7Hiw4TD+gBedfd15Liv82wiPwaAIv9ZNBdhaMMPxbHiWHYgE/+B/9zS5jCtcpyh2fKR IgZzWJX/e+WS8HPykSH7omYQQCGwYf+38YyAJvDGEibygWCK8PhRh80BVn9YPzUwLDBnYP+dMN9B ntA44QagsiVgRSby/QGwb8VC/4GmcEvD/mjdce//9KUydLH+gGyFsP2A81L/hMPGAy4grlCyYviw dEEuMduM8O4AaP2gKGFQpJCfgOZT4sDFIiJXxXVa5cuA9ZgSRYWwTf6QpBA58ccx9leXIY2xQ6QR pnDvoFzh/k91wZEU+zD+kdtBDAFDMX++YjESLhJbEQ8i+JB1uC7ldqAiSlpPYtPQ/oAAAPsgAecw JySBwJH+AIAwDkD/mvTEwQaxoZG4FPQBzABUAc/e0VohsNExcUknn3GjIt9L8cIDMXDuADogeLHR qNL9bjFUv6DYsOIyWiKa9GqY85JnavIgLeciJ6WwRq9I/1xUg/K/oOzAWxITxSpg3SH/LiGjItZh S0DS4P0B4jLnMfuDrcIgbN5wWxK2U/zyK7L/FnBqEcoB7wPfILNxLQGVQf8yA7PTEGO7MrK0nuT7 1VsD/0FipOHIQeDx1DOVgS1F+IHv+zmT48ShrlB4mpQ80ZXy/9Qgn3EhYZgB09Cg8BbC+rD/WwPl oAijy4C/0v7A8/FuBP+EnFsSvXPz8g+R8xLGMFsR/5sxoPKmoyZ2M/HR0ePkxlP/oCUItNPTlePs k0OFWxK2w9faYdZg6MFMsAJFKCDhQf+UZN7whSGhhL+TZ6BNgLMx/++2kIOxsdZhrDBika/B1mHv 9GI+svuB50Fk1lEj5S9S+/wA8OAnJlew0Suy8/IqYP/mEdiReTSUaS4hMkCXcs9U/2oWPKABkNHA 2JGucMdx6aS/O1DZQeQRs/PpUOqRdyqA+1/Rn1FtKoCxsdhyeUSvVv9HM1sSkIPGddFDLbK9tMmi /1rz2JDLgw+Rj5C38CYgHfT/ySOBm8qoi0PtsADBJhF7wd//AcAwPQXkQUpLQjJAbwEH+GC8cSuQ Ri1BQkN1+TRGgXZDvyHHcfk0Ut/qsC0B+7FygPDSTMwRP2O+efk09wHB4OVRxjBSRfH/cmHa4QNx FZE5EK6BaFC0pZ01sVDJsMPw6dFGTEpadfk0LbzCT4UBfgH7wE2fa9FRQbzDtKVykG06cSC96MBK 6MByEOlgbKFb9GDZCdFvOpvwv4RAR9FsQF/9gDWw7bA1sMFRXfk0U9sLUb8AVPwRUxNKDkABoBdE MWcgK5AyZ2IxMTryNVkwQU35NG4wvwCBZtotgfVA6rDSsXBn4NrRW8IVBiBqPmG/AFvFnl2luOBl vwBGV78ATu8hSkMlIXO7rwpE95Eg/bOBLEpa/GD/s/3zNpDe8P88oPEwleNqE+IyVgF4wk3j/wLB CRBF0CETffIAweZRNbD/zJV4cmx05NF94yuU2mDw9P/8YGzT5LhPE1Pyv2EhcXlB//k0HpNmAWog 2HFigmBSgQ/9ghVmPKAeoljAHxIuIVgT//k0aFN34V/C7xCm8baiSjz//GCDBNPFksEvgbsR6kR9 8v3owE07A+OiaKNBRBhGT8H/t/WOwAhgtcBMcMa0j7RFQc88QfxgQPI7oWl6rtNp0e8/gfrRKEIx QG3/4f6BgkHf+TTvEIbg2RMuEmNLQDwh/+Ph+TQ50nyhKGPKUTHk6mG/NqApYVoEBWCz0WliLlbQ 7zFwj7HhtiJQZISRynUEtP/+8CYR3mbtkwCy+EFCETyg//xCbpBRgTuRUGGK4dcQd+PPfJL5NI1A iwJ0Zm8xLVH/K8HRsyXhMNARQIWRjTE6Mv9GMVXgkzDcTXXhbNMTATwx/48izyEOQpAVJ6VLIUSh ofD/UfEPkdgOtKRzsobgmSHbwv+PtJBxmyFfs9uXmCqctCFh7x3wMoBoUG3wQivAt/UtQP8IYNkR 1EB8kwORPPGBso6ATTaAcGvDD5FUVl/CZPsRAGSzKJ5iQWKQgj0EtKT/SmAy86lQhuARQDFBfKIc cf8nYQQEUMCD8Z5xkpDY8Toy/0/CXgBAIUz1EwLwd9trKYT3/0E/EJkyKfCmcAI8oMABf3QR18Mc ch1TWhPYB0/AbP5rKoCpcl5z4jDmsXrTCdf/A5Wn4y4zPwFfwvWRarCTMf/u8YhAT7MoYDVRreJr oeAE/TojYbSkKENDhd2A33WSsXuAoFZAIriAldQSFSuQRLJym3BYLGwU6EQxZzD/6iP5JWxBLbDc EFyBlNCNQf9s2OHBiQBQUi4hiSEv0frSfElEQJFWwI/hdXMWUln/K5AwILSkjCJPQmqwQJG4gP+R JSAB04SNII/hxuBswj0F+yYCm0NTe7E+FvCmJmGYEP8AsdNAWeFsFpeyblF0ofkl/64iPwFBMSeh oGFkg2pS43V/VTB1FDAgL1Mq8lAHapBi/9w9p6NRMDnxAKWpIjoJORD/a5BtgGogICLocYDxAaA1 kO0zoE3AImYQSIbhT4G0pP+jYOpwNJL3oqEhbeKLcGnh/2nhXFOg8IHwRTBFQ1eTS1H/rfCjYJmx 8wS0pC6VVKKboH+v8G2A1VDcS2YQIpFUgC3/3YWVoSdyXEHBoJGBddBBAP8Q0qmC5lKlk4DBOeBa 9N6S/w0A5eWq9GyxhuFKS5vwvA//O9887z3/Pw7E9m8A0RFYYv+9tHuBr+DO8YRCvwBZsMWfrGVH xs1uMVWYUWKB8P9LQP0QQYWYEJFwOHFBBkIT/UKOLbmQRPdDjzsvSw9MH39NLz9vSQlZwaHwvwCF MHSgcDovL3dQ4C7Gqeov4jMvQo4v56VQj0/D/4Cgb2GPcJGwsgPiM9TzuZEXjsCJQ7LKfVgQAAAe AHAAAQAAACYAAABbZm9yZW5zaWMtc2NpZW5jZV0gUmU6IEZXOiAgTmV3IENhc2VzAAAAAgFxAAEA AAAbAAAAAb9nU2Rt5Ipm8tM2EdOBqRAAlkuFegAAqJFAAAMAJgAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAALAAIAAQAA AB4AQhABAAAAJQAAADwzODhERDRBNy5CQTMzODQ2NUB3b3JsZG5ldC5hdHQubmV0PgAAAAADAP0/ 5AQAAEAAOQDgsI95g2e/AQMA8T8JBAAAHgAxQAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAwAaQAAAAAAe ADBAAQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAAADABlAAAAAAAMAgBD/////CwDyEAEAAAACAUcAAQAAADgA AABjPVVTO2E9IDtwPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT007bD1FWENIMS0wMDAxMjUyMjI4MTZaLTExNTIz AAIB+T8BAAAAWAAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1JTkRJQU4gUklWRVIg Q09NTSBDT0xML09VPUlSQ0MvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1SUEFSU09OUwAeAPg/AQAAAA8AAABS b2JlcnQgUGFyc29ucwAAHgA4QAEAAAAJAAAAUlBBUlNPTlMAAAAAAgH7PwEAAABYAAAAAAAAANyn QMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUlORElBTiBSSVZFUiBDT01NIENPTEwvT1U9SVJDQy9D Tj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPVJQQVJTT05TAB4A+j8BAAAADwAAAFJvYmVydCBQYXJzb25zAAAeADlA AQAAAAkAAABSUEFSU09OUwAAAABAAAcwLOyKeYNnvwFAAAgw/P6deYNnvwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABS RTogAAAAAB4AHQ4BAAAAJgAAAFtmb3JlbnNpYy1zY2llbmNlXSBSZTogRlc6ICBOZXcgQ2FzZXMA AAAeADUQAQAAAD0AAAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMxMTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1N0EzNDc2NjhAZXhj aDEuaXJjYy5jYy5mbC51cz4AAAAACwApAAAAAAALACMAAAAAAAMABhBDprn5AwAHEBAcAAADABAQ AAAAAAMAERAAAAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAARUosVEhBTktTRk9SWU9VUktJTkRDT01NRU5UU0lXQVNO VEFERFJFU1NJTkdJU1NVRVNPRkRJRkZFUklOR1BST0ZFU1NJT05BTE9QSU5JT05IT1dFVkVSO0lX QVNUQUxLSU5HQQAAAAACAX8AAQAAAD0AAAA8QTY2M0UwMUJGRjU3RDMxMTgxOTcxMDAwOTY0Qjg1 N0EzNDc2NjhAZXhjaDEuaXJjYy5jYy5mbC51cz4AAAAAaDw= ------_=_NextPart_000_01BF6783.799DFEFC-- From forens-owner Tue Jan 25 21:52:30 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15770 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:50:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from oberon.dnai.com (oberon.dnai.com [207.181.194.97]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15765 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com (dnai-207-181-201-23.cust.dnai.com [207.181.201.23]) by oberon.dnai.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA46537; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:49:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000125185101.009a57f0@mail.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@mail.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:53:11 -0800 To: Sheila Berry , forens-l From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: voice stress testing In-Reply-To: <388DEAEA.6F3F652@i2020.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 01:26 PM 01/25/2000 -0500, Sheila Berry wrote: >Does anyone on the list have information regarding voice stress testing: > S, Here's some stuff I sent to Fred a bit ago. On the how, what, wherefores, and methodology take a look at the sites listed near the foot of the message. Greenwald, M., "The Effects of Decreased Frequency Bandwidth on Speaker Identification by Aural and Spectrographic Examination of Speech Samples", Master Thesis, Michigan State University, 1979 Hall, M. C., "Spectrographic Analysis of Interspeaker and Intraspeaker variables of Professional Mimicry", Master Thesis, Michigan State University, 1975 Hazen, B., "Effects of Different Phonetic Contexts on Spectrographic Speaker Identification", 54 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 650, 1973 Hollien, H., & McGlone, R., "The Effect of Disguise on Voiceprint Identification", In the Proceedings of the Camahan Crime Countermeasures Conference, University of Kentucky, University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 1976 Kersta, L. G., "Voiceprint Identification", 196 Nature Magazine 1253, Dec. 29, 1962 Reich, et al., "Effects of Selected Vocal Disguises upon Spectrographic Speaker Identification", 60 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 919, 1976 Reich & Duke, "Effects of selected vocal disguises upon speaker identification by listening", 66 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1023, 1979 Smrkovski, L. L., "Collaborative Study of Speaker Identification by the Voiceprint Method", 58 J. AOAC 453, 1975 Smrkovski, L. L., "Study of Speaker Identification by Aural and Visual Examination of Non- Contemporary Speech Samples", 59 J. AOAC 927, 1976 Stevens, et al., "Speaker Authentication and Identification: A Comparison of Spectrographic and Auditory Presentations of Speech Material", 44 3. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1596,1968 Tosi, et al., "Experiment on Voice Identification", 15 3. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2030, 1972 Tosi & Greenwald, "Voice Identification by Subjective Methods of Minority Group Voices", Paper presented at the 6th Meeting of the International Association of Voice Identification, New Orleans, La., 1978 Young, M. A.,& Campbell, R. A., "Effects of Context on Talker Identification", 42 Acoust. Soc. Am. 1250,1967 Polygraph vs Voice Stress. http://www.polygraph.org/voice.htm Department of Defense Polygraph Institute VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS POSITION STATEMENT http://www.polygraph.org/voice.htm#dod American Association of Police Polygraphists AAPP Position Statement on the Use of Voice Stress Analysis http://www.polygraph.org/voice.htm#aapp The Aural/Spectrographic Method http://www.aftiinc.com/Voiceidowl/voice_identification.htm Research Studies: http://www.aftiinc.com/Voiceidowl/Research%20Studies.htm Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 08:27:33 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19727 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from red-2.uspis.gov ([204.117.11.249]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19722 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by red-2.uspis.gov; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA05397; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:34:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from somewhere by smtpxd Message-ID: From: "Smith, Stephanie L" To: "'Tim Kulp'" , Forens L Subject: RE: Speed Detection by Pacing Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:26:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Tim, I hope you're not offended, but I really had to chuckle at your posting. . . you see it matters not to us about whether "your guy's the good guy and the other guy is a bad guy". You can expect our involvement in providing advice (if we can) no matter what the details of the case. . . we aren't on anybody's SIDE, we just speak for the evidence. One of the big problems that we face as forensic scientists is the perception that our involvement in a case is predicated on our personal belief about the innocence or guilt of defendants . . . we'll tell you what the evidence means even if your client is a guilty man! Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist -----Original Message----- From: Tim Kulp [mailto:tkulp@awod.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:57 PM To: Forens L Subject: Fw: Speed Detection by Pacing Timothy Clay Kulp, Esquire Board Certified in Criminal Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy Riesen Law Firm 3660 West Montague Avenue North Charleston, SC 29418 843.760.2450 Fax 843-767-3282 Handheld 24 hrs. 1-888-TIM-KULP www.kulplaw.com (under construction) "Summa ius summa iniuria" ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Kulp To: Forens List Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:50 PM Subject: Speed Detection by Pacing Anyone out there in list land have a web reference to foundational requirements for testimony of vehicular speed establishment by pacing? I am helping out a cop tomorrow who was ticketed by a bad cop from another jurisdiction who shouldn't be a cop. Thanks, Tim Timothy Clay Kulp, Esquire Board Certified in Criminal Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy Riesen Law Firm 3660 West Montague Avenue North Charleston, SC 29418 843.760.2450 Fax 843-767-3282 Handheld 24 hrs. 1-888-TIM-KULP www.kulplaw.com (under construction) "Summa ius summa iniuria" From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 10:51:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20714 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from post3.fast.net (post3.fast.net [198.69.204.24]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20709 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:49:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.fast.net (maxtnt07-abe-107.fast.net [209.92.12.107]) by post3.fast.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA21970; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:49:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:49:58 -0500 Message-ID: <01BF67EB.16F20B00.meddetectives1@medstar.com> From: Tina Keller To: "'forensic-science@eGroups.com'" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:49:58 -0500 Organization: Medstar Television, Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk To All: Look...I am an assistant producer. That means that I find new cases for the show and set up the interviews. I do not write the scripts and I have no say in the production itself. I write the story pitches that go to the network. They then decide whether or not to produce that particular case. I think the fact that I am on these lists and I attend forensic conferences is a step in the right direction....agreed? I don't want to argue...that is not my nature. I respect everybody on these lists and I value your opinion and your assistance. Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. We have to oversimplify everything because the majority of the viewers are not as well educated as you. (That is a collective you) I would love to do a show detailing everything step by step, but the facts remains, beside you and me, not many people would watch the show, nor understand its content. Sad but true. It is as simple as that. I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me privately about his concerns, that is all. I wanted to take the show in a different direction and cover more aspects of the forensic science field...that was all that my initial reply intended. Peace.... Tina From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 10:54:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20762 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:52:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20757 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:52:19 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id a.1a.41d4c0 (3869); Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:51:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a.41d4c0.25c071f2@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:51:14 EST Subject: Re: Speed Detection by Pacing To: SLSmith@uspis.gov, tkulp@awod.com, forens@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In response to the message from Stephanie Smith to Tim Kulp: I love the way you think. Where was a nice lady like you before I married the FBI.:-)) Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 1/26/00 9:41:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, SLSmith@uspis.gov writes: << Tim, I hope you're not offended, but I really had to chuckle at your posting. . . you see it matters not to us about whether "your guy's the good guy and the other guy is a bad guy". You can expect our involvement in providing advice (if we can) no matter what the details of the case. . . we aren't on anybody's SIDE, we just speak for the evidence. One of the big problems that we face as forensic scientists is the perception that our involvement in a case is predicated on our personal belief about the innocence or guilt of defendants . . . we'll tell you what the evidence means even if your client is a guilty man! Stephanie L. Smith Senior Forensic Chemist -----Original Message----- >> From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 11:45:43 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21108 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21103 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from pnoth (1Cust168.tnt2.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net [63.25.167.168]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA05870; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:43:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000126104208.00800610@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:42:08 -0600 To: Sheila Berry , forens-l From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: voice stress testing In-Reply-To: <388DEAEA.6F3F652@i2020.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Sheila and all, Last summer I asked a similar question on this list and received several helpful replies. Also, I was able to find a lot of good information simply searching the Web. For the short answer, the following website is the abstract of a Department of Defense study of the technology, which concluded that it is of no value in determining truthfulness: http://www.dodpoly.org/96r0005.htm Someone also posted an in-depth article from the San Diego Union-Tribune, which both questioned the accuracy of computer-assisted voice stress analysis, and criticized the misleading and coercive ways some police agencies are using the device. I can mail or fax you a copy of this article if you wish. My personal conclusion was that although the device may cost a thousand times more than a ouija board, it is only perhaps twice as accurate. --Peter Nothnagle At 01:26 PM 1/25/00 -0500, Sheila Berry wrote: >Does anyone on the list have information regarding voice stress testing: > >1) How it works. > >2) Qualifications of examiners. > >3) Reliability. > >4) Admissibility. > >Thanks. > >Sheila Berry > >-- >Sheila Martin Berry >E-mail: dberry@i2020.net >Web Sites: >http://spiritlink.com/ >http://truthinjustice.org/ > >"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." > - Will Durant (1885-1981) > > > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 12:40:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21690 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:38:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21684 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:37:55 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id u.d0.144dd45 (3843); Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:36:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:36:43 EST Subject: Re: To: meddetectives1@medstar.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Tina I think that Bob Parsons is correct. These shows can be told simply and correctly. That is most often what we as forensic scientists have to do before juries. Tell the truth in simple understandable terms. An example. Back a while ago I saw one of these shows where a particular piece of equipment was shown being used to analyze a sample of evidence. The narrator noted that the instrument "identified" the material as "X" and yet I knew that that instrument could in no way be used as the "identifier" of that material. The one simple word "identify" was used wrongly and the error could have been very quickly corrected. So no one is perfect. I agree. But we ought to be willing to listen to criticism, don't you think? Frankly, I am glad to see such programs on television while at the same time hoping that errors in the producers' understanding of their subject matter might be addressed. We all need this communication if we are to do our jobs better. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 14:06:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22529 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22524 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:04:27 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001261904.OAA22524@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:06:24 -0800 To: forensic-science@eGroups.com, meddetectives1@medstar.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:43:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am afraid I am unfamiliar with your show since I don't watch television. However, I felt compelled to reply to this post. There is something you may not become familiar with by being on forensic lists and attending conferences. In both of these forums there is a presumption of a certain level of training, so you will hear forensic scientists addressing material on a scientist level. However, when forensic scientists provide evidence in court it is mandatory that they explain what they have done and what their results mean on a level which can be understood by the jury. This means that any qualified forensic scientist should have at least some, and hopefully a fair bit, of training in simplifying explanations. Considering that your show would not only benefit from having an on-site forensic advisor for technical details, but would also benefit from their training in simplifying the material, you might want to recommend having one to the people making those decisions. These opinions are my own and do not reflect those of the Washington State Patrol or its employees. Helen Griffin ---------- From: Tina Keller To: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com' Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 7:49AM To All: Look...I am an assistant producer. That means that I find new cases for the show and set up the interviews. I do not write the scripts and I have no say in the production itself. I write the story pitches that go to the network. They then decide whether or not to produce that particular case. I think the fact that I am on these lists and I attend forensic conferences is a step in the right direction....agreed? I don't want to argue...that is not my nature. I respect everybody on these lists and I value your opinion and your assistance. Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. We have to oversimplify everything because the majority of the viewers are not as well educated as you. (That is a collective you) I would love to do a show detailing everything step by step, but the facts remains, beside you and me, not many people would watch the show, nor understand its content. Sad but true. It is as simple as that. I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me privately about his concerns, that is all. I wanted to take the show in a different direction and cover more aspects of the forensic science field...that was all that my initial reply intended. Peace.... Tina From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 15:08:24 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22954 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:06:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from shands.ufl.edu (shands.ufl.edu [128.227.83.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22949 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from PRIMDOM-Message_Server by shands.ufl.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:06:06 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.2.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:05:22 -0500 From: "Christy Sullivan" To: , , Subject: Re: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu id PAA22950 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I was curious to know if anyone knew of anymore listserves, specifically dealing with the subject of forensic psychology or forensic investigation? Thanks! Christy From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 17:37:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA23950 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:34:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA23945 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:34:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:46:01 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C280@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'forensic-science@eGroups.com'" Cc: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: RE: Tina's explanation Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:51:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Folks, We try to encourage non-shooting of messengers in our peer review/proficiency testing/etc. Certainly Tina is entitled to the same courtesy. Although, personally, I didn't think Bob's criticism was that harsh. Keep in mind the quotation from the senior network executive (I don't remember the name) that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Tina Keller [mailto:meddetectives1@medstar.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:50 AM To: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com' Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Subject: To All: Look...I am an assistant producer. That means that I find new cases for the show and set up the interviews. I do not write the scripts and I have no say in the production itself. I write the story pitches that go to the network. They then decide whether or not to produce that particular case. I think the fact that I am on these lists and I attend forensic conferences is a step in the right direction....agreed? I don't want to argue...that is not my nature. I respect everybody on these lists and I value your opinion and your assistance. Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. We have to oversimplify everything because the majority of the viewers are not as well educated as you. (That is a collective you) I would love to do a show detailing everything step by step, but the facts remains, beside you and me, not many people would watch the show, nor understand its content. Sad but true. It is as simple as that. I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me privately about his concerns, that is all. I wanted to take the show in a different direction and cover more aspects of the forensic science field...that was all that my initial reply intended. Peace.... Tina From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 19:00:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27390 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA27334 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:57:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by firewall.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 26 Jan 2000 23:57:11 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:50:36 -0500 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'forensic-science@egroups.com'" Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: [forensic-science] RE: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:50:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF6858.23F806F2" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6858.23F806F2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" OK, lest Tina begin to feel persecuted, since I started this thread I would like to end it by publicly apologizing again to Tina for unintentionally making my first post on the subject public rather than private. Dumping on her or embarrassing her was never my desire. I think she shows remarkable positive interest in doing a thorough job with her show, and demonstrates many attributes of the good journalist that are so sorely lacking in many of her peers. I respect both her interest in our work and her professional dedication to her own work. I simply was trying to point out that there were significant scientific inaccuracies in the show which she and her senior producers seemed to be unaware of (as evidenced by the many other comments from others who saw the same problems as I) and that there is a simple solution - a professional consultant/advisor in forensics. I was also _not_ trying to single out her show, as the same type of problems are evident in just about every documentary, news report, or fictional story involving forensics that I have ever seen on television. As stated by others, the solution doesn't require detailed, in-depth, or step by step descriptions of the science, nor experts on-staff for each specialty portrayed. A single competent forensic scientist, with many years experience in a multi-disciplinary lab, can and would catch at least 90% of the type of errors I'm talking about simply by proof reading each script in its final draft prior to actual recording of the episode, and could assist in reducing the technical aspects to lay language which is all at once concise and understandable, yet also accurate. None of these attributes need be sacrificed in pursuit of another - they are all achievable with the aid of suitable, regular, professional advice. I'm not by any means a generalist ("I do drugs and booze, man," and that's all), but if I can notice the errors in shows dealing with topics outside my own specialties, then so can anyone else who has been around in forensics as long as I, and any one of them could serve well in the capacity I suggest. If the senior producers can't or won't pay for a full-time consultant on staff (free tip: retirees sometimes are willing to work inexpensively), a part-time consultant could proof-read the weekly scripts easily in no more than a dozen hours or so per month, surely well within any program's capacity to budget. As a last resort, with a bit of digging volunteer consultants can probably also be had, willing to serve at most for an acknowledgment in the credits as compensation for their help. That should be do-able regardless of budgetary constraints. I personally couldn't take on such a task on a regular basis, as my available free time is nil (between lab work, ABC committee activities, National Guard duties, continuing education, and my own private consulting work, my wife and dog sometimes forget what I look like as it is), but I might be able to help out occasionally, and I'm sure there are others on this list who can spare the time to offer Tina (and others like her) some assistance on a more regular basis, if their help is desired and requested. Ask, and ye shall (likely) receive. How about it folks? Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:37 PM To: meddetectives1@medstar.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Tina I think that Bob Parsons is correct. These shows can be told simply and correctly. That is most often what we as forensic scientists have to do before juries. Tell the truth in simple understandable terms. An example. Back a while ago I saw one of these shows where a particular piece of equipment was shown being used to analyze a sample of evidence. The narrator noted that the instrument "identified" the material as "X" and yet I knew that that instrument could in no way be used as the "identifier" of that material. The one simple word "identify" was used wrongly and the error could have been very quickly corrected. So no one is perfect. I agree. But we ought to be willing to listen to criticism, don't you think? Frankly, I am glad to see such programs on television while at the same time hoping that errors in the producers' understanding of their subject matter might be addressed. We all need this communication if we are to do our jobs better. Fred Whitehurst -----Original Message----- From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 1:43 PM To: forensic-science@eGroups.com; meddetectives1@medstar.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: [forensic-science] RE: I am afraid I am unfamiliar with your show since I don't watch television. However, I felt compelled to reply to this post. There is something you may not become familiar with by being on forensic lists and attending conferences. In both of these forums there is a presumption of a certain level of training, so you will hear forensic scientists addressing material on a scientist level. However, when forensic scientists provide evidence in court it is mandatory that they explain what they have done and what their results mean on a level which can be understood by the jury. This means that any qualified forensic scientist should have at least some, and hopefully a fair bit, of training in simplifying explanations. Considering that your show would not only benefit from having an on-site forensic advisor for technical details, but would also benefit from their training in simplifying the material, you might want to recommend having one to the people making those decisions. These opinions are my own and do not reflect those of the Washington State Patrol or its employees. Helen Griffin ---------- From: Tina Keller To: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com' Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu' Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 7:49AM To All: Look...I am an assistant producer. That means that I find new cases for the show and set up the interviews. I do not write the scripts and I have no say in the production itself. I write the story pitches that go to the network. They then decide whether or not to produce that particular case. I think the fact that I am on these lists and I attend forensic conferences is a step in the right direction....agreed? I don't want to argue...that is not my nature. I respect everybody on these lists and I value your opinion and your assistance. Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. We have to oversimplify everything because the majority of the viewers are not as well educated as you. (That is a collective you) I would love to do a show detailing everything step by step, but the facts remains, beside you and me, not many people would watch the show, nor understand its content. Sad but true. It is as simple as that. I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me privately about his concerns, that is all. I wanted to take the show in a different direction and cover more aspects of the forensic science field...that was all that my initial reply intended. Peace.... Tina ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Post a message, send it to: forensic-science@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Save 50% at MotherNature.com! See site for details. http://click.egroups.com/1/766/2/_/75397/_/948913464/ -- Create a poll/survey for your group! -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=forensic-science&m=1 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6858.23F806F2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [forensic-science] RE:

OK, lest Tina begin to feel persecuted, since I = started this thread I would like to end it by publicly apologizing = again to Tina for unintentionally making my first post on the subject = public rather than private.  Dumping on her or embarrassing her = was never my desire.  I think she shows remarkable positive = interest in doing a thorough job with her show, and demonstrates many = attributes of the good journalist that are so sorely lacking in many of = her peers.  I respect both her interest in our work and her = professional dedication to her own work.  I simply was trying to = point out that there were significant scientific inaccuracies in the = show which she and her senior producers seemed to be unaware of (as = evidenced by the many other comments from others who saw the same = problems as I) and that there is a simple solution - a professional = consultant/advisor in forensics.  I was also _not_ trying to = single out her show, as the same type of problems are evident in just = about every documentary, news report, or fictional story involving = forensics that I have ever seen on television.

As stated by others, the solution doesn't require = detailed, in-depth, or step by step descriptions of the science, nor = experts on-staff for each specialty portrayed.  A single competent = forensic scientist, with many years experience in a multi-disciplinary = lab, can and would catch at least 90% of the type of errors I'm talking = about simply by proof reading each script in its final draft prior to = actual recording of the episode, and could assist in reducing the = technical aspects to lay language which is all at once concise and = understandable, yet also accurate.  None of these attributes need = be sacrificed in pursuit of another - they are all achievable with the = aid of suitable, regular, professional advice.  I'm not by any = means a generalist ("I do drugs and booze, man," and that's = all), but if I can notice the errors in shows dealing with topics = outside my own specialties, then so can anyone else who has been around = in forensics as long as I, and any one of them could serve well in the = capacity I suggest.  If the senior producers can't or won't pay = for a full-time consultant on staff (free tip:  retirees sometimes = are willing to work inexpensively), a part-time consultant could = proof-read the weekly scripts easily in no more than a dozen hours or = so per month, surely well within any program's capacity to = budget.  As a last resort, with a bit of digging volunteer = consultants can probably also be had, willing to serve at most for an = acknowledgment in the credits as compensation for their help.  = That should be do-able regardless of budgetary constraints.

I personally couldn't take on such a task on a = regular basis, as my available free time is nil (between lab work, ABC = committee activities, National Guard duties, continuing education, and = my own private consulting work, my wife and dog sometimes forget what I = look like as it is), but I might be able to help out occasionally, and = I'm sure there are others on this list who can spare the time to offer = Tina (and others like her) some assistance on a more regular basis, if = their help is desired and requested.  Ask, and ye shall (likely) = receive.  How about it folks?


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:37 PM
To: meddetectives1@medstar.com; = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re:

Tina
I think that Bob Parsons is correct.  These = shows can be told simply and
correctly.  That is most often what we as = forensic scientists have to do
before juries.  Tell the truth in simple = understandable terms.  An example. 
Back a while ago I saw one of these shows where a = particular piece of
equipment was shown being used to analyze a sample = of evidence.  The narrator
noted that the instrument "identified" the = material as "X" and yet I knew
that that instrument could in no way be used as the = "identifier" of that
material.  The one simple word = "identify" was used wrongly and the error
could have been very quickly corrected.  So no = one is perfect.  I agree.  But
we ought to be willing to listen to criticism, don't = you think?  Frankly, I
am glad to see such programs on television while at = the same time hoping that
errors in the producers' understanding of their = subject matter might be
addressed.  We all need this communication if = we are to do our jobs better.
Fred Whitehurst


-----Original Message-----
From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov [mailto:hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov]=
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 1:43 PM
To: forensic-science@eGroups.com; = meddetectives1@medstar.com
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: [forensic-science] RE:


I am afraid I am unfamiliar with your show since I = don't watch television.
However, I felt compelled to reply to this = post.  There is something you may
not become familiar with by being on forensic lists = and attending
conferences.  In both of these forums there is = a presumption of a certain
level of training, so you will hear forensic = scientists addressing material
on a scientist level.  However, when forensic = scientists provide evidence in
court it is mandatory that they explain what they = have done and what their
results mean on a level which can be understood by = the jury.  This means
that any qualified forensic scientist should have at = least some, and
hopefully a fair bit, of training in simplifying = explanations.  Considering
that your show would not only benefit from having an = on-site forensic
advisor for technical details, but would also = benefit from their training in
simplifying the material, you might want to = recommend having one to the
people making those decisions.  These opinions = are my own and do not reflect
those of the Washington State Patrol or its = employees.  Helen Griffin

 ----------
From: Tina Keller
To: 'forensic-science@eGroups.com'
Cc: 'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 7:49AM

To All:

Look...I am an assistant producer.  That means = that I find new cases for
the show and set up the interviews.  I do not = write the scripts and I have
no say in the production itself. I write the story = pitches that go to the
network.  They then decide whether or not to = produce that particular case.
 I think the fact that I am on these lists and = I attend forensic
conferences is a step in the right = direction....agreed?  I don't want to
argue...that is not my nature.  I respect = everybody on these lists and I
value your opinion and your assistance.  Do not = fault us for what we do,
fault the general public.  We have to = oversimplify everything because the
majority of the viewers are not as well educated as = you.  (That is a
collective you)
I would love to do a show detailing everything step = by step, but the facts
remains, beside you and me, not many people would = watch the show, nor
understand its content.  Sad but true.  It = is as simple as that.

I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me = privately about his
concerns, that is all.  I wanted to take the = show in a different direction
and cover more aspects of the forensic science = field...that was all that my
initial reply intended.

Peace....

Tina

---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
To Post a message, send it to:   = forensic-science@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: = forensic-science-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

---------------------------------------------------------------= ---------
Save 50% at MotherNature.com!  See site for = details.
http://click.egroups.com/1/766/2/_/75397/_/948913464/<= /A>

-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=3Dforensic-scienc= e&m=3D1

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6858.23F806F2-- From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 19:36:27 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27917 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA27912 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 19:34:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 27 Jan 2000 00:27:05 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed Jan 26 16:33:11 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:34:27 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:33:32 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: forensic-science@eGroups.com, meddetectives1@medstar.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Tina: I sympathize with your position. Now, you must know how we feel when someone outside our respective postions take swipes at us. And this list is rife with those people! greg Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Tina Keller 01/26 7:49 AM >>> To All: Look...I am an assistant producer. That means that I find new cases for the show and set up the interviews. I do not write the scripts and I have no say in the production itself. I write the story pitches that go to the network. They then decide whether or not to produce that particular case. I think the fact that I am on these lists and I attend forensic conferences is a step in the right direction....agreed? I don't want to argue...that is not my nature. I respect everybody on these lists and I value your opinion and your assistance. Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. We have to oversimplify everything because the majority of the viewers are not as well educated as you. (That is a collective you) I would love to do a show detailing everything step by step, but the facts remains, beside you and me, not many people would watch the show, nor understand its content. Sad but true. It is as simple as that. I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me privately about his concerns, that is all. I wanted to take the show in a different direction and cover more aspects of the forensic science field...that was all that my initial reply intended. Peace.... Tina From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 20:29:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28578 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:26:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (smtp7.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28573 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:26:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from jnh3 (ven-ca7-241.ix.netcom.com [198.211.140.241]) by smtp7.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA08788 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:26:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.1.20000126172555.00a0d340@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:28:44 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: RE: Tina's explanation In-Reply-To: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C280@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD. ARMY.MIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I thought that wonderful quote was from P.T. Barnum. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." > Keep in mind the quotation from the senior network executive (I >don't remember the name) that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the >taste of the American public. ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 23:21:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29823 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (oe17.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.121]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA29818 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:18:59 -0500 (EST) From: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com Received: (qmail 77987 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Jan 2000 04:18:29 -0000 Message-ID: <20000127041829.77986.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.142.168.160] To: References: Subject: Psych Lists... Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:26:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear Christy and List: Here are a few to keep you busy for a while. http://onelist.com/community/behavior_analysis-L http://www.onelist.com/community/profiling-l http://onelist.com/community/investigativepsych ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christy Sullivan" Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:05 PM Subject: Re: > I was curious to know if anyone knew of anymore listserves, specifically dealing with the subject of forensic psychology or forensic investigation? > > Thanks! > > Christy > > From forens-owner Wed Jan 26 23:23:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA29843 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:21:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA29837 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:21:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from pavilion (user-2ivfi1d.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.200.45]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01089; Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:21:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Lee Griggs" To: "Forensic-Science@Egroups. Com" , "Forensics" , "Forensic Science" , "thePIgroup@onelist. com" , "Adjusters" Subject: Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:18:50 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk A short note to say that we have added new links on our site to forensic sites and other great sites. If you have a chance, please check our site. Thank you. Lee http://www.msegroup.com Protection Technology, Inc. PTI Investigations "Charter member-Investigators of America" Providing full investigation services in SC plus professional process service in SC & NC. Forensic lock analysis nationwide. Tel: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Website: http://www.msegroup.com From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 09:02:38 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03368 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03363 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:56:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.214]) by services.state.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28309 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:56:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38904E5E.630651CF@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 07:55:42 -0600 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" Subject: Bone Collector Boners Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For those of you who are distressed when lay people report a forensics story and can't get the facts straight....DON'T READ the Bone Collector by Jeffery Deaver. The story revolves around the forensic wizardry of one Lincoln Ryhme a trace evidence criminalist. Here is a small sampling for your amusement...... p51 (paperback) "The ball of fiber was sampled in the energy dispersive X-ray unit and found to consist of A2B5(Si,Al)8O22(OH)2". p56 "....the ball of fiber...In the report? The formula? Its hornblende! Silica dioxide. That is asbestos". p135 "In a D-G test (Density Gradient), the dirt is poured into a tube containing liquid of different specific gravities. The soil separates and each particle hangs suspended according to its own gravity. 'We could try it (the D-G test) but we'd have to use the entire sample. And if it didn't work we wouldn't have anything left for other tests'. Ryhme instructed him to do a visual then analyse it (the soil) in the GC-MS. Cooper mounted a sample in the GC-MS unit. The machine rumbled to life and there was a hiss". p136 "'I got that soil sample result. But I'm afraid the machine (GC-MS) might be on the fritz. The nitrogen's off the charts. We should run it again and use more sample this time.'". p148 "Cooper announced, 'We've got a hair. It was in her (victim's) pocket'. 'Check it against the vic's', ordered Rhyme. 'Do a scale count and medulla pigmentation comparison'." .......and it goes on and on like this for 423 pages. Whadoyathink? Did Deaver pay his forensic consultant too much? Jenny Smith From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 09:38:59 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03738 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:35:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA03733 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:28:54 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C286@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Bone Collector Boners Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:34:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk BWAAAH! Hilarious. Did he pay the consultant too much? Not sure. Was it more than two Italian Lire? Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 7:56 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Bone Collector Boners For those of you who are distressed when lay people report a forensics story and can't get the facts straight....DON'T READ the Bone Collector by Jeffery Deaver. The story revolves around the forensic wizardry of one Lincoln Ryhme a trace evidence criminalist. Here is a small sampling for your amusement...... p51 (paperback) "The ball of fiber was sampled in the energy dispersive X-ray unit and found to consist of A2B5(Si,Al)8O22(OH)2". p56 "....the ball of fiber...In the report? The formula? Its hornblende! Silica dioxide. That is asbestos". p135 "In a D-G test (Density Gradient), the dirt is poured into a tube containing liquid of different specific gravities. The soil separates and each particle hangs suspended according to its own gravity. 'We could try it (the D-G test) but we'd have to use the entire sample. And if it didn't work we wouldn't have anything left for other tests'. Ryhme instructed him to do a visual then analyse it (the soil) in the GC-MS. Cooper mounted a sample in the GC-MS unit. The machine rumbled to life and there was a hiss". p136 "'I got that soil sample result. But I'm afraid the machine (GC-MS) might be on the fritz. The nitrogen's off the charts. We should run it again and use more sample this time.'". p148 "Cooper announced, 'We've got a hair. It was in her (victim's) pocket'. 'Check it against the vic's', ordered Rhyme. 'Do a scale count and medulla pigmentation comparison'." .......and it goes on and on like this for 423 pages. Whadoyathink? Did Deaver pay his forensic consultant too much? Jenny Smith From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 11:09:41 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04417 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:02:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA04412 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:02:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:02:45 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:18:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "Forens (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Forensic lists Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:17:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Searching the Lsoft site (LISTSERV software purveyors, http://www.lsoft.com/), produces the following. They only index lists that run on their software, and a typical default address for subscribing would be listserv@domain.topdomain with the command "SUBSCRIBE LISTNAME " Search results CCCFA-L@SUNNY.MOORPARK.CC.CA.US California Community College Forensics Association (2 subscribers) CLFORNSG@LISTSERV.LOUISVILLE.EDU CLFORNSG Clinical Forensic Nursing discussion (164 subscribers) FORENSIC@UABDPO.DPO.UAB.EDU Forensics List (286 subscribers) FORENSIC-ECONOMICS@PUBLISHER.SSRN.COM Litigation Support Network Forensic Economics Abstracts (807 subscribers) FORENSIC-PSYCH@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Forenpsy Forensic Psychology/Psychiatry (540 subscribers) FORENSICRESEARCH@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU Forensic Identification Research Advisory Committee (35 subscribers) FRNSCNSG@LISTSERV.LOUISVILLE.EDU FRNSCNSG Clinical Forensic Nursing discussion (23 subscribers) PSCFA-L@SUNNY.MOORPARK.CC.CA.US Pacific Southwest Collegiate Forensics Association (15 subscribers) PSI-FORENSE@LISTSERV.REDIRIS.ES Psicologia Legal (273 subscribers) Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Christy Sullivan [mailto:SULLICA@shands.ufl.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 2:05 PM To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com; meddetectives1@medstar.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: I was curious to know if anyone knew of anymore listserves, specifically dealing with the subject of forensic psychology or forensic investigation? Thanks! Christy From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 11:09:45 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04611 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04602 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:04:29 -0500 (EST) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200001271604.LAA04602@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by WSP_DC_EXCH1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:06:25 -0800 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us Subject: RE: Bone Collector Boners Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:00:00 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is funny. Thank you for a great start to a Thursday. Helen Griffin ---------- From: Jenny Smith To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Bone Collector Boners Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 5:55AM For those of you who are distressed when lay people report a forensics story and can't get the facts straight....DON'T READ the Bone Collector by Jeffery Deaver. The story revolves around the forensic wizardry of one Lincoln Ryhme a trace evidence criminalist. Here is a small sampling for your amusement...... p51 (paperback) "The ball of fiber was sampled in the energy dispersive X-ray unit and found to consist of A2B5(Si,Al)8O22(OH)2". p56 "....the ball of fiber...In the report? The formula? Its hornblende! Silica dioxide. That is asbestos". p135 "In a D-G test (Density Gradient), the dirt is poured into a tube containing liquid of different specific gravities. The soil separates and each particle hangs suspended according to its own gravity. 'We could try it (the D-G test) but we'd have to use the entire sample. And if it didn't work we wouldn't have anything left for other tests'. Ryhme instructed him to do a visual then analyse it (the soil) in the GC-MS. Cooper mounted a sample in the GC-MS unit. The machine rumbled to life and there was a hiss". p136 "'I got that soil sample result. But I'm afraid the machine (GC-MS) might be on the fritz. The nitrogen's off the charts. We should run it again and use more sample this time.'". p148 "Cooper announced, 'We've got a hair. It was in her (victim's) pocket'. 'Check it against the vic's', ordered Rhyme. 'Do a scale count and medulla pigmentation comparison'." .......and it goes on and on like this for 423 pages. Whadoyathink? Did Deaver pay his forensic consultant too much? Jenny Smith From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 11:14:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA04712 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04705 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:09:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk ([12.72.25.16]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <20000127160902.MRWJ2478@uymfdlvk>; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:09:02 +0000 Message-ID: <003701bf68e0$bf0370e0$1019480c@uymfdlvk> From: "George Michael Newman" To: Cc: "NALI" Subject: In Loco Parentis/ Dr. Charol Shakeshaft Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:08:21 -0800 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0033_01BF689D.ADAB44A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BF689D.ADAB44A0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0034_01BF689D.ADB46C60" ------=_NextPart_001_0034_01BF689D.ADB46C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am doing research in a matter regarding allegations of child = molestation in a grammar school setting, and the text "In Loco Parentis" = by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, Selma Greenberg and Audrey Cohan has been = presented as evidence and a resource in the case. I regrettably confess a complete ignorance of this particular resource, = and of these proclaimed experts. I am, however, aware that this is a = highly debated arena, and am in need of some insight as to standing and = acceptance in the scientific community. Any insight and/or direction to both pro and con validation would be = gratefully appreciated. GMN =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0034_01BF689D.ADB46C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
I am doing research in a matter regarding allegations of child = molestation in a grammar school setting, and the text "In Loco = Parentis" by=20 Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, Selma Greenberg and Audrey Cohan has been = presented as=20 evidence and a resource in the case.
 
I regrettably confess a complete ignorance of this particular = resource, and=20 of these proclaimed experts. I am, however, aware that this is a highly = debated=20 arena, and am in need of some insight as to standing and acceptance in = the=20 scientific community.
 
Any insight and/or direction to both pro and con validation would = be=20 gratefully appreciated.
GMN
  ------=_NextPart_001_0034_01BF689D.ADB46C60-- ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BF689D.ADAB44A0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="Ivy.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <003201bf68e0$bbbdbbc0$1019480c@uymfdlvk> R0lGODlh/wNdAPf/AP///4SEhIyMjJSUlJycnKWlpa2trbW1tb29vcbGxs7OztbW1t7e3ufn5+/v 7/f3987GxtbOzt7W1r21ta2lpbWtrca9vZyUlKWcnMa9td7WztbOxr21rc7Gvefezt7Wxt7Wve/v 5/f37///987OxtbWzt7e1ufn3r29ta2tpbW1rcbGvZSUjJyclKWlnIyMhN7ezufn1u/v3tbWxr29 rcbGtc7OvbW1pf//562tnPf33qWllO/v1t7exufnztbWvc7Otb29pcbGrf//3vf31u/vzufnxt7e vdbWtc7Orf//1u/vxufnvff/zvf/1u/3zufvxt7nvff/3u/31ufvztbevc7WtcbOrd7nxr3Gpff/ 5+/33ufv1tbexs7WvcbOtbW9pa21nO//zt7vvdbntd7nzr3Gre//1uf3ztbnvd7vxufv3sbOvaWt nPf/79bezs7WxrW9ra21pe//3uf31s7evcbWtd7vztbnxr3Ord7n1r3Gtef33sbWvd7v1s7extbn zr3OtbXGrefv5+/378bOxs7Wztbe1t7n3rW9taWtpa21rb3GvYyUjJSclJylnISMhM7ezsbWxrXG tb3OvcbOzq21tZScnMbGzq2lrcDAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAAJoALAAAAAD/A10A QAj/AGmYMUND4BcgVuxc2cMwkJk9NFAgQFCghQ0fT6BQUYMFS5cub94kIEASwYIGmlKqXMmypcuX MGPKnEmzps2bOHPq3Mmzp8+fQIMKHUq0qNGjSJMqXcq0qdOnUKNKVUowzp44cWhgRaGoxQABYAMI 6NEDCZQoUWCs4cKjTBc4IBe5oNGlRxm4f+rAgRNpBpxDChY4eDC1sOHDiBMrXsy4sePHkCNLnky5 MlA5KGhARKGCBgEBYr1EwVKlx48jU7z48NLFRxcsM/T4wFIGBgy/Nmb8gFGmDAkXAw4oQGm5uPHj yJMrX868ufPn0KPbHGgGjBw5i1Sk2H5ATxnTXqr8/wBZhocWPTO8eJnh9sePHh/hrN/b5UsCBIOl 69/Pv7///wAGKOCAAgbwQgCY7FEDG/IF0kcNM9jWQxUiLLhCCSSQsAJooAUQACQE6AEDFx/N0IV7 cCSQAAP5EejiizDGKOOMNNZo42Qx+OADDjx44AEMJpjAAAMw6HECCV/UEMYNYIBhxhVmCAFRIioo UgABGKigggEUuFDAlwYskkAhCUTAAAkLEHbjmmy26eabcMYpZ2VTOEHFFDwUceIRpVUBRRV1ePFH aV3M8EUcTtbwBSM1oOAoCgeg8IUQVwiR5ENm1KCgAg+oOeenoIYq6qikllqjiD3wBoNdM7AxA3sx xP9QYkh7laAAko5qWsMKbKywhyAoMIICAV8NQNIBCAw3WKemNuvss9BGK+20RcH2BRWj+TVDHyEV kkIOZnzhhbgM9WpGIo8yMmVWKiRCwCVgJsuAp9TWa++9+OarL5twwIAFWVV0UQcbLuzgQg5MslFC CSbEICIMJXhhw2444DDHEE44MQUVHPtwh3d6rKGHCQ0Qt+/JKKes8sosJ1aAlSkkUogJM5BAQxhx uEBsIwas4N6/VJTRURVOSEEFGlPcAcgfMOAByBtdlAGIW288fYiQiNDb8tZcd+311y0TkAICAJgQ RpJJ1lBDhnr8UIIBBHg1QAF74GFEFUVA0UUVVeD/UaghZBYwwOAEfFkCHCWUAXVIJWgN9uOQRy75 5DYKYoYdA+Ux0B5CeGHHVXFomYgLixzASJB2lcFFRz/4JUEij8hhRm4wFDqDCS1SrvvuvPfue3NV gVGQlma40KEAA0x4xA91qJEGFGf9O4Wsb/haA1w9eARXJCG9lWEhCiBgrAEJnOT47+inr/767O8k Rw4uPJKCClelQGwLH6m3txFWeEEFD1ywjV9i4C+AvccvcIGDJBjxCAM04Hzti6AEJ0hB9mVKCANh AxCS8AWGfMEG3+kCHjxSBSqQpVAksAFcbMAF77AmVR+BQUhIcB8HVPCGOMyhDsHGIQscAF4pMAAC /xhhKCDIEAby8QsCUsCCFrDAESwYXCPAQkUBEGAFNHuDbeBQCAsIBoI7DKMYx0hGOXXkCdgCGhX4 9hG+1S5IXajUF7IwEAyaISsoWAENhAAEzqnNUSswX6cckLsyGvKQiExkgMRDhSIUwQh1mQEexgOf LnxgBn+Awx9YUwJDfMEOXxjIFfpghzyAUlFf2OShQreI+c0vEchKVgMKqcha2vKWuGRMXbLHt4Dp pmY2YEQFqOgIF7SBSQLZw0MiwoYvCAIrcWjUHlQApgMk4AS0zKU2t8nNbirFD1zAwxv00AUghWQF o5PDDaxghS984Qqh3EMiSGC6A1hCiGdaAQr2EP++Axjgn8gaDrO8SdCCGvSgNfGSAdgwzpqxYQAu kIMNCACcFHwhkl74gQ8C9gMcnEEKU9jCHbBABzrcgQ5U8IFGylCHGcwzTQiNqUxnys0CbMcAKagA ChBXAkWogAN5hMMbhNYRKnjkB2UoIRpGAwWP0KYOAesCa0zEBUBMrXvgmxdNt8rVrt6QBnQUSJSS 1K9LKeghjtJOAeCABY00FT548MEM3kACYxHAml/0ql73ytcICsKdX2gmG9QT2A4yBAU1SMQeUJCI FUCgBFPwwQ+40ANazcBWBnBBChiBoVkOtK+gDa1owSYIOuaBBpZTZiLk8IgWtIAAHhJLARLgIx3/ VKEMGPFBql4FhxTMJRAqRGBIJIGIB4JxtMhNrnJNJbys0CAIBYkDCtrQAg8J4BFA4NN7mNARI/SA DlzgwhuE6q0atC6jvNWWfAzBXgjcBwEMeOBy50vf+rYpK2YIQlb2ayCw2IAMfAtPFZZQBSz4gA49 8AIB9VADMwjKL1Z9QwtrI9XwAdSaCVBAfLNp3w57+MP6cYELblCQKX3mBQIwQhT49gMrPGEGNlij D47Qg9hwAbcU/kgI1WMDwuUVxEAOspClQxA5KCIFbXDUy7bDHthITDx22cIUZEgCOACCsv+qwqtM VCiQsGEiHB6ymMdM5sdY6p0D0QoNtEQDt1RB/z1DM7BRocCGH0gMPlgABBu6AIUY3AFqQv0yfo5b 5kIb+tBLIbEZgLCCGgAhXIP9AhxExBqPRA2Jb5jBBlYglgOUkwtCvQMcTACxINmghoRGtKpXzWqd WJciyHuEChjBCInZYM8nklgKSYACDoXF1wNQgYmqpsW90PAkrU62spdNEwxcaQEmOEABMnGAcb3z CmmY2cJKsAckywFRYBAEB+LQSmIZ60skKYABbKAHPZBgBvKyIbPnTe9WP6GEVOgCFXRTmjLEykha nIEQxJoFStVAMwdQwSL++QMbQAQMN0AWhhWgAEwkwBAa/my9N85xIWtECUNoAhurcAeOfSR7vf95 VSECC4S0EaQqujIDEoAghIIPfLEokG/Hd85zIHvkTj6wjaU/kOAZJBgOfikB0+BAgj6YwQpmsNyu 9oCACdSgD55zp68YIt3FMkLDs+y52McuWo1y4Q5luINU1VM1cgo1EnAJyWXlw5AVrIARvMJ7HRvM WIXj9J/qPoA1A2Ncshv+8DP9s9TKwKcud+EPIXGLekhQCEaMqRIkUIAh2KApNjDk8wpaLCwDfxJ5 I/70qI8pwOCTnkjOwBCUWAELGjGAFqRAeJr6vCCSyRAaJCkOES/clwIa5tQb//i2xAJc8KCHqs3n VSmQnR0896Cz3tFRCEhEArJSAzwe4ALCF2L/xpFP/vLbUnUnF1EJFpCAR+wgB3IQ3uxMAO2FIf2S PcgYxpxAhClsrDwt9AbsF2/mV4AGGEYDYAA/4AclADElUAiP4AJhYAYKE15Cs0ZaxhpSZSdPMAUd 2IEbgwYlhwVosAIGUADmc4AquIIS9CWLsAIkkGlM1wIjpjMCcCAFwBtRo1sbVQVS8AQdKIJeQIL/ Qhsg8RHjVAKH4Fks2IROuDteogg4lQIoYAgLwFgpkB0qgAAMo29thQXvwRocgwVjGBISlj35g4Th 1W4mABgs8oRwGIdc8yWZsAIgsBpIYAOaYnclEAE+4F1ogAQ1RhpHwCcm5zfjZWwL4xchAQNL/9MH egEIIGEI2JRqcniJmNgsVmADV6ApdWQFlZIFJAADOLclKVAAj1AANeADbjEHWJAGXcAGmwQX3mJX BWAJE7EA8fUAItCLg5SJwBiM0bIH1edO0+cFfeBObKAZXCd6CZAIXrAFFzgbvIUhJ2gAKLBhliiM 3NiNoeJ7fRAIg/UgeaAeTsd1WKECB5csvSE0d3AHeIBAJkACp/iC41UCs2R63riP/AgqvvcFDmFH HUQl2bEIcfMZtncCJ6ADWOBdZ8AF+RYShpBZ0WQHJWIiSjgI+tiPHNmRNTIQcWAGWQBNBOECjkAA jjAAYhEAB/ADVXBv+cYD/pdvhaIHqwUG4v+iZXBQB5u0HoZgA0NiMh45lEQZIDQABnEgCBAROhmA AinQAh3iISpwBCtmBIXoB2UAXgTEGm8QBzmwB3BRO2mAdLXjFyRQAhBQCbqoc0XZlm7pHOkYXdGl Ap+xknvDN1bQVGPQVFTABVsgXkiEAnGQG5bGF+P1B2+hSYWwmAnwTxpWfG8ZmZLZGGqGlFlwAyoQ B8ejCFbQS0eQBkRwBG1FBTDgBWsAJIwCIW8BCH7QfLUBAy1FeSNROP8kL4U3mbiZm4vRGQeHR3Fg AB2SAj2wYkhQBUBgBKShb1NQY28QJFVgA+rhBXUAEjPgA33pPTglHLoYX561jbr5neBpFKT/YxVa gRWwBRZVQGMuOYRU4AVl4AUAgwUmsAZBwxu9oWPxYQMHYEUr4p3h+Z8AWhSK0AaalQiJUBDAiTxY sGLrUWDPyTEpVQav8prZkx4mgkA2sAIHQAAO5J8B+qEgyhPWkQME4FPZpwiPQBIf8RF2hgUZ5QM8 4BqHA0Kz0QWAMCGF8gNwUQIzwAgFcABsGaJCOqRAASVemQNtEAcHcIpaMlelmVExVB5bEBIM8gau gaN+wRqZFGgJcAAbSaRgGqY2oR4HB5KCGTpxsCoJZgOrR4ZBYwNdAJ0BQxZwITRl8AcwJpv4IaZ8 2qcyIRBCwE4NRhARQQM2QGo/QxZYoAZU/3BJ5pVCrVEb+qM4taEHh0BDe+qnmrqpmnBmD1ED8GQH irIHo+hmM1YFRiChh8MgkcIG7Rgh9qmEh7AAGpIAX8qpuCqkA3BkGmJeNjApA1FZSSU0KyAxhrAX hZAIKskhB0ACXMAHMaAbLFoFKYIAYZer2CqkHUIRikADDBIIimIDJfAGWAAEbsBjulYAK8khYsEG JFAGa4RUWCCAG1A+QZqt+AqeK4kAmWBF6pYAdmcFQAA1t5FENLQIVYRiVSQWKsAgXDCuSJehlaBV +Vqxukk4GlAClvAlKnBrBwEEl6UHx1ozBNoG8YcdcpACVvIIg2NXhYMChZA4GFIIJgGZFv97s/0Y S/SXeYWwAoYiBIFqBaNGV4wAf0sSkgMnmAv3FbR5JSRBAAhQCM1pCCRgEkKJs1jbkUtgBEYQo2X5 BogQKwrZADPwcGAQBFlAA5UiEGu2JQXgAiqAAhkABr71TwaALAlgAV9nAlZ4q1n7t8I4nBmRPSnl ogHzLz3gMOjxA1dQKQwRJXiEAhxwAO1UppkBKSuSjyVTMh4KuJ6rgnsJhFHAJ1HAAyR0oVpUAmvA ozVgB0IAXVFCEIsFEZ+qKNLkKBSrCZ37ubxbgGrwBBnzBKTRS3hgVL1UYJeFJFcArgvyR4+yT51j KZmSZo2yAlfbu9grhzfWSGMIG5U0V+3/cVlewKPc5itfIFY4NwH71E6GZVgRARGBxITZO79N+B1l MAXfMa+Ztirp8QaQ9wc6+gYL8wZeUI4PsQcdZHeMYAGB0kziiFpnylgSUQiCRL8WXIAm0jH7ViJw waJS1S+F8ge24gULwgZ5xAZ6CEqBkAcfixWLcAPboQiKgC4TkXnye8E4nHowQEA7rCpJVE5loAd7 ATUfUQjHagihtwe0tja0hgKeFwctSzg/miwnkY8al8NYbHj5pqgrKlUwZlS9gUSJuRfHSgKToMR7 UAhs4HmgByk6c24ZxiK7m8V0zGymUYQlkqMTMx6LgiwroMbvZgg1EwjlYgaZIV0FkUfS/6Zu8HWv dfzIZHci32siXiBUXmB3XyEALBBRWKFYg8qMDAEsJaYCKRovmGCzkJzK9VYGeMAaMICneFrJXQBL tRdRz0QDffCrDJF7+6QriXADMDw3w1c+fqvKxlxvT2oXfvAWeHoiJKBO7zQufaBMipKUNIAAKGAB NHBwmaECBzAAF/AlFCAvc3zM5kxmWnSfUdN8bwA4BwMGntNyVyCqBEEljJAIFYCLJhAHjJCZFKFu tUnM5XzOBA1kPIAeb5CxJiDAlGdMwMxOQFAp4NorClAIEsyFDRACbSgkJmArCBBLmTvQBT3S9aVv 7xkwW/SUIqZOA3E7J5BFJVBj7zEEOP+QMWIgBmhkVHggNXrwNLYSXyQd1KrmAgwiiT69AjSYAlnB bjJwY6vDouPxA2iUMVTNf0eDBnSgEUFDArso1F5daIVTCOiBRDMYUV8AAzLAilhAYzNQB3YmHl4w BGhwBnfwBGhw12iwEVAwQncwLATQn18d2GKmbiqgAA0YMWxAgzcgB58BFgZwQj9QhHa2f3QwBVzw B/CKY1jgN1MDErZSzIId2soFJgZgAUJFedF3A8TCAqCBAnszIVSgYnwCvEiTNG4hNH3Tjj7dnPQH 1KL92/PlJTe1AoeAIQShCPFDABTAWYWCqlAASeLhBGj0BO94F4DgiP6rY+oMAycwq4T+BNzgPVpf sh0quwKGTY8GkJlx8G61MRsmpF0vaVSLqgYjpDgyxMGYTQdl4AeA0IZWeL3hHeBbZVPeDCEXqiGe pzA9UAQdAQV/SBqVxDF4MOGFcmsfDBJ/IImJOANPEwllYIVXLOAijlCFY1H/Mim70igokEImFAVI MAOOsAJH4AUjVEJrrWVlAHdsgHELsAIqwi0fTB+pAgOHANojfuTb5ChxQAhmsAgDYbukinSQcoIp Wjg1cJdo0BHhMYtcZAAtW+LkExgOsAaHEBKIgORoflBPMnCUsmju5AWGgAID90eM4E9v2wFadAer 0xHx0QWFADeFgywbNgJpXugzFRAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BF689D.ADAB44A0-- From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 17:51:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07792 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:48:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07787 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:48:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA12404; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:48:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:48:03 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: KJohn39679@aol.com cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: Moratorium in Charlottesville, Va. In-Reply-To: <6e.609dbb.25be7f01@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Oh, for crying out loud. First you robo-post nothing but articles which make negative statements about forensics, and now you are doing nothing but robo-posting articles for political propaganda purposes. At least write something original, or is just that little bit too much to ask of you? You know, I have a wonderful archive of articles I have saved from various sources -- from Intel 8080 internals to fantasy role-playing supplements. Since *everything* can be considered "forensic" if one wants to post random articles to a newsgroup (after all, there have been multiple papers presented at the AAFS on Dungeons and Dragons), why don't I and everyone else stop writing original posts and just post our archives? billo From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 17:59:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07855 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07843 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA13994; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:56:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:56:12 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Oliver To: Tina Keller cc: "'forensic-science@eGroups.com'" , "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <01BF67EB.16F20B00.meddetectives1@medstar.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Tina Keller wrote: > > To All: > > Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. Sorry. Things don't work that way. People should take responsibility for what they do. People like exploitative pornography; that doesn't relieve those to make it from the ethical and moral responsiblities they fail when they satisfy that desire. The self-serving claim of the media that it is not responsible for what they do as long as they satisfy some particulare niche hunger of the public is one of the great cop-outs of all time. billo From forens-owner Thu Jan 27 20:57:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09293 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:53:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09288 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:52:59 -0500 (EST) From: Vfornsic@aol.com Received: from Vfornsic@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id v.68.1224ee2 (3958); Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:51:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <68.1224ee2.25c25037@aol.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 20:51:51 EST Subject: Re: Bone Collector Boners To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 45 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 1/27/00 9:25:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us writes: << "'I got that soil sample result. But I'm afraid the machine (GC-MS) might be on the fritz. The nitrogen's off the charts. We should run it again and use more sample this time.'". >> Of course it is on the fritz, it is all gummed up with soil! From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 08:06:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13450 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 07:59:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA13445 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 07:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: YSilva1360@aol.com Received: from YSilva1360@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id i.8c.bd4975 (4259); Fri, 28 Jan 2000 07:58:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8c.bd4975.25c2ec80@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 07:58:40 EST Subject: Re: cremation. To: shaun_wheeler@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear list Does anyone out there remember a case in Las Vegas Nevada that concerned a wrongful cremation. In other words the funeral home cremated the wrong person. I wanted to follow up on the case or any case similar to this one. Thank You. Yvonne From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 10:10:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14709 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:02:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA14704 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:02:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:02:32 -0500 (EST) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk From: "M. Geron, CFE, F.IPI (Israel)" Subject: Re: [NALINEWS] In Loco Parentis/ Dr. Charol Shakeshaft Cc: "NALI" In-Reply-To: <003701bf68e0$bf0370e0$1019480c@uymfdlvk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_46656221==_.ALT" --=====================_46656221==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Michael, In the publication Advanced Forensic Criminal Defense Investigations our own Reginald Montgomery has a chapter titled Defending the Juvenile in Sexual Assault Cases. He should be able to offer some assistance. Best regards, Michael ________________________________________________________________ F. & M. GERON (1979) LTD. - ISRAEL Investigative, Adjusting & Related Services in Israel & Middle Eastern Countries Michael Geron, CFE, F.IPI, CII, GIN Charter, IOA Charter, AIO (Israel), NALI, ABI, IKD Licensed by the Israel Ministry of Justice Tel. +972 9 7441810, Fax. +972 9 7440663 Email: m_geron@netvision.net.il Corporate Brief: http://www.Israel-PI.com At 08:08 AM 01/27/2000 -0800, George Michael Newman wrote: >From: "George Michael Newman" > > >I am doing research in a matter regarding allegations of child molestation >in a grammar school setting, and the text "In Loco Parentis" by Dr. Charol >Shakeshaft, Selma Greenberg and Audrey Cohan has been presented as >evidence and a resource in the case. > >I regrettably confess a complete ignorance of this particular resource, >and of these proclaimed experts. I am, however, aware that this is a >highly debated arena, and am in need of some insight as to standing and >acceptance in the scientific community. > >Any insight and/or direction to both pro and con validation would be >gratefully appreciated. >GMN > > >---------- > >Please click above to support our sponsor > >---------- >Thank you for your support of NALI ======================= NOTICE: This Email is for the confidential use of the intended recipients only, and may be protected by client privilege. Law strictly prohibits unauthorized review, dissemination or distribution of this Email in whole or part. ======================= --=====================_46656221==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Michael,

In the publication Advanced Forensic Criminal Defense Investigations our own Reginald Montgomery has a chapter titled Defending the Juvenile in Sexual Assault Cases. He should be able to offer some assistance.

Best regards,
Michael
________________________________________________________________
F. & M. GERON (1979) LTD. - ISRAEL
Investigative, Adjusting & Related Services in Israel & Middle Eastern Countries
Michael Geron, CFE, F.IPI, CII, GIN Charter, IOA Charter, AIO (Israel), NALI, ABI, IKD
Licensed by the Israel Ministry of Justice
Tel. +972 9 7441810, Fax. +972 9 7440663
Email: m_geron@netvision.net.il  
Corporate Brief: http://www.Israel-PI.com




At 08:08 AM 01/27/2000 -0800, George Michael Newman wrote:
From: "George Michael Newman" <tactical@worldnet.att.net>

 
I am doing research in a matter regarding allegations of child molestation in a grammar school setting, and the text "In Loco Parentis" by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, Selma Greenberg and Audrey Cohan has been presented as evidence and a resource in the case.
 
I regrettably confess a complete ignorance of this particular resource, and of these proclaimed experts. I am, however, aware that this is a highly debated arena, and am in need of some insight as to standing and acceptance in the scientific community.
 
Any insight and/or direction to both pro and con validation would be gratefully appreciated.
GMN
 

Please click above to support our sponsor
Thank you for your support of NALI
=======================
NOTICE: This Email is for the confidential use of the intended recipients only, and may be protected by client privilege. Law strictly prohibits unauthorized review, dissemination or distribution of this Email in whole or part.
=======================
--=====================_46656221==_.ALT-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 10:10:13 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14733 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:03:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200001281503.KAA14733@brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu> From: "Linnea Duke" To: forensic-science@egroups.com, meddetectives1@medstar.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: [forensic-science] Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:56:06 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hi All, Just a question on graduate studies. Can anyone comment on the quality of the forensic archaeology MSc program offered at Bournemouth University in Dorset, England. I am interested in their program but wondering if anyone has taken it and liked it, etc. Thanks, Nenayna ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 10:23:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15074 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn463.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.133]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA15065 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:19:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN463.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:12:35 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA331804C28F@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'Bill Oliver'" , KJohn39679@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Fwd: Moratorium in Charlottesville, Va. Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:18:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You know, a couple years ago he wrote a book, which wasn't too bad. Maybe that used up his entire lifetime supply of original ideas. Or (question for Fred Whitehurst) were then any original John Kelly ideas in the book, in the first place? Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@radix.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 4:48 PM To: KJohn39679@aol.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: Moratorium in Charlottesville, Va. Oh, for crying out loud. First you robo-post nothing but articles which make negative statements about forensics, and now you are doing nothing but robo-posting articles for political propaganda purposes. At least write something original, or is just that little bit too much to ask of you? You know, I have a wonderful archive of articles I have saved from various sources -- from Intel 8080 internals to fantasy role-playing supplements. Since *everything* can be considered "forensic" if one wants to post random articles to a newsgroup (after all, there have been multiple papers presented at the AAFS on Dungeons and Dragons), why don't I and everyone else stop writing original posts and just post our archives? billo From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 11:37:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15951 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:30:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15946 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:30:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from pnoth (1Cust68.tnt4.iowa-city.ia.da.uu.net [63.15.137.68]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA11825 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:30:04 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000128102948.00891990@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: pnoth@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:29:48 -0600 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Peter Nothnagle Subject: Re: cremation. In-Reply-To: <8c.bd4975.25c2ec80@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Yvonne, I don't know about Las Vegas, but a case from New York is described in the article "The Wrong Urn: Commingling of Cremains in Mortuary Practice", by Kenneth Kennedy (appearing in "Forensic Osteological Analysis: A Book of Case Studies" edited by Scott Fargrieve; reprinted from Journal of Forensic Science, vol. 14, no. 4). The case concerned the cremation of a neonate -- the parents discovered what appeared to be the cremains of an older person in the ashes provided by the crematorium. There is a book of the true-crime genre titled "Chop Shop", by Kathy Braidhill, which concerns the appallingly unethical conduct of a southern-California funeral home, including commingling cremains, selling body parts to medical school supply dealers, etc. You can read about it at amazon.com, although it appears to be out of print. You can find used copies at bibliofind.com. At 07:58 AM 1/28/00 EST, YSilva1360@aol.com wrote: >Dear list >Does anyone out there remember a case in Las Vegas Nevada that concerned a >wrongful cremation. In other words the funeral home cremated the wrong >person. I wanted to follow up on the case or any case similar to this one. >Thank You. >Yvonne > > From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 11:38:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15966 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:34:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15961 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:33:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 28 Jan 2000 16:26:26 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 28 08:32:39 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:33:58 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:33:37 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: RE: Impression Comparisons Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It seems to me that for several years we have had computer technology that was supposed to evaluate both striated and impression evidence. Some of these technologies are AFIS for fingerprints and Drugfire and IBIS nee NIBIN for cartridge case and bullet evidence. These systems evaluate images input iinto them, then correlate them and output some time of numerical ranking. Often the rankings are very good. Sometimes they are atrocious even when knowns are entered into the system. What this all boils down to is that it is a human being that must make the confirmation. That confirmation is based upon traininig and experience. The human can explain his or her justification for an elimination or a match. So far, the computer cannot. I prefer it this way. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" 01/24 6:04 AM >>> The classic expression of this, attribution not remembered, is "Napoleon's mules had seen a hundred campaigns, but they were still mules." Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Ddillonqd@aol.com [mailto:Ddillonqd@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 4:05 PM To: pbarnett@crl.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Impression Comparisons Pete, I'll have to take issue with you on this one. I'll agree that experience, alone is not important. It is the quality of that experience. An experienced examiner who continues to error, gains nothing from experience, except a bad reputation. However, ability is of the utmost importance. If an examiner involved in comparative analysis (pattern analysis) does not possess graphic cognition, he can never succeed. If that same examiner does not acquire experience, he will be unable to qualitatively evaluate agreement or difference in elements of the patterns of the items compared. Duayne From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 11:39:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15981 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:35:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net (209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net [209.165.23.1]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15976 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:34:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23-1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.1.95.36]) with SMTP; 28 Jan 2000 16:27:27 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Fri Jan 28 08:33:40 2000 -0800 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:34:59 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:34:16 -0800 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: forensic-science@eGroups.com, meddetectives1@medstar.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Tina: I sympathize with your position. Now, you must know how we feel when someone outside our respective postions take swipes at us. And this list is rife with those people! greg Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >>> Tina Keller 01/26 7:49 AM >>> To All: Look...I am an assistant producer. That means that I find new cases for the show and set up the interviews. I do not write the scripts and I have no say in the production itself. I write the story pitches that go to the network. They then decide whether or not to produce that particular case. I think the fact that I am on these lists and I attend forensic conferences is a step in the right direction....agreed? I don't want to argue...that is not my nature. I respect everybody on these lists and I value your opinion and your assistance. Do not fault us for what we do, fault the general public. We have to oversimplify everything because the majority of the viewers are not as well educated as you. (That is a collective you) I would love to do a show detailing everything step by step, but the facts remains, beside you and me, not many people would watch the show, nor understand its content. Sad but true. It is as simple as that. I just felt that Mr. Parsons should have e-mailed me privately about his concerns, that is all. I wanted to take the show in a different direction and cover more aspects of the forensic science field...that was all that my initial reply intended. Peace.... Tina From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 15:13:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18622 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:10:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from gatekeeper.co.san-diego.ca.us ([165.113.159.34]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18609 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:09:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gproxy@localhost) by gatekeeper.co.san-diego.ca.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00096 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:07:50 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: gatekeeper.co.san-diego.ca.us: gproxy set sender to using -f Received: from unknown(170.213.6.166) by gatekeeper via smap (3.2) id xma024256; Fri, 28 Jan 00 11:24:22 -0800 Received: by DPWEXCHANGE with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:10:55 -0800 Message-ID: <31D1C84B2F18D2119D6A00805F57D3C475E5D9@DPWEXCHANGE> From: "Lowe,Donald" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Helium Inhalation Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:10:54 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF69C3.6682FB64" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF69C3.6682FB64 Content-Type: text/plain Has any one had experience with fatal Helium inhalation in an enclosed environment? I am interested in sample collection and methods of analysis. Russell Lowe San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF69C3.6682FB64 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Helium Inhalation

Has any one had experience with fatal = Helium inhalation in an enclosed environment?  I am interested in = sample collection and methods of analysis.

Russell Lowe
San Diego County Medical Examiner's = Office

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF69C3.6682FB64-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 17:12:29 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19880 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:02:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19875 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:02:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by DASMTHKHN459 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:50:47 -0600 Message-ID: <0EA252708604D311BA6900A0C9EA3318BCB57C@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: "'Lowe,Donald'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Helium Inhalation Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:55:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk No personal experience, but my reading suggests that helium is even more slippery than the freons concerning getting out of a container. I'd suggest lung as specimen, sealed in a new clean paint can as done with arson debris, then frozen as deep as you can get it before analysis. No idea about analysis, but maybe someplace that does diving gases - check your SCUBA community or maybe the Navy there in SD. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Lowe,Donald [mailto:DLOWEXMX@co.san-diego.ca.us] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 1:11 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Helium Inhalation Has any one had experience with fatal Helium inhalation in an enclosed environment? I am interested in sample collection and methods of analysis. Russell Lowe San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 17:33:07 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA20064 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:23:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20059 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:23:36 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.8.) id k.37.a947ad (4461); Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:23:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <37.a947ad.25c370c4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:23:00 EST Subject: Re: Moratorium in Charlottesville, Va. To: David.Hause@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Answer about John Kelly's originality in Tainting Evidence. I am not sure how to answer that question. His depiction of what happened at the FBI lab during that time is the closest to reality that I have read but the work was not one of originality but of investigative journalism. There are a few errors in the book. After reading the book I am left with the impression that John sees the FBI as imbued with some higher level of evil. Having lived what John wrote about I tend to disagree with that impression and feel that (broken record time) it is simply a human enterprise so well described in Daubert v. Merrill Dow as having an error rate which we would like to determine. All the rest of the name calling and damning of our frail fellow human beings takes a lot of energy, makes some of us feel really good inside apparently, brings on a certain level of self induced stress but in the end does not get to the bottom line. Which is WHAT IS THE ERROR RATE? I am left with a feeling also of gratitude that John wrote the right stuff, had the courage to not follow the mainstream authors such as David Fisher of Hard Evidence who wrote to please and publish instead of to educate. In the end the original idea that John had about the FBI laboratory experience was to write about its errors. A novel idea. Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 18:40:00 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20657 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:32:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20652 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:32:03 -0500 (EST) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.8.) id p.a9.11d7156 (4327); Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:31:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:31:05 EST Subject: Re: To: GLASKOWS@co.kern.ca.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Tina I got it. I know how to look at this thing. I awoke this morning at 1:40am worried about your feelings and how you are getting tromped on here in Forens-l land and I figured it all out while my wife snored loudly next to me and I stared at the ceiling. Here it is. Sort of see yourself as Snow White. Yeah, Snow White. You know, with the Seven Dwarfs. You know, Sneezy, Dopey, Grumpy, Sleezy (no that wasn't one of them, or was it?) Anyhow, we all love you but we show it in a different way. You know which one of us fits into the Grumpy slot. And the Dopy slot. Hell, that's easy. Just assign them all where they belong and now don't you feel so much better :-)) I do! Does this have forensic overtones or what!!!??? Your turn, Billo. Wait your turn, Jerry. Someone wake up Lentini so he can throw barbs now. :-)) Fred Whitehurst From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 19:59:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21118 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:51:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21113 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.50.91]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with ESMTP id <20000129005024.CFMH5516@worldnet.att.net>; Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:50:24 +0000 Message-ID: <38923887.DE2C32DB@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:47:03 -0800 From: John Bowden Reply-To: jaybow@worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Lowe,Donald" CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Helium Inhalation References: <31D1C84B2F18D2119D6A00805F57D3C475E5D9@DPWEXCHANGE> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4E46A50B8C66AF16677B12A3" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --------------4E46A50B8C66AF16677B12A3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Donald, While tempted to make some Friday comment about a "sound like Donald Duck makes", I shall refrain. Seriously, let's look at the problem. Helium is a much lighter than air. It's molecules are so small that they very readily pass through membranes that hold other gases, such as air. For example, you probably have noticed how rapidly a helium filled balloon looses volume. Secondly, if you do succeed in isolating Helium, assuming that it is present, how do you propose to analyze for it. Only a very special mass spectrometer, dedicated to leak detection could detect it. Virtually all of the mass specs used in forensic labs use Helium as a carrier gas. Therefore they are often designed not to scan down to four a.m.u.. The atomic weight is four, and as it is a monoatomic element, the "molecular weight" is also four. It has no IR or UV absorbance. Actually 3He does give an NMR signal, but it is present at a concentration of 1.38 x 10-4 that of 4He, and the signal is only 44% of the proton signal. Not much chance there. Given enough sample and the proper equipment, one might excite the characteristic emission of Helium. It is one of the gases used in "Neon" lights, but I don't recall the basic color. Of course absolute identification would require the resolution of an emission spectrometer, perhaps an ICP/Mass Spec. Of course, it forms no known compounds. Therefore derivization is not possible. Perhaps the blood gas concentrations and rations for the detectable gases could be used to demonstrate that they had been replaced by something else (He). Anyway, I wish you luck. John P. Bowden "Dum Spiro Spero" "Lowe,Donald" wrote: > > > Has any one had experience with fatal Helium inhalation in an enclosed > environment? I am interested in sample collection and methods of > analysis. > > Russell Lowe > San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for two free plane tickets: http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/ --------------4E46A50B8C66AF16677B12A3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Donald,

While tempted to make some Friday comment about a "sound like Donald Duck makes", I shall refrain.

Seriously, let's look at the problem.  Helium is a much lighter than air.  It's molecules are so small that they very readily pass through membranes that hold other gases, such as air.  For example, you probably have noticed how rapidly a helium filled balloon looses volume.

Secondly, if you do succeed in isolating Helium, assuming that it is present, how do you propose to analyze for it.  Only a very special mass spectrometer, dedicated to leak detection could detect it.  Virtually all of the mass specs used in forensic labs use Helium as a carrier gas.  Therefore they are often designed not to scan down to four a.m.u..  The atomic weight is four, and as it is a monoatomic element, the "molecular weight" is also four.  It has no IR or UV absorbance. 

Actually 3He does give an NMR signal, but it is present at a concentration of 1.38 x 10-4 that of 4He, and the signal is only 44% of the proton signal.  Not much chance there.

Given enough sample and the proper equipment, one might excite the characteristic emission of Helium.  It is one of the gases used in "Neon" lights, but I don't recall the basic color.  Of course absolute identification would require the resolution of an emission spectrometer, perhaps an ICP/Mass Spec.

Of course, it forms no known compounds.  Therefore derivization is not possible.

Perhaps the blood gas concentrations and rations for the detectable gases could be used to demonstrate that they had been replaced by something else (He).

Anyway, I wish you luck.

John P. Bowden
"Dum Spiro Spero"

"Lowe,Donald" wrote:

 

Has any one had experience with fatal Helium inhalation in an enclosed environment?  I am interested in sample collection and methods of analysis.

Russell Lowe
San Diego County Medical Examiner's Office

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for two free plane tickets:
http://www.gohip.com/freetickets/
  --------------4E46A50B8C66AF16677B12A3-- From forens-owner Fri Jan 28 20:29:31 2000 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21443 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.janics.com (mail.janics.com [206.102.184.12]) by brooks.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21438 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mikespooter [208.137.35.187] by mail.janics.com (SMTPD32-5.04) id A1836F90152; Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:25:23 -0600 Message-ID: <003601bf69f7$d401f580$bb2389d0@mikespooter> From: "M Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: RE: Impression Comparisons and computers Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:26:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am not "fortunate" enough to have access to an AFIS system directly, having to submit unknown latents to the state AFIS system and wait, perhaps, 6 months or longer for a response. I did have an opportunity, however, to work with a demonstration package designed for use on a PC which can build a database and make comparisons (or so they advertise). What I have found using this system (admittedly a demo version) is this: 1) Inked reference prints must be nearly flawless in order for the computer to find the minutae for storage in the database. In the event of a smeared area (common in virtually ALL inked reference prints at some point), the algorithm used to "skeletonize" the ridges will break down and scatter false minutae all over the area. GIGO as we all know. The only option here is to manually edit each individual finger as it is entered into the database. Huge time killer, and work not suited to non-trained secretarial persons. Some AFIS systems require input operators to trace ridges to eliminate this computer deficiency in preparation for input. 2) Latent prints are, by their nature, almost always less than ideal. This requires manual entry for each minutae point, which is also, almost by definition, a job for a trained examiner. 3) The computer algorithms are essentially "level 2" detail oriented, i.e. limited to "Galton details" and not able to use "level 1" or "level 3" details to conduct searches. 4) "Matches" are often false due to extraneous minutae in the reference print, or from failure to successfully eliminate unlikely candidates in the search process. 5) Computers are not programmed to scan and evaluate areas in search of descrepancies or conforming details. 6) Computers miss an embarrasingly large number of known matches made by examiners using conventional methods unless extensive "touching up" is done to force the comparison. The bottom line is that computers never make a "match". They can be a last ditch "long shot" when no suspects come to mind, but they should never be relied upon (at this stage) to supply an accurate list of candidates until every stone has been turned. In my experience, the main shortcoming is that there is not enough time and/or dedication by the input operators to build up a quality database to allow the computer do do what it does best....search a database for an unknown candidate for comparison by a latent print examiner. Mike Davis mailto:mdavis@janics.com ICQ#38952146 ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Laskowski To: ; Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 10:33 AM Subject: Re: RE: Impression Comparisons > It seems to me that for several years we have had computer technology that > was supposed to evaluate both striated and impression evidence. Some of > these technologies are AFIS for fingerprints and Drugfire and IBIS nee NIBIN > for cartridge case and bullet evidence. These systems evaluate images input > iinto them, then correlate them and output some time of numerical ranking. > Often the rankings are very good. Sometimes they are atrocious even when > knowns are entered into the system. What this all boils down to is that it > is a human being that must make the confirmation. That confirmation is > based upon traininig and experience. The human can explain his or her > justification for an elimination or a match. So far, the computer cannot.

You may also=20 be interested in "In the Mind of Con = Men" which shows at 10 pm on 9 January, 1 am on = 10=20 January, and 7 pm on 15 January.