pleasehiremeomg-blog - Tumblr blog

pleasehiremeomg-blog · 7 years ago

Text

SAMPLE: State of Florida vs Casey Marie Anthony:

That Awkward Moment When ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ Works Against the Justice System and Makes Everybody Look Bad

During the summer of 2008 a two-year-old was reported missing in Orlando, Florida. That girl was Caylee Anthony, and two years later, her mother’s murder trail would become a national obsession. The prosecution was only able to produce circumstantial and inconclusive evidence, and even though the defense did not produce any evidence to the contrary, Casey Anthony was still found “not guilty” of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child. The response of the nation was an overwhelming outrage. Unfortunately for the people who believed without any hesitation that Anthony was guilty, they could not change the evidence, make it more conclusive or convincing. Reasonable doubt still held the jury from conviction, as investigators were unable to show how the victim had died, or any of the events that led up to or followed her death.

In June Caylee Anthony’s grandmother Cindy Anthony realized that Caylee was missing. On July 15, 2008, after repeatedly questioning her daughter (Casey Anthony, Caylee’s mother) about Caylee’s absence, and receiving myriad stories regarding the two year old’s whereabouts, Cindy Anthony reported her granddaughter missing to the Orlando, Florida police. In December of that year Caylee Anthony’s remains were found in a trash bag in a wooded area near her grandparents’ home on December 11, 2008, after an eyewitness, Roy Kronk, a meter reader for Orange County, gave police repeated tips. She was found with duct tape around her and over her mouth, and near these remains was found a blanket taken from her bed at her grandparents’ house. The actual skeletal remains were located in a “light colored laundry bag” within two garbage bags, along with “leaf debris from within the bags” (Shultz, 4)

The remains found were mostly decomposed, and “completely devoid of soft tissue, including ligaments and cartilage.” The main concentration of the remains was the trash bag, however, some remains were scattered around the area in which the trash bag was found, inducing damage from animals and bleaching by the sun. (Shultz, 4) Only “a right scapula, 5 finger bones, a proximal humeral epiphysis, a primary ossification center, and a proximal tibial epiphysis” (Shultz, 3) were found inside the trash bag. The skull was located outside the trash bag, and the additional remains were found and collected around the area.

“Elements not recovered included small bones representing the wrist, hand (only one metacarpal was not recovered), fingers, ankle, foot ankle, wrist, and hyoid and patellae. In addition, only one tooth was lost post-mortem (upper left lateral incisor)” (Shultz, 4)

The age of the child in question was determined as three years, plus or minus six months. Bone length was also used in determining age, citing Human Growth and Development as a source of mean ages for specific long bone lengths (Shultz, 4). The right and left humerus, radius, ulna, and fibia were measured, as well as the right tibia, as the left tibia was not fully recovered. These measurements were compared to the mean measurements of long bones for children of the age group of 2.5 to 3.5 years of age, of European Ancestry and good health (not malnourished). This data was supplied by MM Maresh in Human Growth and Development (Shultz, 8).

The sex of the remains was unable to be determined, as the medical examiner stated in his report, “to determine sex from the skeleton in infants and children constitute poor forensic practice” (Shultz, 4). The Dimirjian Stages were used to analyze the molars and canines found at the scene. (Liversidge, 2) The age for a molar in stage E is 3.7 years in female children, and 4.1 in male children, therefore since the molar found was in stage D, the child in question had to be less than the ages presented in the statistics for stage E molars. The canine found was in stage D as well. This proves a mean age in female children of 2.9 years, and in male children one of 3.3 years. (Shultz, 6).

The evidence was found with duct tape in them, stuck to the skull, creating the mat of remaining hair found along with the skeletal remains. The three tape strips found were 9.5 inches, 7.5 inches and 9 inches long. This tape accounted for the odd position of the mandible cited in the autopsy report, as the tape “affixed the mandible in this position prior to the decomposing and the hair matting forming” (Shultz, 3). The tape in question was cleaned, debris and hair were removed, and it was photographed and analyzed. During examination it was noted that the tape pieces were “separated easily without Un-do; unable to determine if pieces were originally stuck together” (TEU Exam Notes, 1-13).

Evidence was found in the trunk of Casey’s car that was possibly consistent with her daughter’s body being kept in there a few days after her death. Hairs were found and analyzed. No skin tag was available on these hairs, however, and DNA was unable to be collected. However, mitochondrial DNA was extracted from the hairs, and analyzed to able to narrow down the source of the hair to the following people: Casey Anthony (the defendant), her mother and grandmother, her brother, and her daughter (the victim). This was not enough evidence, however to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee’s body was actually kept in the trunk. The prosecution claimed that the darkened bands, or Pili annulati, around the root of the hair was proof that the individual was deceased, ruling out anyone but Caylee in that instance. However, there are more causes for Pili annulati than just the death of the individual, including “a manifestation of the abnormal air spaces in the cortex” (SWGMAT, 5). This abnormality in hair growth is fairly common and can have a genetic component, meaning that more than one member of the Anthony family is likely to exhibit it.

The further evidence used in trying to place Caylee’s body in the trunk of Casey’s car was the analysis of the gases present in the trunk. Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy was used in this situation. LIBS uses “ short duration (ca. 5 ns or shorter) pulsed laser” to excite the electrons of a sample of the analyte. The electromagnetic radiation emitted when these electrons return to their ground states is unique, and can be measured to conclude which elements are contained in the sample, each element having a specific wavelength of radiation associated with it. (Pasquini et al, 1). The analysis of the gas in the trunk confirmed chemicals present with the decomposition of organic materials, but not specifically with the decomposition of human tissue. Investigators testified that there was a smell of human decomposition in the trunk of the car. However, there is no scale for identifying the scent of a specific decomposition, and olfactory-based evidence is yet to meet the Daubert Standards of evidence, i.e. the “standards (used) to apply in evaluating expert (and non-expert) testimony” (Welch, 2) The LIBS analysis also detected traces of chloroform in the gases in the trunk of the car.

The prosecution tried to present computer search history evidence of Casey repeatedly searching the word “chloroform” to show the defendant’s intent to kill her daughter with the chemical. This evidence was digital, and therefore “it is ephemeral in nature and susceptible to manipulation” (Chaikin, 1). Because this evidence was solely of a digital nature, there was no substance to them, and no proof that the searches in question were fruitful and actually enabled Casey Anthony in the murder of her daughter. The digital evidence, in this case, was brought into question during the trial, as the prosecution claimed she had searched the word “chloroform” 84 times, but there was a possibility of a software malfunction, possibly reducing the actual number of searches to as little as one. Because of the lack of durability this digital evidence has to stand up to questioning, it was unable to prove that Casey Anthony actually initiated these searches, that these searches were successful in offering her a method with which to kill her daughter, or even, with the possible software malfunction, that they took place in the amount claimed, or even at all.

Casey Anthony was found “not guilty” of murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter of a child. She was however found “guilty” of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. The evidence collected in this case, either by crime scene investigation or analytical techniques used afterward, was not sufficient enough to prove to a jury that Casey Anthony was guilty of murdering her daughter. Cause of death could not be determined with the state of the remains when they were found, “devoid of soft tissue, including ligaments and cartilage.” Because of the victim’s age, which was determined by bone lengths and dental analysis, the sex could not be officially determined, but proximity in age and geographically, to the Anthony’s house, gave the prosecution enough to say that the remains found were consistent with what Caylee’s remains would have looked like, i.e. the investigators did not have enough solid evidence to go on to even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the remains found were those of Caylee Anthony, let alone that her mother killed her and disposed of her remains where these were found. The rest of the evidence presented is circumstantial at best. The analysis of the duct tape found on and around the remains was inconclusive, and not able to prove anything or establish any sort of timeline of events. The fact that the use of LIBS (Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy) on the gases in the trunk of Casey’s car could only identify chemicals specific to decomposing organic material, as opposed to decomposing human remains, failed to place Caylee’s body in the trunk, and therefore could also not establish any sort of timeline to present to the jury on how the crime occurred.

The national event that was the Casey Anthony trial will always be remembered by the general public as the time the investigation system failed to put a woman in jail for “murdering her daughter.” The fact that no substantial evidence could be presented by the prosecution to prove to the jury that Casey actually did murder her daughter is something that went unnoticed to those who were not familiar with the laws and standards used in the court system to qualify evidence. To those familiar with them, it will always be seen as a shame that the national televised event of the summer of 2011 was one in which the laws, originally created to protect defendants from possible wrongful conviction, worked against the acquisition of justice the people were calling for, and during which a negative light was shone on the entire justice system. The fact that the prosecution could not, with the evidence given (no DNA evidence, no specific chemicals, fibers, or trace evidence that could establish a concrete timeline of events in which Casey was the perpetrator of the death of her daughter) prove Casey Anthony to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, the murderer that the media claimed her to be, gave the American people a view of the justice system that is not reflective of the way it is designed to operate.

References: "Casey Anthony Trial, CSI: A Guide to the Forensic Evidence - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Dec. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077937-1,00.html> ; Chaikin, David. "Network Investigations Of Cyber Attacks: The Limits Of Digital Evidence." Crime, Law & Social Change 46.4/5 (2007): 239-256. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 9 Dec. 2011. ; Chivers, Howard, and Christopher Hargreaves. "Forensic Data Recovery From The Windows Search Database." Digital Investigation 7.3/4 (2011): 114-126. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 9 Dec. 2011. ; "Forensic Human Hair Examination Guide." SWGMAT. Scientific Working Group on Materials Analysis, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.swgmat.org/Forensic%20Human%20Hair%20Examination% 20Guidelines.pdf> ; Liversidge, Helen. "Dimirjian Tooth Formation Results from a Large Group of Children." Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary Institute of London. QMIL, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. ; Murphy, Erin. "The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, And The Second Generation Of Scientific Evidence." California Law Review 95.3 (2007): 721-797. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2011. ; Pasquini, Celio , Juliana Cortez, Lucas M. C. Silva, and Fabiano B. Gonzaga. "Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy." Scientific Electronic Library Online. Sociedade Brasileira de Química, n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jbchs/v18n3/01.pdf> ; Singh, Vivek, and Awadhesh Rai. "Prospects For Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy For Biomedical Applications: A Review." Lasers In Medical Science 26.5 (2011): 673-687. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 Dec. 2011. ; Shultz, John J. “Report of Osteological Analysis.” Florida ME District 9. Case Number: 08-1567. 23 Dec. 2008. ; Shultz, John J. “(Appended) Report of Osteological Analysis.” Florida ME District 9. Case Number: 08-1567. 23 Dec. 2008. “Teu Exam Notes and Appended Evidence Photos.” Florida ME District 9. Case Number: 08-1567. 13 Dec. 2008. ; Welch, Cassandra H. "Flexible Standards, Deferential Review: Daubert's Legacy Of Confusion." Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy 29.3 (2006): 1085-1105. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 9 Dec. 2011.

0 notes

pleasehiremeomg-blog · 7 years ago

Text

SAMPLE: A Brief History of Fingerprinting

Fingerprints have long been the primary method of identification in the world, with new protocols and technologies being developed everyday. Fingerprint technology has made extreme strides in the last five years, giving law enforcement more options in the manner of handling unidentified bodies and the protocol with which they identify them. Fingerprinting was previously limited to taking the best print you could and comparing to local records, and if the skin was damaged or decomposed, the chance of a positive ID was slim to none.

Fingerprinting is a method of identification that has been used since the 1880’s when the “types were classified by Sir Francis Galton. Galton discovered that the ridge detail that existed on a persons fingertip was not only unique (the odds of two people having the same fingerprint then were about 1 in 64 billion) but remained the same over a lifetime, and could be used to differentiate between individuals.

More recently, individuals such as Aaron Uhle and Marzena Mulawka (as well as others) have began publishing updated protocols for skin that has been damaged, as well as fingers whose epidermis has been deteriorated. Topics that have also been addressed are mass fatality situations, and an increased search radius once the prints have been taken and no positive identification made. New protocol, such as de-gloving and the boiling technique have provided better (and more fruitful) solutions to the problem of damaged or deteriorating skin.

A Brief History

At the time of the enlightenment in Europe, the penal systems in place were seen to be not only ineffective, but also infringed on the citizens’ rights. This, along with the passing of the first kinds of laws that based sentencing on a person’s record, called for an overhaul of the criminal identification system. Repeat offenders’ crimes were not really something previously kept track of (unless on the criminals actual bodies, which as previously mentioned, was starting to be seen as a barbaric custom in an enlightened age). As these new systems were being put in place, a system of identification was needed to keep accurate records and prove identities. Recent discoveries were leading to the use of fingerprinting as the leading source of identification. Scars and other unique markers were being recorded in police reports, as well as a general physical description. These increased the likelihood of the correct perpetrator being identified, however, they lacked a specific certainty (Cole).

In 1823 Dr. Johannes Purkinje (University of Breslau, Germany) identified nine types of finger patterns, which, although are not the classifications we use today, were a step in the right direction, research-wise, as it eventually led to an updated system by Sir Edward Richard Henry. Later, in 1882, Alphonse Bertillion designed a series of body measurements, called anthropometry, in order to more accurately identify people. However, the statistical difference was still too low to be able to be sure of an identification. Shortly after that, in 1892, Sir Francis Galton, published “Fingerprints” a book on his research showing that fingerprints could be used as an effective means of identification. His research, he claimed, proved that the odds ratio of two fingerprints was about 1/64 billion.

As fingerprints were starting to be thought of as unique identifiers, Sir Edward Richard Henry introduced a new system of classification, which was first implemented by Scotland Yard in 1901.

What is a Fingerprint?

A fingerprint is the pattern created by friction ridge skin, this skin covers the surface of both the hands and feet in humans. It is cause by the patterns in the dermal papillae, the ridges in the dermal layer of skin (which exists under the epidermis, or top layer). A Diagram of the skin is shown (Atranik).

The dermal papillae are shown, as well as the ridges and grooves, that, when mimicked on the epidermal layer, cause fingerprint patterns.

The patterns in the dermis start developing while still in utero. Development begins at about 10 weeks, and continues until about week 20.

General Identification Techniques

Traditionally, the lifting of fingerprints off cadavers are done with black powder, and either paper or clear tape. Most of the time, if the fingers are damaged then an effective print cannot be taken, and this impedes the identification process of the individual. In mass fatality situations, or situations where the body is decomposed or damaged, prints are sometimes unavailable by conventional means, resulting in permanently unidentifiable body.

Modern Protocols

De-gloving

De-gloving is the process of completely removing the skin from the hand in order to take more accurate and effective prints. The skin around the last knuckle is cut, and the tip is peeled off like a glove. The skin is then placed on a lab technician’s hand, and the finger is then powdered and the print lifted with tape or paper.

Usually this process is used when most of the skin is not intact, and skin slippage is an issue. The remaining attached skin (usually around the nail bed) is cut with scissors, or sometimes a scalpel. Removing the skin completely increases the opportunity for a better print than would have been obtained if the skin remained on the hand.

The Boiling Method.

In this process, described by Aaron Uhle of the FBI, boiling water is used to clean and simultaneously reconstitute the damaged ridge detail on the finger tip. First, an electric pot is used to boil water. Once the pot is boiling, it is unplugged and the severed hand is placed in the formerly boiling water for approximately ten seconds. All large particles of dirt and debris should have been removed prior to this step, allowing the smaller particles not so easily removed to come off in the hot water. If further soaking is needed, the author suggests it is only done for an additional five seconds at a time, and this is only repeated twice. Once the fingers are clean and reconstituted, black powder should be applied, and an adhesive lifter used to obtain a print. This should then be placed on a fingerprint card that had been copied onto a transparency. It is suggested that before the powder is applied, isopropyl alcohol is used to thoroughly dry the hands

If the fingers are damaged (cuts or larger lacerations) one should use a sponge filled with hot water, instead of submerging the entire hand, as this process will enlarge any cuts, making visualization of the remaining ridge detail difficult. (Uhle).

Reconstitution of Friction Ridge Detail using Embalming Fluid

In this process the fingers are firstly removed from the hand (usually at the first or second joint) and placed in separate containers filled with embalming fluid to soak overnight. The fingers are then cleaned with acetone and rubbing alcohol. Hot water can now be used if necessary for the cleaning process. A syringe is prepared, and the embalming solution is injected into the finger tip, underneath all the layers of skin. This will cause the finger to expand and the ridge detail to become more visible. At this point, like in the boiling method, the finger should be dried using isopropyl alcohol. Powder could then be applied and an adhesive lifter used to take the print, finally placing the lifter on the back of a transparent card (Wright).

Livescan (Deadscan)

In this method, a digital scanner is used to capture a print. This can be used with all the other methods of enhancing ridge detail, but instead of applying black powder, the fingers are places directly on the scanner. This process of obtaining digital prints right away has been implemented in many states, with promising results (Rutty).

Mikrosil™ Casting

Using the product Mikrosil™, a silicone-based putty, is a medium sometimes used in place of the adhesive lifter in printing of cadavers. This substance is dried and then affixed to the back of a transparent print card. This is also used for imprints and casting of tool marks in CSI.

Expansion of Search Parameters.

Usually with local law enforcement, and basically any office that doesn’t have FBI-level budget and equipment, fingerprints taken will be stored at the local level, and any new prints will be compared with the ones in storage. AFIS is sometimes used, but the amount of time and effort it would take to do that is beyond the reach of most offices. This results in hundreds of bodies remaining unidentified and in cold storage for years, and sometimes being buried unidentified in government cemeteries. Recently, a new protocol, headed by Marzena Mulawka of the NYC OCME has been yielding great results with very little turnaround time. Her process is submitting copies of the print card to both the FBI and the DHOS by fax. She usually receives a reply within 24 hours, some within the hour. In a recent study, she submitted 109 cold case records from the San Diego county Medical Examiner’s Office using this system (with some cases dating back to 1979) in response to these requests, 51 identifications were made. 47 percent of the people whose prints were submitted were identified simply by sending a fax, and these were cold cases. Implementing this at the OCME in New York, she is having even more success in identifying current cases, as well as working on the backload of cold cases waiting to be identified (Mulawka).

Even though fingerprinting is kind of a forgotten science when it comes to forensic investigation, new strides are being made every day to improve the effectiveness of the science we already know. Although overshadowed by DNA and entomology, fingerprinting is still the most reliable, and effective tool in the forensic arsenal. It is imperative that fingerprint training is kept up to date, and one stays familiar with all the new and different techniques, because more likely than not, in the clutch you will need to use one of them, and not DNA or other, more advanced technique. Fingerprinting is the Forensic Scientist’s bread and butter, and therefore every forensic investigator should be an expert.

References: Antranik. "Integumentary System Part 1." antranik.org | What will we discover today?. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. <http://antranik.org/integumentary-system-part-1/>. ; Budowle, Bruce, J. Buscaglia, and Rebecca Schwartz Perlman. "Review of the scientific basis for friction ridge comparisons as a means of identification: committee findings and recommendations." Forensic Science Communications 8.1 (2006). ; Champod, Christophe. Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. Crc Press, 2004. ; Cole, Simon A.. Suspect identities: a history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Print. ; Cowger, James F. Friction ridge skin: Comparison and Identification of fingerprints. Vol. 8. CRC PressI Llc, 1983. Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology. "Fingerprint Sourcebook (Preface)." (2011). ; Mulawka, Marzena H., Ismail M. Sebetan, and Paul C. Stein. "Uniform Protocolto Address Unidentified Human Remains and Missing Persons." Journal of Forensic Identification 60.6 (2010): 748. ; Mulawka, Marzena H., and Jamie S. Craig. "Efficacy of Submitting Fingerprint of Unidentified Human Remains to Federal Agencies." Journal of Forensic Identification 61.1 (2011): 92. ; Rutty, G. N., K. Stringer, and E. E. Turk. "Electronic fingerprinting of the dead." International Journal of Legal Medicine 122.1 (2008): 77-80. ; Uhle, Aaron. “FBI Identification”. 2012 OCME Digital Solutions in Fingerprinting. New York, NY. 10 July 2012 ; White, Wyman. "METHOD FOR OPTICAL COMPARISON OP SKIN FRICTION-RIDGE PATTERNS." U.S. Patent No. 3,200,701. 17 Aug. 1965. ; Wright, Kimberly R., and Dean J. Bertram. "Process for forensic tissue rehydryation and finger ridge enhancement." U.S. Patent Application 10/945,317.

0 notes

pleasehiremeomg-blog · 7 years ago

Text

this one is just for fun and not v sciencey

Goose Graduates from STAC, Alumni Increase Donations

Allison Young

(re-posted with permission from The Thoma, The Official Voice of STAC Students)

The recent influx of geese, or, as they’re more affectionately know on campus, “the spawn of Satan,” is an issue that affects us all (yes, commuter who is un-involved and probably just picked up this paper on accident, even you). Geese suck. They poop everywhere, they honk all day, cause problems in the parking lot, and they are in need of a serious attitude adjustment.

STAC has been increasing efforts to rid the campus of this feathery scourge, but, alas, their labors have so far been unsuccessful.

These attempts peaked at the installation of dog silhouettes, in order to make the geese believe that their natural predators (the Labrador) were sitting on the lawn, presumably to scare them off. Unfortunately, the geese soon made friends with the cut-outs and have been hanging out with them ever since and enjoying the shade they provide, leaving the current score at Geese: 1, STAC: 0.

Most recently, the geese began nesting in the courtyard between Spellman and Aquinas halls. This has been increasing traffic in the hallways as students and faculty alike stop to look out the windows at the geese, much like one would gaze at an endangered species at the zoo. These individuals have obviously not been able to get tickets to the new, completely interactive, exhibit featuring these majestic creatures, called “walking around campus.”

The newly-formed Students Tired of Geese Involvement Society recently proposed to the board that if we take the geese and drop them off down the road at Dominican College, then that would be their problem and STAC would be no longer held responsible for any geese-instigated mayhem. The board approved and passed the motion, adding that this would probably get in the way of Dominican sports teams’ practicing, finally ending our 53-year losing streak.

However, the loading of the geese into a car or other mode of transportation proved a problem.

(On a serious note, I do not suggest that you attempt in any way to touch or move the geese. They will bite you. Hard. Even if you run away. Trust me.)

In light of these recent events, senior, Susan McPartland, comments: “I love them. They’re so cute and when they waddle away you can see their little goose-butts and they’re so cute” (the second ‘cute’ was provided, as far as this reporter can tell, for emphasis).

On the other side of things, sophomore Gerry Kreuder comments, “When I’m trying to sleep and they’re right outside my window making a honking noise at seven in the morning? That’s not OK.” Not OK, indeed, Gerry.

Now, I’m not saying that the geese are smarter than us, but it does seem like it, huh?

One goose in particular has recently graduated with a Master’s Degree in Education, in record time I might add, as the goose in question has only been attending classes since September.

Forbes has contacted STAC’s own President Fitzpatrick to comment on the rumors that STAC is quickly becoming the premier college for waterfowl in the northeast. However, she chose not to offer any statements as fewer geese than originally estimated attended the last Accepted Student’s Day so statistics are still being developed, enrollment-wise.

0 notes