CACe News CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) by the...

CACNewsCACNewsTTTTThhhhheeeee

News of the California Association of Criminalists • 4th Quarter 2003News of the California Association of Criminalists • 4th Quarter 2003

H

Raymond J. DavisCAC President

The President’s DeskExperience

Life gives you the test first and thelesson later. —Anon.

Have you ever found that to be truein your personal and professional life?

Have you ever found yourselflearning something unexpectedly as aresult of your decisions? And then, onlylater, to learn that it was not your inten-tion in the first place?

Most people don’t deliberately goout of their way to ask life to punish themwith painful lessons so that they maybenefit from them later in life.

When thinking back on the deci-sion you’ve made in your life that re-sulted in great lessons haven’t you mar-veled at the outcome? This is especiallytrue when that was never your intentionat the time. In fact, the lessons you wereexperiencing seemed more of an incon-venience than a benefit. Didn’t you findyourself saying, “I won’t ever do thatagain?” On the other side of the lessonare words I have heard from many can-cer survivors. “Cancer was the best thingthat ever happened to me.” How doesone explain that in light of avoiding theunpleasant even painful learning expe-riences in life?

I can easily point to several eventsin my life that have provided invaluablelessons that came as a result of the ‘wise’decisions I made. Two that come quicklyto mind are, my brief military career andmy private forensic science career.

When I got drafted at the height ofthe Viet Nam war I had a choice of goinginto the service or heading for Canada. Ibelieved there would have been seriousconsequences had I chosen to go northand avoided my duty. I wasn’t happyabout being drafted right out of collegeand flown in the middle of the night toFort Jackson, South Carolina. While there,I had the opportunity to extend my two-year commitment to three years and be-come an officer. I wasn’t happy at thethought of staying an extra year either.Without asking for help I made the choiceto become an officer. I had no idea what Iwas getting myself into or where thatdecision would lead me. And as thingsturned out, that choice made over 36years ago continues to pay huge divi-

dends in my life. Little did I realize at thetime that my year of training and twoyears as an officer would have has suchfar-reaching consequences. Upon com-pleting active duty in early 1970, I wasstill at risk because the Army might re-quire my services again. Peace in VietNam was still 5 years down the road. Ihad a decision to make whether to jointhe California Army National Guard forthree years to avoid going back on activeduty. So, the decision I made to go intothe reserves was made easier with thehelp, experience and advice from myfriends. I’ve never looked back.

The second of those decisions wasto leave the Department of Justice andstart my own consulting business. Itseemed like a wise move at the time. Ibelieved that things would continue, asthey had been the previous seven yearsof my career with some slight differences

I never asked anyone for their ad-vice about starting one’s own business. Ijust jumped right in figuring that I couldhandle whatever came my way. What Ilearned after many, many painful lessonsis that going into business for myself wasnot the liberating experience I believed itwould be. Everyday was a struggle and ittook all my resources of courage, imagi-nation, and determination to survive 13years in business. I believe every businessowner has two memorable dates on theircalendar: The day they started their busi-ness and the day they sold their business.I remember both of my dates with clarity:September 5, 1979 and August 14, 1992.

I paid a dear price for my naivetéby not relying upon the experience andwisdom of others. Particularly, those whohad already learned those lesson the hardway. I was sorely tested yet the experi-ence provided me with some everlastinglessons. One of which was not to let myego get in the way of learning from oth-ers. Asking someone for help or adviceput me in the position of not knowing andbeholding to another. So I held back. I feltit was better to learn on my own ratherthan to risk looking foolish to others.

What I learned about myself dur-

ing those 13 years has paid incredibledividends. I am a better criminalist forthe experience and much more apprecia-tive of those who do go into business forthemselves. Regardless of the type ofbusiness. I go out of my way to thankbusiness owners and tell them I appreci-ate the service they provide.

I believe there are two types ofpeople in the world. Those who are con-tent to experiment, fail, experiment, suc-ceed and find their own way. Or, the oneswho are willing to rely upon the experi-ence of others to find their own way.There is no need to pay the high price oflearning life’s invaluable secrets. One ofwhich is to be happy in your work. Oth-ers are to gain the respect and admira-tion of your peers, knowing that at theend of your career you could look backwith the knowledge that you had an im-pact on your profession.

If there is one lesson to be gainedfrom living life it is to have the courageand willingness to ask for advice. Itdoesn’t matter if that advice is for buy-ing a home, having your mother-in-lawmove in with you or taking a position asa laboratory director. Someone has gonebefore you in every human endeavorsince the wheel.

I bring this up because our profes-sion will soon see the loss of about 40 in-

Please turn to page 16

The CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) by the California Association of Criminalists (CAC), Editorial Secretary, c/o BureauAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 355 Widget Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94598-2413, (925) 280-3623, [email protected]. The CAC is a private foundation dedicatedto the furtherance of forensic science in both the public and private sectors. Nonmember subscriptions are available for $16 domestic, $20USD foreign—contact theeditorial secretary for more information.Please direct editorial correspondence and requests for reprints to the editorial secretary.

©2003 The California Association of Criminalists, All Rights Reserved.

Notice to Contributors: We publish material of interest to our readers and are pleased to receive manuscripts from potential authors. Meetings and courseannouncements, employment opportunities, etc. are also solicited. Advertisements are also accepted, although a fee is charged for their inclusion in The CACNews. Pleasecontact the advertising editor for further information. Because of the computerized typesetting employed in The CACNews, submissions should be made in the formof MS-DOS compatible files on 3.5 inch floppy disks or by e-mail ([email protected]). Text files from word processors should be saved as ASCII files withoutformatting codes, e.g. bold, italic, etc. An accompanying hardcopy of the file should be submitted along with the disk. Graphics, sketches, photographs, etc. may alsobe placed into articles. Please contact the editorial secretary for details. The deadlines for submissions are: December 1, March 1, June 1 and September 1.

2 President’s DeskRaymond Davis

4 CACBits / Section ReportsJobs / Meetings / Courses

6 NCIS TV ShowA visit from the stars

7 Editorial SecretaryRon Nichols

8 Feedback

9 The Criminalistics Laboratory ReportReprint from 19 years ago still relevant today

13 Glass Breaking ExperimentsRobert Blackledge

14 Leadership 101: TeamworkRon Nichols

17 The Proceedings of Lunch: Which CameFirst?Norah Rudin/Keith Inman

19 A Tucson, AZ Flare ExperimentJeff Corey, Frank Powell, Tom Quesnel, Lisa Windsor andVictor Yanez

23 Mary Graves, Friend and ColleagueJim White

Fourth Quarter 2003C O N T E N T S

Editorial SecretaryRon Nichols

(925) [email protected]

P U B L I C A T I O N S T A F F

CACNewsTheTheTheTheThe

www.cacnews.org

Art DirectorJohn Houde/Calico Press,LLC

(206) [email protected]

TechnicalJennifer Shen(619) 531-2655

[email protected]

On the cover...Corrie Maggay strikes while the iron is hot. More onthis experiment to capture flying glass fragments onhigh speed video inside this issue.

WebmasterMark Traughber

[email protected]

AdvertisingBrenda Smith(661) 868-5367

[email protected]

4 • The CACNews 4th Quarter 2003

CACBits • Section NewsNew ASTM Standards AnnouncedNew ASTM Standards AnnouncedNew ASTM Standards AnnouncedNew ASTM Standards AnnouncedNew ASTM Standards Announced

ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic Sciences is pleased toannounce the publication of seven new standards for the fo-rensic examination of questioned documents.

Seven new ASTM standards listed below were developedby the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Ex-amination (SWGDOC), working as a task group of E30. TheSWGDOC draft standards were then ballotted through theASTM International standards development process, firstthrough Subcommittee E 30.02, chaired by Carl McClary of theBureau of ATF, and then through the Main Committee. Thisallowed the widest possible participation of the forensic sci-ence community in the development of these standards. ASTM’sCommittee on Standards gave final approval to the standardsin April, and they are now available from ASTM.E 2285-03 Guide for the Examination of Mechanical

Checkwriter Impressions

E 2286-03 Guide for the Examination of Dry Seal Impres-sions

E 2287-03 Guide for the Examination of Fracture Patterns

and Paper Fiber Impressions on Single-StrikeFilm Ribbons and Typed Text

E 2288-03 Guide for the Physical Match of Paper Cuts,

Tears, and Perforations in Forensic DocumentExaminations

E 2289-03 Guide for the Examination of Indented

Rubberstamps and Their ImpressionsE 2290-03 Guide for the Examination of Handwritten ItemsE 2291-03 Guide for Examination of Indentations

Carl McClary, Subcommittee E30.02, the participants inSWGDOC, and SWGDOC’s sponsors at the FBI Lab should becongratulated for this significant contribution to forensic science.

ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic Sciences was formedin 1970. E30 meets once a year, in conjunction with AAFS, withapproximately 100 members attending two days of meetings.The committee, with current membership of approximately 500,currently has jurisdiction of 48 standards, published in theAnnual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 14.02. These stan-dards have and continue to play a preeminent role in all as-pects to forensic sciences, including criminalistics, questioneddocuments, forensic engineering, fire debris analysis, drug test-ing analysis, and collection and preservation of physical evi-dence. For more information, go to http://www.astm.org.

John J.Lentini, F-ABC

Caveat ExaminerCaveat ExaminerCaveat ExaminerCaveat ExaminerCaveat ExaminerFired Cartridge Case Comparisons: 9mm and 40 Caliber

Glock vs. Smith and Wesson Sigma Series Pistols.With the introduction of Smith and Wesson's Sigma Se-

ries pistols, Model SW40F in 1994 and the Model SW9F pistolin 1995, the firearm examiner can no longer list the Glock pis-tol as the sole suspect firearm when considering the class char-acteristics of fired cartridge cases.

Due to the infrequent number of Sigma Series pistols incirculation, earlier comparisons of fired cartridge cases fromthe two types of pistols were limited. In this study, similaritiesand differences in class characteristics were compared betweencartridge cases fired from a considerable number of 9mm and40 caliber Glock and Smith and Wesson Sigma Series pistols.

Nancy D. McCombs

Yuma Proving Ground Session Set for Dec.Yuma Proving Ground Session Set for Dec.Yuma Proving Ground Session Set for Dec.Yuma Proving Ground Session Set for Dec.Yuma Proving Ground Session Set for Dec.The 12th Annual Yuma Proving Ground Forensic Fire-

arms Test Session will occur Dec. 5th and 6th, 2003. Each fallsince 1992 the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground along withthe Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Southern Cali-fornia Firearms Study Group has hosted a test session to studyexterior ballistics and other firearms and forensic related is-sues. YPG offers us the use of Doppler Radar and High SpeedVideo equipment to do what ever experiments we wish, as longas they are safe to conduct.

Anyone who wishes to attend should contact Bill Morris([email protected]) or myself: [email protected] (805) 477-1947. Anyonewho has not attended one of the sessions in the past must pro-vide Bill Morris, at the above e-mail address, with the neces-sary security information by early November. Anyone with anexperiment to propose should contact me, Jim Roberts, at theabove e-mail address or phone number.

This year we also need a list of all firearms and ammuni-tion that will be brought onto the base. This must be suppliedin advance and can best be supplied when your experiment issubmitted. Do not expect to be able to bring firearms or am-munition onto YPG that you have not documented in advance.This does not need to include serial number but should includean adequate description such as caliber and make and modelas well as amount of ammunition.

Anyone wishing to use special equipment or the photo-graphic unit equipment should contact us as soon as possiblewith these requests. Any use of special fixture, stands or thelike need to be coordinated in advance.

This is an informal experimental session, no registrationfee is involved. All participants will be responsible for their ownlodging and food. Most people stay at the La Fuente Inn & Suites,1513 E. 16th St Yuma, 877-202-3353. They offer a governmentrate to us. This is our meeting point at 7:00 A.M. Friday morningto caravan to the Proving Ground. Some of us meet on Thursdayevening at the La Fuente Inn to finalize the next days plannedschedule. We generally pool our money and send out for pizzafor Friday lunch. Most of us gather at a local Restaurant for Fri-day Dinner. We again meet at La Fuente at 7:00 Saturday morn-ing to caravan out. The session breaks up Mid-afternoon on Sat-urday, depending upon scheduled experiments.

NCIS Featured in TV SeriesNCIS Featured in TV SeriesNCIS Featured in TV SeriesNCIS Featured in TV SeriesNCIS Featured in TV SeriesIn the coming season there will be a new TV show that

features the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) andalso features an NCIS Crime Laboratory. Bob Blackledge has-tens to add that any similarities to any “real” NCIS labs arepurely coincidental! This show is a spin-off of the establishedTV series “JAG.” The last two shows of JAG last season servedas an introduction, and rated very highly with a test market.The star of this new show will be Mark Harmon, who will playan NCIS Special Agent [many law enforcement agencies haveagents, but as with the FBI, in NCIS our agents are “Special”].Featured as the Crime Lab Criminalist on the show will be ac-tress Paulie Perrette. Writers and producers for JAG and thisnew show have visited the San Diego NCIS lab on two occa-sions. They interviewed the staff individually and took lots ofphotos. Paulie spent an afternoon with the lab and reports fromthe field indicate she is very nice and is genuinely interested inforensic science. Later in this issue you will find some of thephotos that were taken during Paulie’s visit.

5

2003Fall: San Diego Sheriff

2004Spring: San Mateo SheriffFall: Ventura Co Sheriff

2005Spring: Oakland PDFall: Los Angeles PD

2006Spring: Contra Costa Sheriff

Fall: DOJ Riverside

2007Spring: DOJ Richmond DNA

Fall: Orange Co. Sheriff

2008Spring: Sacramento DA

Fall: TBA

2009Spring: Santa Clara Co.

Jobs • Meetings • Courses

Can’t Find It?Can’t Find It?Can’t Find It?Can’t Find It?Can’t Find It?To reduce the costs of publication, the CACNews may placecalls for nominations and other items that were previouslyfound in the newsletter mailing as inserts ON THE WEB.Visit www.cacnews.org to see what is offered. Contentchanges periodically, so visit often!

T-shirts, coffee mugs, retractable badgeholders! Available at any semiannual

seminar and direct from the CAC.Contact Curtis Smith

[email protected]

Just in: CAC 14 oz. stainless steel mugs($10), CAC Acrylsteel Mugs in Candied AppleRed and Sapphire Blue. ($12), CAC 8 oz. wineglasses ($5). Please note: Polo shirts and denimshirts will be available if ordered PRIOR to theseminar. We also have a new shipment of navyblue T-shirts “When your day ends. . . Oursbegins” with chalk outline.

ShowShowShowShowShowYYYYYourourourourourTTTTTrueruerueruerue

Co l o r s !Co l o r s !Co l o r s !Co l o r s !Co l o r s !Decorate your lab with

official CAC merchandise

CAC CommitteesCAC CommitteesCAC CommitteesCAC CommitteesCAC CommitteesABC - Jennifer MihalovichAwards - Julie Leon and Kevin AnderaBylaws - Hiram EvansCCI Advisory - Michael ParigianDoHS - Kenton WongEndowment - Jim StamEthics - Mike GrubbFinancial Review - John HoudeFounders’ Lecture - John DeHaanHistorical - Jon BabickaMerchandising - Curtis SmithNew Member - Michael ParigianNominating - Sue BrockbankPublications - Ron NicholsPublic Information - Bonnie ChengSeminar Planning - Joe HouriganTraining and Resources - Pennie Laferty & Jeanne Par-

sons

If you are no longer a committee chair, please e-mailme to tell me who the new person is.

Brooke BarloewenRecording Secretary

U P C O M I N GU P C O M I N GU P C O M I N GU P C O M I N GU P C O M I N G

M E E T I N G SM E E T I N G SM E E T I N G SM E E T I N G SM E E T I N G S


Captions

(Below right) Members of the San Diego RegionalForensic Laboratory pose with actress Paulie Perretteduring her visit to the lab on July 17. (bottom left) SARob Bratz gives Paulie a tour of the MCRT van at FieldOffice. (top left) Paulie carries out a trial of adhesiveremoval used in the processing in many types ofevidence. (bottom right) Paulie after she successfullylifts latent finger prints. (top right) NCIS FingerprintSpecialist James Lawson explains fingerprint analysisto Paulie. (second from top left) NCIS ForensicChemist Nathan Salazar demonstrates the FTIR withmicroscope to Paulie. (third from top left) NCIS InternCorrie Maggay and NCIS Senior Forensic Chemist BobBlackledge explain an experiment in collecting glassfragment evidence to Paulie as NCIS Forensic ChemistNathan Salazar looks on.

CBSCBSCBSCBSCBS FALL PREVIEW2003-2004

Tuesdays 8PM ET/PT

NANANANANAVYVYVYVYVY

NCISNCISNCISNCISNCIS✭✭✭✭✭ ✭✭✭✭✭ ✭✭✭✭✭ ✭✭✭✭✭

7

Ron NicholsCAC Editorial Secretary

On a side note…If the Missing Link does exist, is found in time, and is

determined to be a resident of California would it throw its hatinto the Gubernatorial circus along with such political notablesas Gallagher, Larry Flynt and Ahhhhhhh-knolled? My responseto the chuckles and jokes from across the country? “I am not anative!” (I know, I know…who is?!)

Thinking to a logical conclusion…In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the villagers brought

a woman to the magistrate claiming she was a witch. Whenasked why they thought she was a witch the claim was thatshe “looked” like one. Well, before long it was determined thatit was the villagers who dressed her that way. In an attempt toget the villagers to think logically, the magistrate asked whatthey do with witches. When they answered, “burn them,” heasked what else burns? Before long they came up with theproper answer – wood! “So why do witches burn?” the magis-trate continued. “Because they’re made of wood,” came thereply. Pleased with the response but not yet done, the magis-trate asked how one determines if something is made of wood.Once again a debate ensued, but the conclusion was clear –you determine if something is made ofwood by seeing if it floats. However, themagistrate did pose the question as to whatelse floats and before long he got the an-swer he sought – a duck. So, following thisentire flow of logic the magistrate promptsthe villagers, “Exactly, so logically…” Thereply, “If she weighs the same as a duck,she’s made of wood.” Pleased, the magis-trate further prompts them to reach theirown conclusion when he says, “And there-fore?” The villagers proudly responded,“A witch!”

Out of nowhere…Seabiscuit – was this a movie about a

horse that was too small, a jockey who wasblind and too large, a trainer who was tooold, or an owner who was “too stupid toknow any better?” It was a movie aboutheart and an important management les-son – often times an individual’s creden-tials or seeming lack of them does not tellthe whole story. It is vital to think outsidethe box, especially when dealing withpeople.

The ever so necessary Giants update…As of this writing, the Giants are 69 and 42, 12 games

ahead of their closest rival in the Western Division. I will admitthat there was some worry since the last issue because the Dodg-ers pulled real close. But considering they are now in third place

and a distant third at that, I think it is most appropriate to nolonger refer to them as Dodger Blue, but Dodger Who? Or, as afriend Scott Hester has said, maybe Dodger Blue-it?!

Advancement throughout the years…“DNA has come a long way,” James Watson, Nobel Lau-

reate. DNA is the single biggest advancement in forensic sci-ence and criminal justice in the last 20 years. It has resulted ina more critical look at our profession, which in turn has re-sulted in accreditation and certification efforts, which, whilenot completely without flaw, bring far more positives to thetable than negatives. It has also resulted in the judicial systemwanting better answers than they have been accorded in thepast, especially from the identification disciplines within fo-rensic science. This in turn has resulted in the various disci-plines taking an introspective look in an effort to provide thebest possible explanation for what they do and claim. All theseare positive ramifications of the arrival of DNA into the foren-sic realm. Do negatives exist?

On a more serious, but related note…“I know it when I see it.” That was

the answer of the villagers in Monty Py-thon and it was far too often the answerwhen a practitioner within one of theidentification disciplines was asked howhe or she knew they had an identifica-tion. Recently, the identification disci-plines have come under increased fire asthe courts demand better answers toquestions they have every right to ask.As a result, practitioners within some ofthe disciplines have attempted to get to-gether and attempt to better define whatthey do and how they do it.

Time to ponder the great scientific questions of the modern era…Is the Missing Link missing because it has yet to be discovered or simply because it doesnot exist? If the former is true, are evolutionists Bayesians? If the latter is true, is it trulymissing? Hmmm, if a tree…

Notes on a Scorecard

The first thing that

needs to be established

is an agreement. An

agreement to leave pre-

existing biases at the

door, to promote the

field and the science

over personal agendas...

Arrogance need

not apply.


If one examines the various disciplines, one will see theemerging of camps within some, each declaring that they havethe best answer to the question. Often times, this comes at theexpense of launching attacks on the other camp and at timesthe debates have become quite heated. Personally, especiallyfor firearms, I think the best way to solve these disagreementsis with a paint gun war instead of the golf tournament preced-ing the annual AFTE conference.

The first thing that needs to be established is an agree-ment. An agreement to leave pre-existing biases at the door, topromote the field and the science over personal agendas, to bereceptive to change, and finally, to openly exchange informa-tion to further the science and provide the best product pos-sible. Arrogance need not apply.

Secondly, respect is paramount. Nothing will cause a dis-cussion to degenerate into a pile of dissension and discontentfaster than a lack of respect for one another. We do not have toagree with each other. There is nothing that compels us to doso. However, human decency does compel us to be respectfultowards one another and treat one another accordingly. Thereis no excuse for anything but such consideration and it matterslittle the forum in which the discussion is occurring. What doesthis mean? No disparaging comments, no stereotyping of anindividual, and no cynicism. More often than not, these are theresults of built-up anger and inappropriate for a constructivediscussion on an issue.

Before moving into the third issue, I would like to tell astory in which a daughter was asking her mom why she cut offthe ends of the ham before she placed it into the pan to bake it.Her mom responded that she did not know but did it becausethat’s what her mom did. So the inquisitive daughter went toher grandmother who was in the other room and asked herwhy the ends of the ham were cut off. The grandmother alsodid not know, saying she had done so because she had seenher mom do it. The daughter became even more curious andwould not be satisfied until the answer was reached. So, shecalled her great-grandmother and asked why she cut off theends of the ham. The great-grandmother had to chuckle whenshe answered, “So I could fit it into the pan.”

Long after the reasons have been forgotten, tradition con-tinues. The third issue has to do with introspection. Prior todefending to the death what we do and how we do it, we needto look at what we do and how we do it and determine why.Before wondering whether this is necessary, we need to keepin mind that if we do not ask the questions of ourselves thenwe will likely be asked the question by others and those othersmay be representatives of the court as we are sitting on thestand. If we think the answer “I know it when I see it,” soundsarrogant to our clients, how about, “I do it that way becauseit’s the way it always has been done.” Our clients deserve bet-ter answers and so do our colleagues. Along with arroganceand guns, we need to check the anecdotal evidence at the door.We need to come armed with science folks and if it becomesnecessary, be prepared to break with sacred tradition.

Finally, it requires involvement. I have become increas-ingly disturbed about the apathy that exists within this profes-sion. We all seem to have our complaints and we all seem tohave our issues but what we do not offer is our time. We evenhave excuses for that as well. But we need to consider some-thing. If one of our colleagues goes to the stand ill-equipped toanswer the tough questions, it can have ramifications for thediscipline as a whole if the courts decide that it is a discipline-wide issue and not restricted to a single examiner. Whether we

like it or not, the reputation of what we do is placed on thestand anytime one of our colleagues takes the oath. So, it isimportant that we all get involved, leaving excuses behind. Itis not necessary to become heavily involved as it is recognizedthat some simply do not have the time others may have. How-ever, even a little involvement is useful. Each of us has a rightto be heard and forensic science needs each of our voices. It istime each of us steps up to the plate. At the very least we canteach the weak-hitting Dodgers a lesson or two!

Our clients have a right to a better answer than we knowshe is a witch because she either “looks like one” or because sheweighs the same as a duck, which in turn floats on water likewood, which in turn burns like a witch. Might this involve hardwork? I would suspect so, but isn’t that what they pay us for?

Until next time…In the next issue we will ponder more great scientific

questions, continue with our development of logic, and have awrestling update, as by January of next year the 2003 Giantswill be old news. (But, Dodger bashing may continue becausemy hatred of that team is the ONE tradition I will defend to thedeath!) Oh, and some assorted serious fare for the more re-fined. Until then, best wishes to you and your families.

��The CACNews prints letters to the editor that are of interest to itsreaders. We reserve the right to edit letters for brevity and clarity.All submissions to this page become the property of the CACNews.

Not FunnyNot FunnyNot FunnyNot FunnyNot FunnyEditor,I just read the third quarter edition of The CAC News. As

a member of the CAC for almost 30 years, I look forward toreceiving it. However, I was quite dismayed with the publica-tion of the joke An Apocryphal Tale on page 25. ASCLD/LABinspectors and team captains are, for the most part, volunteersperforming an important service for the forensic science com-munity. It serves no purpose to publish something that demeansthem. This mean-spirited Tale only highlights that some in theforensic science community do not understand the role ofASCLD/LAB, its staff and volunteers. Accreditation of crimelaboratories is perhaps one of the most significant developmentsin forensic science in the last twenty years. Encouraged by ju-dicial opinion, mandated by at least three states and imple-mented by crime laboratory directors, accreditation has broughtneeded regulation to our field.

While not the author of the Tale, I think you bear a re-sponsibility as Editorial Secretary to publish a professionalnewsletter. Publishing something that demeans another foren-sic science organization and its volunteers and staff is shirkingyour responsibility to maintain the standards of The CAC News.

Frank Fitzpatrick, Chair, ASCLD/LAB

9

Presented at the American Academy of Fo-rensic Sciences Seminar, Anaheim, CA, Feb-ruary 1984.

Editor’s note: While Jan Bashinski wrotethis article nearly 20 years ago, despite its refer-ences to ABO and enzyme typing, our readers willfind the key concepts extremely timely and relevant.

The CriminalisticsLaboratory Report:An Editorial View

Jan S. Bashinski, M Crim

ABSTRACTMany forensic scientists regard their

written reports merely as a means of record-ing their analytical results, rather than asvehicles for conveying their conclusions, inthe belief that the courtroom, not the report,is the appropriate place for interpretation.However, critical decisions about the case maybe made by others in advance of trial on thebasis of the written report and without con-sultation with the criminalist. This paper putsforth an alternative view that the function ofthe laboratory report should be to communi-cate to its reader both the analytical resultsand the conclusions of the analyst, convey-ing the essence of what the expert would sayif asked for his opinion in court. A number ofhypothetical case examples are used to illus-trate some important issues which should beconsidered in the preparation of acriminalistics laboratory report.

Most criminalists acknowledge thatone of their fundamental professional re-sponsibilities is to provide interpretationof their laboratory results. They accept thepremise that their obligation as-forensicscientists goes beyond conducting analy-ses and generating data to include the for-mulation of conclusions based on theiranalytical results and the presentation ofthose conclusions in the form of an expertopinion in court. The forensic science lit-erature contains many articles regardingthe role of the forensic scientist as an ex-pert witness. Most of this literature dealseither with the communication skills re-quired in the courtroom(1,2) or with theproblems encountered by the scientist inreconciling his standards of proof withthose of the legal system. (3)

The emphasis given to testimonyin the ethical codes of the various foren-sic science organizations also reflects thekeen awareness criminalists have of theimportance of their role as witnesses.

However, other than the general exhor-tation to be accurate, honest, and impar-tial in testimony, there has been relativelylittle attention paid in the literature to thesubstantive content of the interpretationsoffered in court by forensic scientists.There has been even less considerationgiven to another very significant aspectof their work, that of communicatinglaboratory findings in the form of writ-ten reports.

One reason for the emphasis on tes-timony is the view held by many foren-sic scientists that their written reports aremerely a means of recording results andthat interpretive or conclusionary state-ments should be reserved for the court-room. Written reports are rarely intro-duced as evidence when the expert isavailable to testify. Testimony is offeredunder oath before the trier of fact and,unlike a written statement, is subject tocross-examination. Naturally, it is to beexpected that forensic scientists shouldtake their responsibilities as witnessesvery seriously.

It is entirely appropriate to focuson the courtroom as an important forumfor communication of conclusions and togive careful and critical attention to testi-mony. However, ignoring the impact ofthe written report can have serious con-sequences which should not be dis-counted.

First, significant decisions about acase may be made in advance of trial bypolice officers and attorneys, based ontheir limited understanding of a labora-tory report and without any contact withthe criminalist. Although forensic scien-tists may encourage their “clients” to con-sult with them about the laboratory find-ings, there is no guarantee they will doso. An investigator may decide to elimi-nate a suspect from consideration or notto pursue a case at all based only on asketchy report. A prosecuting attorneymay elect to drop charges or a defenseattorney may advise his client to pleadguilty based on the report. A report maybe accepted at face value in court by stipu-lation with no opportunity for the ana-lyst to explain the results.

Since criminalists themselves oftenagonize over the interpretation of theirown data, it should be anticipated thatthere is a significant risk that non-scien-tists will misinterpret a technical result,unless that result is very carefully ex-plained in simple and unambiguousterms. It has been demonstrated (l) thatjuries and attorneys often misconstrue

terms like “consistent with’ and “indi-cates. While most expert witnesses aremindful of the critical importance ofproper wording of conclusions in court,it is not so universally appreciated thatattention to semantics can be even morecritical in a written report, which has tostand on its own without benefit of ex-planation from its writer.

Secondly, the report is the vehiclethrough which the opposition may dis-cover what physical evidence has beenexamined and what its potential signifi-cance may be. If the analytical data in areport are incomplete or if the criminal-ist has failed to provide a summary of hissubstantive conclusions derived from thedata, a possibility exists that he will haveomitted information which will provecritical at time of trial. Thus, the crimi-nalist may have unwittingly obstructedthe ability of the opposition to prepareits case. Furthermore, even though at thetime of trial the expert witness may takegreat pains to present objective interpre-tations of the evidence and to offer is tes-timony in an impartial manner, a sketch-ily written report may give the impres-sion of an attempt to hide or cover-upinformation of value to the other side. If,instead, the opposing attorney perceivedfrom the analyst’s report a willingness toconsider both sides, he might be muchless inclined to mount a full scale attackon the witness’ credibility in court.

A basic ethical tenet of forensic sci-entists is that as witnesses they are notadvocates in the trial—that their analyti-cal results and conclusions should not beswayed or biased by the party who callsfor their testimony. It is accepted that it isthe duty of the forensic scientist to avoidmisleading the jury by his testimony.Given the fact that the testimony is beingelicited by an advocate, however, it is notuncommon to encounter a courtroomsituation in which the scientist is unableto present his results in what he consid-ers to be a fair and impartial manner. Al-though it is possible for an experiencedwitness to control his own testimony tosome extent, the scientist is often confinedto limited responses to carefully con-structed questions and is somewhat at themercy of the attorney examining him.This situation can limit the witness’ abil-ity to be as clear or specific as he wouldlike. Including clear-cut statements ofconclusions in written laboratory reportscan help prevent manipulation or mis-statement of those conclusions by theadvocates (attorneys) in the adversarialatmosphere of the courtroom.


Finally, the mental discipline re-quired to reduce a mass of analytical datato a concise, unambiguous conclusion canbe of immense benefit in the performanceof the laboratory work itself and in prepa-ration for any subsequent testimony. Fur-ther, the process of verifying that all theconclusions are fully supported by theanalytical data while the evidence is stillavailable for additional testing is invalu-able. Reflecting on the data allows theanalyst to discover and rectify possibleflaws or omissions in his work which hemight otherwise discover, to his dismay,only the day before trial or worse yetwhile on the witness stand. Further, if theanalyst takes the trouble at the outset toconsider possible alternative interpreta-tions of his data, and if he deliberates,carefully over his conclusions while thefacts are fresh in his mind, there is littlechance of his being pressured to producehasty, ill-considered opinions in the stressof the courtroom situation.

It should be evident, for reasonssuch as those cited above, that it is im-portant for forensic scientists to approachthe preparation of their written reportswith as much care and soul searching asthey do their court testimony. The writ-ten report should serve to communicateboth the analytical results and the inter-pretations and/or conclusions of the ana-lyst. Furthermore, the conclusions ex-pressed should convey the essence ofwhat the criminalist would say if askedfor his expert opinion in court, andshould do so as clearly and unambigu-ously as possible.

Having taken the position thatwritten reports should include both dataand conclusionary statements interpret-ing the data, it is important to address insome detail the substance or content ofthe opinions that are put forth in thosereports (and in court testimony as well).There are many styles of report writing,and there is undoubtedly more than oneacceptable approach. It is not the purposeof this paper to review techniques of ef-fective written communication. Rather,the intent is to identify some fundamen-tal issues which should be considered byscientists, as they develop their own re-port writing philosophies, and by policymakers or managers, as they establishguidelines for report writing and reviewthe work of others under their supervi-sion. Toward that end, it may be instruc-tive to consider some key questions in thecontext of hypothetical case situations.

Discussion and Case ExamplesDiscussion and Case ExamplesDiscussion and Case ExamplesDiscussion and Case ExamplesDiscussion and Case ExamplesOne of the most critical questions

the forensic scientist should ask himselfin preparing a report is —How could biasor misunderstanding be interjected or inferredby the user of my report from the manner inwhich I describe (or choose not to describe)my findings? The hypothetical cases de-scribed below illustrate by practical ex-ample some of the types of problemswhich may be created by an analyst’sdecision to offer interpretive commentsin his report.

CASE EXAMPLE 1One potential source of misunder-

standing in the report is the use of statis-tical information. Much has been writtenof late about the potential for use (andabuse) of genetic typing data (5,6,7), andthere is a tendency for serologists is toavoid incorporating this type of data inreports for fear that it may be misunder-stood or misused in court, and be givenunwarranted weight by the jury. This ex-ample illustrates how a well intentionedattempt to avoid prejudice can have theopposite effect.

Example 1: A forensic serologist hasbeen asked to compare an evidence bloodsample with the blood of victim to deter-mine if the victim could have been thesource of the evidence blood. The samplecould be typed only in the ABO system;the serologist finds that the evidencesample is type 0, as is the victim. He re-ports that both victim and evidencesamples are type O, but makes no state-ment in his report about the incidence oftype 0 in the general population, althoughhe would willing to provide populationdata, if asked, in court. The prosecutor,being an intelligent advocate, asks the se-rologist the following questions:

Q. So you found type O blood?A. Yes.Q. And that is the same type as the

victim?A. YesQ. No further questions.The defense attorney asks ques-

tions about the methods the analyst usedto conduct the analysis and about theanalyst’s background and competence toperform the analysis, none of which elicitinformation about the frequency of occur-rence of type 0 in the general population.

In this scenario, the jury has notbeen made aware of something whichthey may find highly significant. Whatthey have not been told is that althoughthe blood matches the victim it is also thesame ABO type as half the population ofthe world. It could be argued that it is

the responsibility of the defense attorneyto point out the limited value of the ABOtyping result, and in the scenario de-scribed above most competent counselwould be sufficiently well informedabout ABO typing to be able to cross ex-amine the expert properly.

However, taking the above examplefurther, let us assume that for some rea-son the only genetic type which could bedetermined in the samples was AdenylateKinase (AK) l, and that both victim andevidence samples are AK type 1. Is it rea-sonable to expect the average defense at-torney to know that AK type 1 occurs inover 96% of the general population andthat the significance of the similar type inthis case, as far as distinguishing thevictim’s blood from anyone else’s, is mini-mal? If, on the other hand, the expert’swritten report and his direct testimonyhad included relevant genetic frequencydata, it would have been clear to all par-ties exactly what the limitations of his con-clusions were. Given that the stated pur-pose for omitting the frequency data wasso as not to prejudice the case against thedefendant, could it not be argued that inthis case the forensic scientist had defeatedhis purpose by omitting the data?

CASE EXAMPLE 2One strategy used by some

criminalists to avoid any misinterpreta-tion of their reports is to simply put allthe analytical results in a table, withoutany interpretation or conclusions, in or-der to encourage the users of their workto contact them for details of their opin-ion. In a report writing exercise con-ducted as a part of a recent national sym-posium on the analysis of sexual assaultevidence, almost half of the experiencedserologists in attendance followed thispractice(8). Unfortunately, however, thescientist usually has no means of ensur-ing that he will be consulted about hisresults. Furthermore, such a table of re-sults can appear deceptively simple, lead-ing an uninitiated reader to concoct hisown, often erroneous, interpretation, asillustrated in the following example:

Example 2: A forensic scientist hasbeen asked to examine a vaginal swab ina sexual assault case and compare histyping results with the types of the vic-tim and suspect. He finds semen on thevaginal swab and goes on to develop typ-ing data which he reports in tabular fash-ion, with no accompanying explanation,as indicated below:

Sample ABO PGM Pep-A(subtype)

11

victim O(H) 1+ 1-1suspect O(H) 2+1+ 1-1vag swab O(H) 1+ 1-1There is a significant possibility

that an unschooled investigator or attor-ney might conclude from the fact that noPGM 2+ was found on the vaginal swabthat the suspect has been eliminated as apossible source of the semen on the swab.The forensic serologist, however, wouldbe aware of the possibility that all thePGM activity seen on the vaginal swabcould be from the victim’s own secretionsand would tell the investigator, shouldhe inquire, that this suspect was not nec-essarily excluded by these results.

The serologist is presumably awarethat the reason he had been asked to do atyping test is to determine whether or notthere is evidence tending to exclude thesuspect. Would it not be simpler and moredirect to have provided the investigatorwith the answer to his question in thewritten report in the first place? Could itnot be argued that in leaving the investi-gator to interpret the data on his own, theserologist has not fulfilled his profes-sional responsibility?

A slight modification of the analyti-cal data in this hypothetical case producesa scenario to illustrate the opposite sideof the coin- that is, the potential for mis-interpretation of the laboratory results tothe detriment of the defendant. Considernow a situation where the suspect, in-stead of having a PGM type 2+1+(differ-ent from the victim’s) turns out to havebe PGM type l+( the same as the victim’s)

sample ABO PGM Pep-A (sub)victim O(H) 1+ 1-1suspect O(H) 1+ 1-1vag swab O(H) 1+ 1-1If the serologist reports (or, for that

matter, testifies to) this data without of-fering any conclusions as to what groupof persons may be excluded as possibledonors of the semen on the vaginal swab,what kinds of questions might a hypo-thetical prosecutor ask the serologist ashe presents his direct testimony ? Theprosecutor will undoubtedly inquire if itisn’t a fact that the typing results on thevaginal swab match the suspect. He mayeven ask the expert how commonly thecombination of Type O, PGM l+, and Pep-A 1-1 is found in the general population.He is certainly not likely to ask if a se-men donor of any type, other than O,PGM 1+, Pep-A 1-1 could have beeneliminated based on these tests, nor is helikely to make a point of the fact that allthe results obtained on the vaginal swabcould have come from the victim herself.

If the serologist hasn’t stated clearly inhis written report that he could have got-ten these same results regardless of the typeof the semen (because all the typing resultscould be due to the victim’s own secre-tions), there is an even greater chance thatpoint will also escape the defense attor-ney, and that unwarranted significancewill be given to the typing results by thejury. In that event, hasn’t the serologist,by his inaction, allowed bias to be inter-jected into the presentation of his results?

CASE EXAMPLE 3In many instances, forensic scien-

tists are asked to examine items for evi-dence of common origin. Typically, anumber of chemical and/or microscopicsimilarities observed between the knownand questioned specimens are regardedas evidence that both may have origi-nated from the same source. As illustratedin the next example, however, it is oftenfar from obvious just how significant suchsimilarities may really be.

Example 3: A criminalist is asked toexamine fibers combed from the hair of arobbery suspect and to compare these fi-bers with a stocking cap discarded by therobber along his path of flight from thescene. The evidence cap is composed ofblue acrylic fibers and the examiner alsofinds many other extraneous fiber typeson the inside surface of the cap. In thefiber sample collected from the suspect’shair, the examiner finds many differentfiber types, most of which might havecome from knit caps but do not match anyfibers from the evidence cap. He alsofinds half a dozen blue fibers of the sametype as those of which the evidence capis composed.

Should the criminalist report, with-out comment, merely that he found sixblue fibers in the suspect’s hair thatmatched the cap? Or should he also men-tion the other, non-matching fibers andattempt to communicate in some way thatthe significance of the matching blue fi-bers as far as indicating contact betweenthe suspect and that particular hat maybe diminished by the lack of correspondenceof the other trace evidence found?

CASES 1 and 2 represent situationswhere the analyst probably has a goodidea of the significance of his findings;CASE 3 is a situation where he may not.All three cases illustrate the problemswhich may surface if the forensic scientistmakes no attempt in his report to articu-late an opinion as to the probative signifi-cance of his analytical results. Clearly it isnot appropriate for an expert witness toinvade the province of the jury and express

an opinion regarding innocence or guilt.It is, however, entirely proper for the wit-ness to adequately inform the jury of thelimitations of his results so that the jurymay make an informed decision as to howmuch weight to give them. Further, it is asappropriate for these limitations to be in-cluded in the written report as it is for themto be described in testimony.

This last statement leads to consid-eration of a second important question—In a borderline situation which does not lenditself to a definitive “yes or no” conclusionarystatement, how should one report tentativeconclusions—or, for that matter, should onereport them at all?

Not so long ago, there was a furi-ous debate (9,10,11,12) in the InternationalAssociation for Identification over Reso-lution VII, which stated that any certifiedlatent print examiner who reported a “pos-sible, probable, or likely friction ridgeidentification” would be stripped of hiscertification. This resolution codified thebelief of many identification persons thatthere is no such thing as a valid tentativeconclusion, particularly as applied to the“exact science” of latent print comparison.Many firearms examiners also subscribeto the philosophy that a comparisonshould result in a yes or no conclusion.Others acknowledge that there are situa-tions where there may not be sufficientsimilarities or differences between twospecimens to support an unqualified yesor no, and that some tentative statementmay be warranted in these cases.

Assuming that one agrees that a“yes or no” answer in a firearms compari-son is not always possible or appropri-ate, what are the possible types of reportswhich may be issued? In a borderlinesituation, should the examiner simplyreport that the examination is “inconclu-sive”? Or should he try instead to explainwhat the term “inconclusive” means tohim in the context of the case at hand?

Examples of situations where onemight draw tentative conclusions abouta bullet comparison are:

(1) The bullets are too badly dam-aged or the suspected weapon does notmake sufficiently reproducible marks onthe test bullets to permit a comparison. Thatis, although the class characteristics are thesame, not enough data is present to sup-port any opinion as to whether or not thebullets were fired from the same gun.

(2) Some similarities are observedbetween the two specimens, above andbeyond consistent class characteristics,but they are not sufficiently numerous ordistinctive to support a positive identifi-


cation. In other words, there is some evi-dence they were fired from the sameweapon, but the examiner is not certainthat they were.

(3) No significant similarities, otherthen class characteristics were found be-tween the specimens, and some possiblysignificant differences were observed, butthese differences were not sufficiently dis-tinctive to support an exclusion. That is,there is some reason to believe the bulletswere fired from different weapons but theexaminer cannot be certain that they were.

The obvious differences betweenthese three tentative conclusions couldprove to be very significant to the ulti-mate outcome of the case. A vague termlike “inconclusive” technically encom-passes all of the above interpretations, butwould convey essentially no informationto clarify the issue for the reader of thereport. If the purpose of the report is toprovide information to the reader,wouldn’t that purpose best be served bydescribing the examiner’s opinion as pre-cisely as possible?

Having asserted that the scientist’sreport and testimony should include anassessment of the significance of his re-sults, the final key question obviously isHow does one go about assigning a signifi-cance to his analytical results? This ques-tion is, of course, the most difficult of allto answer.

In many of the case situations rou-tinely faced by forensic scientists, such asthe scenario of the robber’s cap, relevantstatistical data are not available. Even ifone constructs experiments to generatedata on the persistence of transferred fi-bers, or, if one determines the populationfrequencies of various fiber types instocking caps, one cannot reconstruct, inmost cases, the history of exposure of thesuspect to various fiber sources. Thecriminalist may remain, therefore, unableto interpret the significance of a match ina case such as this.

This state of affairs may leave thecriminalist with a sense of discomfort, butsurely does not relieve him of the respon-sibility to attempt to develop appropriatedata at every opportunity and to use thatdata responsibly as it becomes available.

In some subject areas, such as se-rology, there is a wealth of statistical datawhich can be brought to bear to answercertain questions— How common is thisset of types? How effective is this particu-lar typing system in discriminating be-tween random persons, etc.? In basicquantitative drug analysis, there eresimple, well-defined methods of evalu-

ating the accuracy and precision of data.However, even if the analysis is of a sortwhich produces data which can be quan-tified or verified objectively, some sub-jective judgment is generally required indeciding whether or not the data are suf-ficiently compelling to support a defini-tive conclusion.

CASE EXAMPLE 4The following case provides an ex-

ample of a situation where the criminal-ist may not be able to produce a numeri-cal assessment of the significance of hisobservations but may have practical“common sense” experience upon whichto base his interpretation of the evidence:

Example 4: A criminalist has beenasked to examine articles of clothing be-longing to the victim and the suspect in arape case for trace evidence; that is, hehas been asked to look for some evidencethe garments had been in contact witheach other. The suspect’s clothing is ajumpsuit which is covered with largesmears of paint of many different colorsthat flake off onto the examination tablewhenever the garment is touched. Thevictim’s sweater is multicolored deep pileangora knit. Upon examination of theitems under the stereo microscope, hedoes not observe any paint flakes on thevictim’s sweater or any angora fibers ad-hering to the rough surface of the crack-ing paint smears on the suspect’sjumpsuit.

Given the nature of the two gar-ments and their potential to produce andretain transferred trace evidence, the ex-aminer might conclude that he wouldexpect to find transferred trace evidenceif the garments had been in intimate con-tact with each other. If that is his opin-ion, should he report only that he foundno transferred trace evidence? Or is itappropriate that he elaborate and statethat, based on his observations, he con-siders it unlikely that the two garmentshad been in close contact? In other words,is it not his responsibility to interpret hisfindings in the light of the initial ques-tion he has been asked to answer?

Some forensic scientists maintainthat they must avoid making interpretivecomments because they do not possessall the data which may have a bearing ontheir interpretation. Yet, these same ana-lysts formulate opinions every day, whichmay have to be modified years hence asthe state of the art in the field advances.Five years ago, a serologist may have of-fered the opinion, based on conventionalPGM typing, that two blood stains werethe same type and could have had the

same source. Today, he might perform aPGM sub-typing test on these same stainsand develop conclusive evidence that thetwo samples are definitely different. Doesthat mean he was “wrong” to draw hisoriginal conclusion? Or does it meanmerely that even the very best interpre-tation of a given piece of analytical datamay contain some element of uncertaintywhich only time and future research willmake clear?

ConclusionsThe hypothetical cases discussed

illustrate the value of a written reportwhich incorporates both the analyticalresults and the analyst’s conclusions asto their significance. This style of report-ing, by making clear both the value andthe limitations of the analysis, allows theuser of the report to assess the case intel-ligently with a minimum of confusion.Further, the discipline the analyst exer-cises in evaluating the significance of hisresults and examining alternative expla-nations for his findings long before be-ing “put to the test” in court cannot failto have a beneficial effect on the overallquality of his analytical work and, ulti-mately, of his testimony.

Attributes of a scientist include theability to draw a reasonable conclusionbased on available data. The scientist’sdecision-making process includes a will-ingness to qualify his conclusion in lightof the level of uncertainty of the data aswell as to justify (and, in that sense, ad-vocate) his conclusions when challenged.Clearly, a scientist should not formulatea conclusion without sufficient data orexpertise, and if he is ethical and compe-tent he will refuse to do so. It is the ques-tion of where to draw the line as to whatconstitutes sufficient data or expertisewhich usually causes the most conster-nation in the courts.

The fact that there may be a degreeof uncertainty in his conclusions shouldnot deter the forensic scientist from ren-dering expert opinions or from articulat-ing those opinions in his written reports.It should, instead, inspire him to workvery hard to define the limitations anduncertainty in his work. Awareness of hisown limitations should motivate him tofind ways to communicate to the ultimateusers of his work, the jury, his best judg-ment as to what the degree of uncertaintyin his analysis really is. Only in this waycan he help the jury weigh his opinionsappropriately, along with all the otherinformation before them, to make the ul-timate decision about the truth of thematter in the case at hand.

13

References:1. Tanton, R.L. “ Court Interpretation of Forensic Science Phraseol-

ogy”, presentation at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,Los Angeles, 1981.

2. Sognnaes, R. F., “Symposium : Effective Expert Testimony”, J. For.Sci., 28, #2, April 1983, page 516.

3. Fong, W. “ Criminalistics, Evidence, and Legal Proof” in Prosecutor’sSourcebook: Vol I” Eds. James George and Ira Cohen, Practising LawInstitute, New York, 1969 pg 323.

4. Marco, Corey, “The Certainty of Expert Opinion”, in Forensic Sci-ences: Volume I, Chapter 2, Ed. Wecht, Cyril, Matthew Bender, NY,1983.

5. Selvin, S., Grunbaum, B. and Myhre, B. “The Probability of Non-discrimination or Likelihood of Guilt of an Accused: Criminal Iden-tification”, J. For. Sci. Soc, 23, #1, pg 27 1983.

6. Evett, I. W., “What is the Probability that This Blood Came FromThat Person? A Meaningful Question?”, J. For. Sci. Soc., 21, #1, pg35, 1983.

7. Juricek, D. “Electrophoresis: A continuation of the Discussion”, J.For. Sci, 29 #3, pg 704, 1984.

8. Tanton, R. “A Serology Report Writing Exercise”, in Proceedings ofa Forensic Science Symposium on the Analysis of Sexual Assault Evi-dence, Eds Brown, B. and Kearney, J., US Government Printing Of-fice, 1984 (in press).

9. Moenssens, “Resolution VII - A Monkey on Out Back”, Identifica-tion News, XXIX, #12, pg 3, 1979.

10. Davis, J E , “ Thoughts on Resolution VII”, Identification News,XXIX, # 12, pg 5, 1979.

11. Cowger, J., “Resolution VII”, Identification News, XXX. #1 2980 pg 5.

12. Leadbetter, J, Brooker, D., and Haylock, S., “In Support of Reso-lution VII”, Identification News, XXX, #3 pg 3 1980.

Glass Breaking ExperimentsU.S. Army Proving Ground, Yuma, ArizonaU.S. Army Proving Ground, Yuma, ArizonaU.S. Army Proving Ground, Yuma, ArizonaU.S. Army Proving Ground, Yuma, ArizonaU.S. Army Proving Ground, Yuma, Arizona

Types of panes tested included ordinary float commer-cial window pane, 1’ x 1’ x ¼” (float side opposite breaker);Activ™ Glass by Pilkington, 1’ x 1’ x ¼” (treated side towardsbreaker); and SunClean® Glass by PPG, 1’ x 1’ x ¼” (treatedside towards breaker).

The cover of this issue of The CACNews depicts stills cap-tured from a stream of high speed video taken during experi-ments at the Yuma Army Proving Ground in Dec. 2002. Wemade high-speed videos as we broke panes of “self-cleaning”window glass. The highspeed videos were shot at 1000 framesper second.

The glass breaker was Corrie Maggay. Corrie is an internin my lab, and she is also an MS in Forensic Science candidateat National University in San Diego. I’m an adjunct professor

there. The glass breaking study is a part of Corrie’s thesis project,and I’m her thesis advisor. Faye Springer is collaborating withus on this.

Each time Corrie broke a window, we would then haveher step over to an area where we had laid down clean butcherpaper. Brandon Armstrong and I would help Corrie removeher outer clothing and we would package each item as evi-dence. Later, after we had returned to San Diego, Corrie cameinto my lab and examined the clothing in each of the packagesand picked off the glass fragments. These were tallied and sepa-rately those fragments from each clothing item was packagedand sent to Faye. In Faye’s lab she will try to determine whatpercentage of the glass fragments that came back towards Corrieand were collected originated from the surface of the glass thatwas towards the breaker (towards Corrie). For the self-clean-ing glass types the surface towards the breaker was always thetreated or exterior side of the glass (opposite the float side).

Corrie will be presenting her results at the fall 2003 CACSeminar in San Diego and will show the audience most of thesephotos plus the high-speed videos. Corrie will also be present-ing at the 2004 AAFS Annual Meeting in Dallas in Februaryand at the 2004 Pittcon in Chicago in March. Hopefully by thenwe will have Faye’s results.

—Bob BlackledgeFall CAC Seminar, Oct 7-11, 2003Celia Lukomski (858) 467-4633 or Jeanne Parsons (858) 467-4520


Preface: Before we venture forward into the next install-ment of Leadership 101, I would like to take some time to intro-duce more of myself with regard to issue of leadership as I didwhen I presented some of my forensic background in last issue’seditorial. After all, I certainly do not want to give the impressionthat I am a self-proclaimed expert using his position as Edito-rial Secretary to qualify myself to speak on this topic. Let mebriefly provide my credentials and then you can decide whetherto give merit to what I have to say.

Upon my acceptance of supervisory responsibilities withthe Oakland Police Department laboratory in 1991, I becamevery aware that my education and training as a forensic scien-tist did not equip me to handle the demands of this new task.So, I went back to school and attended workshops and semi-nars that dealt with people, personality styles, managementand leadership. I pursued this all the way through a Master’sdegree that, while from a well-recognized seminary, per -mitted me the opportunity to fo-cus all of my work towardsthe issue of leadership. In ad-dition to my education andtraining, I have instructed ata private, accredited collegeand have provided work-shops, seminars, and presen-tations dealing with leadership,including one on Servant Lead-ership at the 2002 AAFS Meet-ing held in Atlanta. In addi-tion, I have served in super-visory positions, served onthe BoD of the CAC on sev-eral occasions and haveserved on boards of privateorganizations as well.

* * *

ONCE AGAIN WE

VENTURE into our discus-sion on leadership andwhat might be referred toas some of the more essen-tial elements. In the last is-sue I talked about the dan-gers of a pattern of detach-ment developed through a ca-reer and the necessity to de-velop some attachment whenpromoted to a laboratorymanagement position. If youhave not read the article, I en-courage you to go back. It setsthe foundation for much ofwhat will be discussed in thecoming segments.

This segment will beconcerned with the concept ofteamwork. Take a minute andponder the concept. If youhave to, close this issue! Just

��

Second in a series.

By Ron Nichols

T e a m w o r k

make sure to come back to it. Write your concept down andthen let’s see how it may or may not change with the com-ing discussion.

What was your first inclination? Did it involve sacri-ficing for the good of the whole? Maybe it had a more posi-tive bent, such as working together to achieve the goals ofthe whole. Similar to the first, maybe it consisted of some-thing similar to subordinating personal goals for the com-mon cause.

We do need to recognize that there will be many dif-ferent definitions depending on what we have learned, howwe have learned it, traditions we hold, our personalities, andsometimes our current environment. (I say “sometimes”because we may cling to a definition of teamwork despite

our current environment.) But, regard-less of the definition, there is al-

ways an individual elementand a group element.

Sports are an obviousanalogy that has value inthis discussion becausewithin the sports arena, dif-ferent types of teams areevident. One type of teamis one in which the mem-bers of the team have basi-cally the same skill set suchthat having a position onthe team is not character-ized by skill set, but ratherby something else such asweight class in wrestling.When I refer to wrestling Ido not mean the entertain-ment version featured bytelevision but rather thesport from which Olympicchampions are made andthe sport in which my teen-age son has made a nichefor himself.

Even in a highly in-dividualized sport such aswrestling, there is a teamcomponent. Each team hasa single wrestler in each ofseveral weight classes.Each of these wrestlerscompetes against thewrestler from the otherteam within the sameweight class. The winnernot only gathers a positivestatistic for his own per-sonal record, but alsobased on the level of vic-tory, scores victory pointsfor his team. When allwrestlers have competed,the scores for each of the

15

teams are totaled to find the winning team. This team con-cept is referred to as a dual event.

Now let’s use my son as an example. Mike recentlycompeted on the varsity team as a sophomore in high schooland regularly weighed in at approximately 152 pounds.However, since only one wrestler could compete in eachweight class for each team at dual events, the senior wres-tler who also weighed in at the same weight as Mike re-ceived priority. Therefore, Mike was asked and assented tocompeting in a higher weight class, 160 pounds. At thatweight, Mike was the best the team could offer even thoughit was not the optimum weight for him.

Early in the season, the team experienced much suc-cess. Mike’s personal .500-record, though not as good as hebecame accustomed to, was helpful to the cause. He wonsome matches and when he lost, he generally remained closeenough in overall points such that the team points for theother team were kept to a minimum. About a third of theway through the season Mike’s 152-pound teammate suf-fered an injury. When competing at that weight, Mike’srecord was 15-3 and while his losses were close, many of hisvictories were completely dominating. The team continuedto do very well. The season ended with Mike returning tothe 160-weight class after the injured senior came back fromhis injury.

Mind you, I am not bemoaning the fact that my sonhad to wrestle outside his weight class! He did very wellthis year both inside or outside his weight class. Simply, thiswas an example of sacrificing for the good of the whole andsubordinating personal goals for the common cause. Itworked and it was necessary for the success of the team be-cause of the type of team it was.

Another type of team may have different characteris-tics. For a wrestling team, all of the members had similarskill sets. For a football team, hockey team, or baseball teamnot all members have similar skill sets. Many of the posi-tions on each of these teams are highly specialized. If thequarterback got injured would you replace him with a line-backer? If the goalie on a hockey team got injured wouldyou replace him with a defenseman? If a pitcher got injured,would you replace him with an all-star outfielder simplybecause that all-star was your best player? The answer ineach of these three questions is no! In each and every in-stance, an individual with a similar skill set would be usedto replace the injured player even if the ability of that indi-vidual is not as great as other members of the team.

So, while the linebacker, the defenseman, or the out-fielder could be called to sacrifice and subordinate personalgoals, doing so in these instances would not further the causeof the team. In fact, having this sacrificial definition of team-work could actually harm the team as a whole. As valid asthat position was for the coach of a wrestling team, it wouldbe completely inappropriate for the coach of a football,hockey, or baseball team.

Regardless of what we may currently hold as our defi-nition of teamwork, if it has not been formed given consid-eration to some important issues, it may be time to revisit it.The first issue is the type of team for which we have beengiven responsibility. Depending on the size of a forensic labo-ratory, the structure may be similar to either of the two types

of teams discussed earlier above or a combination of the two.For example, in small laboratories, it is expected that therewill be a few individuals at each specialty such that a leadermay be responsible for people with diverse skill sets. In largerlaboratories it is quite possible that a leader may be respon-sible for a discrete group with only one or two skill sets. Yet,there may be several such leaders within the laboratory.

So, is the team we are responsible for a type of teamthat has similar skill sets in which many of the individualscan be interchanged? Or, is it a type of team that has highlyspecialized components in which most to none of the indi-viduals can be interchanged. (Note, that I refrained fromusing a common term when discussing issues such as these.A team consists of individuals, people with individual per-sonality styles, feelings, dispositions and behavior patterns.At no time should they be referred to as parts.)

Along with this assessment we need to examine themission of the team, along with related objectives and goals.The team must have a focus. It must be a focus into whicheach and every individual within the team can invest. With-out a focus, the team will be rudderless. Without an oppor-tunity to make a meaningful investment, an individual willseek another team.

Based on the type of team for which we have beengiven responsibility, our approach towards leadership of thatteam may be different. For the type of team in which skillsets are similar, at times it will be appropriate and necessaryto interchange individuals to attain the mission, objectives,and goals. However, we need to keep in mind that continu-ous calls of sacrifice will create discontent. At times, circum-stances call for sacrifice as in the case of my son’s injuredteammate. Continuous calls for sacrifice are simply the re-sult of poor planning on the part of leadership.

Planning is an essential part of teamwork as shownabove. It is even more highly critical for teams in which spe-cialized skill sets are present. Calling on individuals to sac-rifice by working outside their area of expertise does harmnot only to the individual but to the team as well. Calling onindividuals to be pulled from an area in which they excel tocontinually assist in an area that is unchallenging to the skillset and experience they have attained is harmful to the team.Prolonged behavior in this manner will eventually make theteam impotent to complete its mission, objectives, and goals.

Whatever definition of teamwork we may develop, ithas to take into consideration the type of team, the mission,objectives and goals of the team and planning. In additionto these critical elements one also has to recognize that theteam is composed of individuals each of whom plays an in-tegral role. (If the role is not integral to the team then therole should be eliminated.) Therefore, even though we aretrying to develop a definition for teamwork, it has to includethe recognition that there is an individual component andthat each role is an integral part of that team.

Given that fact, each member of the team needs to befully equipped to do the best job for the team. Part of thisequipping is material, but a good portion of it is far less tan-gible and requires a relationship with the team leader to fullydevelop. Equipment and supplies are nice, but they are poormotivators. What motivates people above and beyond theirnormal capacity is a positive personal influence character-


ized first and foremost by respect. In this environment, anindividual is not only able to respond to praise, but also topositively respond when corrective action is necessary.Therefore, the definition of teamwork should also incorpo-rate the issue of equipping the members.

Finally, the definition has to include accountability.Each member of the team, as well as the leader, needs to beaccountable for his or her performance and actions. Eachindividual is responsible not only to the team as a whole,but also each individual member within that team. It is ex-pected that when a team member has been given the neces-sary resources to do the task, that the task gets done. If itdoes not, the leader has a responsibility not only to the teambut also that individual to determine the reason(s). It couldbe that the person, despite having the necessary resources,does not have the aptitude for such a task. If that is the case,it may become necessary to switch positions. It could be thatthey really have the desire, but lack the necessary skills andability. A leader is doing no one a favor by keeping an indi-vidual in a position in which he or she will continually failto perform well. Just because an individual wants to be thequarterback does not mean they have the skills to be one.

This is one of the most difficult things a leader will everhave to do. Confrontation is tough. Trust me, I have learnedthat lesson over and over. But even tougher are the ramifica-tions that will erupt when a proper confrontation is not un-dertaken. Confrontation is tough but lack of confrontation canlead to disaster. So how can we have successful confronta-tion? Well, first we have to be certain that we DO NOT definea successful confrontation by whether or not we win.

We can have and measure a successful confrontationby a couple of characteristics – personal relationship and re-spect. No one has to be best friends with the people theysupervise, but there has to be a good personal relationship.When people know that we care and we truly have theirbest interests at heart, they are much more willing to ad-dress potential performance deficiencies. Secondly, no con-frontation will work unless there is respect. For a leader, it isimportant to act with integrity and honesty so that the teammember will be able to have confidence in what the leaderis saying and doing. A team member has to act in a similarfashion. Personal relationship and respect are necessary foun-dational elements for a confrontation. In addition, if theystill exist at the end of the confrontation, then it has indeedbeen successful.

So, what is the definition of teamwork? There is noone right definition. But there are essential elements thatshould be evaluated and incorporated into the definition asnecessary. For whatever team we are responsible for, weshould be examining the type of team and its relationship tothe team’s mission, objectives and goals. It is necessary torecognize that the team is composed of individuals and thatone of the primary responsibilities of the team leader is toequip those individuals, in more than a material sense. Fi-nally it has to include accountability based in an atmosphereof personal relationship and respect.

— Receive the Journal of the Forensic Science Societyand/or Journal of Forensic Sciences

— Receive The CAC News— Lower, Member registration fees at CAC Seminars— Receive CAC Membership Roster / Seminar Ab-

stracts— Receive Salary Survey of Government Labs— Membership in a prestigious Forensic Society

To join, follow these simple steps: 1) Obtain an application andmembership handbook from the CAC website atwww.cacnews.org. If you have trouble downloading the forms orhave questions, please contact Membership Secretary ElissaMayo-Thompson at (909) 361-5000. 2) Fill out and return theapplication to Elissa along with your first year’s dues & applica-tion fee. 3) Two of your listed references will be contacted. 4)Applicants are screened to ensure that they meet the requirementsoutlined in Article 11 of the CAC Membership Handbook. 5)Your application will be presented to the board of directors attheir next quarterly meeting. If approved, your application will bevoted on by the membership at the next seminar.

nterested inbecoming a member?i

credibly experienced Criminalists to retirement. They will betaking their hard earned and irreplaceable experience with themwhen they head out the door in the next year or two. No onebut the accountants will benefit from their departure. And thereis nothing for us to gain with they take their experience withthem. That is, unless we seize the opportunity to do somethingabout it.

Excuse me while I get up on my ‘soap box’. I’d like tothrow down the gauntlet to everyone who reads this article. Everysenior Criminalist, fingerprint examiner, crime scene investiga-tor and manager who plans on retiring within the next year ortwo has a duty to leave behind their wisdom and experience forthe younger members. Don’t wait for them to seek you out andask for your leadership. Instruct them, lead them and inspirethem. But for heavens sake, do something with your hard earnedexperience. If you don’t pass it down it will be lost forever.

And, it is every young members duty to seek the council,wisdom, advice and experience of those who will be leaving ussoon. To do any less is a damn shame. To have them bury theirwisdom only to have you rediscover years later only delays thetime when we will become as proficient as we can possibly be.

Don’t let your ego get in the way of learning. Learn fromthe experience of others so that the lessons they learned willnot have to be repeated with you. Their effort is now your gainand will ultimately impact the very profession we support, thecriminal Justice system.

Thanks for listening. I look forward to seeing you in SanDiego.

President’s Desk, cont’d��

17

In the last installment of POL, we related a case whereinthe expert was asked to opine which of two pieces of overlap-ping evidence was deposited first, a bloodstain or a palm print.The expert responded that the blood came first, followed bythe palm print. This was devastating to the defendant, whosepalm was determined to be the source of the print. Recall thatthe blood was deposited on a ceramic bathtub, dusted withblack powder, lifted with fingerprint lifting tape, and placedon a white print card. This was the evidence used by the expertto determine the order of deposition.

The expert was asked the criteria by which he was ableto conclude the order of deposition of these two evidence items.He responded that

1) the blood was “cracked,” indicating to him that sig-nificant pressure had been placed on it;

2) some ridge detail exhibited an endpoint within thestain, rather than traversing both boundaries of the entire 1mm stain;

3) he saw fingerprint powder in the cracks of the blooddrop, indicating to him the presence of oils on the stain.

When challenged, the analyst could provide no support-ing literature in which these criteria were established, but saidthey were taught at an FBI class.

A defense expert reviewed the case. He was not convincedthat the print was necessarily deposited after the blood spatter,and he performed some experiments to test his hypothesis. Hespattered some blood on a ceramic surface and watched it dry.Without any disturbance whatsoever it developed a crackedand crazed pattern, merely as a consequence of drying on thisparticular surface. Next, he dusted the spattered bloodstainswith fingerprint powder. In the absence of any prints, eitherunderneath or on top of the blood spatter, he observed thatfingerprint powder infiltrated the cracks of the dried stains,and that “snow-fencing” of the powder against the stain con-centrated the powder on one side. This created the illusion of aridge overlapping one edge of the stain. Every criteria used bythe expert to conclude order of deposition could be re-createdin the absence of any latent print at all!

To complete the experiment, the criminalist then spatteredblood on top of previously deposited prints and also appliedprints on top of a fresh spatter pattern. In both instances he couldfind drops that either did or didn’t show the apparently distin-guishing characteristics observed in the case evidence.

From the results of the experiments, he devised a testthat he challenged several of his colleagues to take. Everyonewho agreed to take the test felt that they could tell whetherblood or a print had been deposited first. He chose several ex-amples that represented each of the possible test situations, andincluded instances in which the appearance of the spatter ei-ther supported or refuted (according to the criteria that theseexperts agreed were accepted by practitioners) what he knewto be the order of deposition. Of the five IAI-certified finger-print examiners who took the test, no one had less than 10 years

of experience, and the most se-nior examiner boasted 25 yearsof experience in fingerprint ex-amination and comparison. The best score was 80% right, whilethe worst was 80% wrong – worse than guessing!

We published last quarter (Inman and Rudin, 2003) thestains used to test the examiners. Apparently none of you werequite so brave as those five examiners who originally agreed totake the test – hopefully a testament to progress in criminalistics.We now provide the key for the order of deposition of the bloodand print for each sample. We leave to the reader the joy thatcomes from correlating the key with the photographs from theprevious issue of The CACNews. The original evidence photo-graph is unfortunately no longer available for comparison.

Photo Key Photo Key

B6 B1/P2 B8 B1/P2

B7 B1/P2 B10 B1/P2

B4 B1/P2 C2 P1/B2

B9 B1/P2 B5 B1/P2

C3 P1/B2 A2 B1/P2

E10 P1/B2 C5 P1/B2

E9 P1/B2 D6 P1/B2

C1 P1/B2 D7 P1/B2

A3 B1/P2 A1 B1/P2

D8 P1/B2 C4 P1/B2

We provide the following informal summary of (unpub-lished) experimental observations to illustrate different waysthe pattern observed in a bloodstain might be created. In itspresent form, the information is intended solely as a source ofcontemplation and some intellectual amusement over yourlunch—or perhaps as a stimulus to further experimentation ofyour own.

We use the lessons learned from this case as a cautionagainst the ad hoc interpretation of nominally obvious physicalevidence (hey, we’ve all done it!). Experimentation is required;we may not elevate our assumptions to conclusions without therequisite blood, sweat, and tears – and a bit of black powder.

Pizzola P.A., Roth S., De Forest P.R. J Forensic Sci. 31(1):36-64, 1986Inman, K., and Rudin, N. Which Came First, the Blood or the Print?

The Role of Experimentation in Forensic Casework. The CACNews 3rdQuarter, 2003, pg. 26

Which Came First,the Blood or the Print?

The Rest of the Story

norah rudin & keith inman • the proceedings of lunch

B1/P2 = Blood first/print second

P1/B2 = Print first/blood second


Figure 1. The stains in figure 1 were prepared by depos-iting the bloodstains, then depositing a palm print. They werethen dusted with black powder, and lifted with fingerprinttape. Powder appears to be randomly distributed across bothbloodstains, and no clear “ridge” can be detected running overthe blood droplets. Three out of four experienced analysts de-clared that the print came first, followed by the blood. The fourthanalyst made the same call, but was not certain, and would nothave reported an order of deposition.

EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATION/DERIVATION

CRACKS IN THE STAIN

All spatter dried within seconds to minutes of deposition on the porcelain. All of the stains were crackedor crazed, and all stains showed a concave center. This type of involution was reported by Pizzola (1986).The mere act of drying caused the stain to crack into pieces. Close inspection of such droplets indicatesthat the involution forms upon impact, and the cracks result from drying.

POWDER IN THE CRACKS

Stains dusted in the absence of any print showed powder infiltrating both the cracks and the involution.

RIDGES OVER THE STAIN

Dusting small dried stains in the absence of any print showed “snow-fencing” on one edge of the stain.This created the appearance of a powder-defined ridge starting up the side of the bloodstain, and con-tinuing partway across.

LIFTING OF THE STAIN

For virtually all of the blood droplets lifted, only a portion of the stain was removed by the lifting tape.The portion removed tended to be the outer rings of the involution. While powder particles trappedbetween the bloodstain and the tape were picked up, other particles were left behind, along with some ofthe blood. Clearly, the stain pattern removed by the lift did not represent the entirety of the originalevidence pattern observed on the porcelain.

Figure 2. The stain in Figure 2 was prepared by deposit-ing a palm print first, followed by blood droplets. They werethen dusted with black powder, and lifted with fingerprint tape.The powder appears to run over the blood, along the “ridge”of the latent print. All four analysts declared that the bloodwas deposited first, followed by the print.

19

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionRecently, the Tucson Police Department in Arizona expe-

rienced two separate squad car trunk fires, each occurring about15 days apart. Both of the fires occurred in the evening hours:one at 11:30 p.m. and the other one at 2:30 a.m. The first squadcar fire originated on the right side of the trunk, where a box offlares was stored. The second squad car fire was discoveredafter the officer saw and smelled smoke. When the officeropened his trunk, he discovered a box of flares on fire locatedon the left rear side of the trunk. Fire Investigators are attempt-ing to determine if sudden flare box ignition or electrical sources,the only two possibilities, caused the fire.

This puzzling scenario led to a joint effort between theTucson Fire Department Fire Investigators, Tucson Police De-partment Crime Lab Criminalists, and the Tucson Police De-partment Arson Detectives Unit to conduct a series of experi-ments in order to determine whether the box of flares causedthe fires.

Highway flares (fusees) use a friction ignition system (1).The fusee uses a two-part igniter; when the two surfaces arerubbed together, a flame is produced and the main composi-

tion is ignited (1). For the purpose of this paper the wordsigniter tip and igniter button will be used interchangeably. Theparts of a National Flare Company 15 min. Red Fusee are la-beled in Figure 1.

Materials and Equipment UsedMaterials and Equipment UsedMaterials and Equipment UsedMaterials and Equipment UsedMaterials and Equipment Used1. Thelco Precision Model 16 oven (temperature range to

200oC), placed under a safety hood

2. VWR Traceable Digital Thermometer, placed into theoven to monitor the precise temperature inside the oven

3. Several 15 min. Red Fusees from National Flare Com-pany, One fusee was notated as Listed 912 AU 347244AM, M1-2000-0518, Made in China. See Figure 2.

4. MSDS for the Fusee were obtained from the NationalFlare Company website at www.nationalflare.com

5. MSDS for potassium perchlorate, strontium nitrate, andsulfur were obtained from J.T. Baker and Fisher Scientificwebsites at www.jtbaker.com and www.fishersci.comrespectively.

6. Products sheet and Product Use Instructions were ob-tained from the National Flare Company website.

Figure 1

A Tucson, Arizona Flare ExperimentJeff Corey, Frank Powell, Tom Quesnel, Lisa Windsor and Victor Yanez*

*Tucson Police Department 270 S. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ85701 and Tucson Fire Department 265 S. Church Tucson,AZ 85701


Figure 4 Figure 5

ExperimentalExperimentalExperimentalExperimentalExperimentalExperiment 1The igniter tip of the Fusee was cut off and placed into a

porcelain crucible. The crucible was placed under the hoodand lit with a match. This experiment showed how the ignitertip works for the Fusee. A bright white flame is emitted, even-tually turning into a red flame.

Experiment 2The igniter tip of the Fusee was cut off and placed into a

porcelain crucible. The crucible was placed into the oven withan initial temperature of 125oF. The temperature was slowlyincreased to 240oF. According to the MSDS, the Fusee can be-

come unstable at temperatures greater than 167oF. However,no ignition occurred. At this point, along with the fact thatboth fires started during the evening hours, the group deter-mined that temperature, which includes heat transfer from theexhaust system, was not a relevant factor in causing ignition ofthe flare box.

Experiment 3The Fusee body was cut with a scalpel and a 1 cm por-

tion of the Fusee body was obtained. The powder from theFusee body was placed into a porcelain crucible. The cruciblewas placed under the hood and lit with a match. The powderdid not burn when it came in contact with the match flame.

Figure 2 Figure 3

How to use this Fusee, per National Flare Company instructions:

1. Remove protective cap to expose scratch surface.

2. Pull off igniter cap to expose ignition tip of fusee.

3. Hold at center of fusee tube, away from tip.

4. To ignite, scrape fusee against scratch surface while

using spark deflector to shield face/body from sparks.

21

ducted on the trunks of several squad cars. It was found thatsome Fusees were uncapped, thus exposing the igniter tips andsome of the protective covers from the scratch surfaces had alsobeen removed. In addition, loose flares were observed in thetrunk. Furthermore, it was also noted that the box containingthe Fusees was stored improperly amongst equipment and sup-plies. It was duly noted that human error is the biggest danger.

During the search of the trunks, a second type of flarewas found similar to that shown in Figure 6. The plastic lidwas removed from one flare to expose the scratch surface, andthe cap was removed from the second flare to expose the flareigniter button. Once again, when the scratch surface lightlystruck the igniter button at certain angles, the flare ignited.

It was concluded that, because of the ease of ignition be-tween the scratch surface and the igniter tip, improperly storedFusees could pose a safety hazard to officers, firemen, and citypersonnel.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionWhile the fire cause investigation is continuing, the re-

sults of Experiment 7 prompted the Tucson Police Departmentto examine its own human actions and its safety precautionsand issue a safety warning regarding flares.

A citywide memo was issued to all employees warningof a possible Experiment 7 scenario. The memo stated: “Tominimize the risk of inadvertent flare ignition, which couldresult in a trunk fire, flares should never be readied or pre-pared in advance, anticipating need. Igniter and striker capsmust remain intact, on the flare, until the flare is needed. Flaresshould be kept in their original box or placed in a container,preventing migration and minimizing movement.” The memoalso reinforced the MSDS safety precautions regarding how tostore the flares properly.

Research discovered several similar police vehicle trunkfires where flare ignition was determined to be the cause. Thefollowing police departments reported similar police vehiclefires: 3 in Burbank, 1 in Alhambra, 3 in Oakland, 2 in Sacra-mento, and 1 with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office.Captain Bob Reinhart, who is a fire investigator with theBurbank Fire Department, investigated several fires in whichflares were found to be defective. Due to his investigation,Captain Reinhart, produced an informational video that showedthe defective flares and the hazards associated with them.

Other Fire Investigators assisting with the investigation/identification of similar flare problems were Valida Holmes andMike Dolan of the Oakland Fire Department. We would beinterested to know if any other departments have experiencedsimilar squad car trunk fires.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences1. Conkling, John A., Chapter 6: Heat and Delay Com-

positions, Chemistry of Pyrotechnics , pp. 125-128, New York, NewYork, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1985.

2. Table 3.3.5 Some Materials Subject to SpontaneousIgnition, NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations,pp. 921-17, 2001 edition.

3. Davis, Tenney L., Railway Fusees (Truck Signal Lights),The Chemistry of Powder and Explosives, pp. 65-68, San Pedro,California, GSG & Associates Publishers, 1943.

Photo credits: Fig1. Drawing courtesy of William Condron; Fig 2,3,5photo courtesy of Tony Windsor.

The conclusion drawn from this experiment is that the matchflame does not burn long enough and/or reach the tempera-ture required to ignite the powder. There were thoughts aboutthe charcoal and the sawdust igniting spontaneously (2), butthey were quickly dispelled when it was discovered throughtextbooks that the Fusee contained minimum amounts of bothingredients (1,3).

Experiments 4 – 7 were conducted outside in the parkinglot between the Tucson Police Department and the Tucson FireDepartment. The temperature outside was approximately 100oF.

Experiment 4The igniter cap was removed from the Fusee, exposing

the igniter tip (See Figure 3). The Fusee was dropped onto aconcrete surface, on its igniter tip, repeatedly. To the amaze-ment of the group, nothing happened. No smoke, no crackle,no pop.

Experiment 5The igniter cap was removed from the Fusee, exposing

the igniter tip. The Fusee, with its igniter tip contacting a con-crete surface, was repeatedly scraped against this surface. Theigniter tip cracked and popped; but no smoke appeared. Even-tually, the igniter tip rubbed off and disintegrated. No ignitionoccurred.

Experiment 6In this experiment, two Fusees were used. The igniter

caps were removed from each Fusee, exposing the igniter tips.This time, the two Fusee igniter tips were repeatedly strucktogether and also repeatedly rubbed together. No ignition oc-curred.

Experiment 7Again, two Fusees were used in this experiment. The

protective cap that covers the scratch surface was removed fromone Fusee (See Figure 4); and the igniter cap was removed fromthe second Fusee, exposing the igniter tip. The exposed ignitertip was softly scraped against the scratch surface (See Figure5). It was observed that a very soft scrape against the scratchsurface was sufficient to ignite a Fusee. Ignition occurred inapproximately 25% of the attempts. Our observations indicatedthat the Fusee could ignite with relative ease. In fact, it wasastonishing to see how easily the Fusee could ignite when theright circumstances were presented.

It was also observed that the scratch surface sometimespeeled off and transferred onto the igniter tip. Under theseconditions, when the Fusee was dropped on its igniter tip ontoa concrete surface, ignition sometimes occurred.

DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussionThe group quickly realized that this could be a possible

scenario of why the fusee ignited in the vehicle trunk and causeda fire. According to some in our group, it is a common practicefor officers at scenes requiring flares to prepare them in ad-vance by removing the protective caps from both the igniter tipand from the scratch surface, in essence, exposing the ignitertip and the scratch surface in the anticipation for the need ofadditional flares. Frequently, if these flares are not used, theyare returned to the trunk of the squad car with the caps re-moved, thus creating a possible scenario like Experiment 7.

To validate our suspicions, a random inspection was con-

Figure 6An example of a 20 minute flare found in the trunk of anOfficer’s squad car. This particular one is made by OrionSafety Products. Note the differences between the twomanufacturing companies. Photos and instructions courtesyof Orion Safety Products website: www.distress-signals.com

Per Orion Safety Products instructions, these flares are easyto use:1. Remove plastic lid to expose scratch surface cap.2. Twist and remove cap, exposing flare igniter button.3. Gently rub scratch surface of cap against black button of

flare.

��

��

B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

��

President:Raymond Davis

Recording Secretary:Brooke Barloewen

Treasurer:Dean Gialamas

Regional Director: (North)Linda Abuan

Regional Director: (South)John Simms

Membership Secretary:Elissa Mayo-Thompson

Editorial Secretary:Ron Nichols

Immediate Past President:Michael Parigian

Quantum Communications4 Exeter Ave.San Carlos, CA 94070(650) [email protected]

Orange County Sheriff-Coroner320 N. Flower St.Santa Ana, CA 92703(714) 834-45 [email protected]

Santa Clara Co. Crime Lab1557 Berger Dr. B-2San Jose, CA 95112(408) [email protected]

Los Angeles Co. Sherff2020 W. Beverly Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90057(213) [email protected]

Forensic Analytical3777 Depot Road Suite 409Hayward, CA 94545(510) [email protected]

San Diego Police Dept.1401 Broadway MS 725San Diego, CA 92101(619) [email protected]

Calif. Dept. of Justice- Riverside7425 Mission Blvd.Riverside, CA 92509(909) [email protected]

Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms355 Widget LaneWalnut Creek, CA 94598-2413(925) [email protected]

Ventura Co. Sheriff800 S. Victoria Ave.Ventura, CA 93009(805) [email protected]

The “CAC logo” is a registered service mark of the CAC and its use is restricted to officialcommunications and by other authorization of the CAC Board.

President-Elect:Pennie Laferty

Mary Graves1925 – 2003

Friend and ColleagueMary Graves, a long-time CAC member, died

in March of complications from her long battle withcancer.

Mary was born in Flossmoor, Illinois, thedaughter of a successful chemical engineer and hiswife. She received her bachelors in chemistry fromCarleton College in Northfield, Minnesota in 1947.After her marriage, Mary worked as a chemist whileher husband completed his studies.

In 1953 they moved to California with theirinfant daughter and ran a small newspaper in SanJacinto. In 1955 the family moved to Fullerton andquickly expanded to three daughters. Fate steps inhere as their first house in Fullerton was down thestreet from Jack and Evelyn Cadman. The two fami-lies became friends, and Mary learned what this“criminalistics” was.

Mary and her husband separated and even-tually divorced in 1965. Feeling that she was toofar removed from school at this point, Mary wentback to prepare herself to be a working single par-ent. She enrolled in the local community college(Fullerton College) where she received an award as“Woman of Distinction.” She went on to Cal StateFullerton where she received a bachelors and amasters in molecular biology.

Remembering her former neighbor and hisinteresting profession, Mary applied for a positionat the Orange County lab and was hired. Her ana-lytical emphasis was in toxicology and forensic se-rology (who can forget her ground-breaking paperon the incidence of semen on post mortem penileswabs, regardless of cause of death). She laterserved as a laboratory supervisor in both areas. Sheretired from the laboratory in 1993.

During her time with CAC, she served twoterms on the Board as treasurer. She led theAssociation’s infamous battle with the IRS over ourtax status, which she (and we) won.

In retirement she was active in many volun-teer organizations and pursued her avocations ofquilting and bridge. She also traveled extensively,both internationally and to the Bay Area to visit herdaughters and grandchildren.

Mary is survived by her sister, Jay, her daugh-ters, Margot, Donna and Helen and four grandchil-dren, Devin, Cory, Alice and Malcolm.

Mary is greatly missed by all who knew her.

Jim White

��

��

��

��

��

�!��"�� #��$%&'�())*

�� +��,��-��.��For seminar information contact Mona Ten [email protected] or

Alex Karagianes: [email protected]

CACe News CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) by the...

Documents

Transcript of CACe News CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) by the...