[Editor’s Note: This is a multi-part series deigned to educate the defense bar on important issues concerning explosive and explosive residue investigations]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Back to the Basics: Was it the result of an explosive device in the first place? How do we know that?

Part 3: Daubert provides guidance and a means to expose limitations and evaluate explosive investigations, methods, and interpretation

Part 4: The Explosion Crime Scene: Sampling and Homogeneity Issues

Part 5: Disposition Homogeneity in explosive scene investigation

Part 6: Contamination and Cross Contamination in explosive scene investigation

Part 7: Contamination by “Render-Safe” acts of explosives

Part 8: Transportation and storage of evidence in explosive scene investigation

Part 9: Chemical analysis in explosive scene investigation

Part 10: Identifying Techniques in explosive scene investigation

Part 11: Interpretation of data in explosive scene investigation

Part 12: Experience: What makes for a proper expert in explosive scene investigation?

Part 13: Conclusion]

Once the crime scene investigation has been conducted, evidence possibly bearing explosives residues is sent to a crime laboratory for analysis. The mere sending and storage of the evidence can result in data from analysis which is misleading. The following discussion will highlight some of the problems inherent in this area. Explosives are highly reactive materials which can function as oxidizing materials and react with any number of substrates on which they are deposited or can simply evaporate over time. Data from the Sandia National Laboratory [60] notes, for instance, that TNT residues in one instance decomposed significantly during six days of normal transportation. The TNT residues were deposited on a particular substrate and sent to the FBI Laboratory which immediately returned the material unopened. Upon their return, extracts from the substrate determined that the TNT had degraded and “there was significant sample loss.” Other data from biological experiments [61], [62] note that biodegradation takes place in which microorganisms consume explosives. Indeed these experiments have indicated that environmental waste sites involving explosives residues might be cleaned up utilizing these avenues of biodegradation. Kolla [63] notes that degradation of explosives on substrates can lead to incorrect results in the interpretation. Therefore an explosive from a criminal bomb may include, for instance, TNT and RDX high explosives and by the time the explosive residues are analyzed, the TNT and/or RDX which was originally present on the samples may be gone. The expert witness who then testifies categorically that the bomb was composed of an RDX based explosive such as the military plastic explosive, C-4, would be misleading the trier of fact.

How does Daubert address this issue? Counsel may question the expert about whether the expert knows if biodegradation or evaporation or photolytic decomposition may have decomposed one or a number of possible different explosives compounds that may have been left in the explosives residue. The expert cannot know the answer to that question without some basis for the knowledge. In Bradley [64], the court noted that its task was to “determine the scientific validity of a theory or methodology by considering, primarily, whether the proffered testimony: (1) can be and has been empirically tested, (2) has been published and subjected to peer-review, and finally, (3) has been generally accepted in the relevant technical community.” In Bradley, employees in a building in which a pesticide applicator was used failed to establish that the etiology of the multiple chemical sensitivities was sufficiently known or tested so as to allow the testimony of a clinical expert as to causation.

The expert who has a piece of evidence, for instance metal shrapnel, from a bombing crime scene, who knows little if anything about the exposure of that shrapnel to biodegradation factors, or to photolytic decomposition from exposure to sunlight, can only offer conjecture without proof about the original explosive that was in the bomb or even on the piece of shrapnel. The problem is multiplied when the evidence sits for weeks or months or even years awaiting analysis by the residue expert. During those periods of time degradation, even slow degradation, may very well be taking place.

Bradley [65] also dissuades the party offering testimony from responding that the opinion offered is that of the expert and must be disproven by the opponent. “Plaintiffs, as proponents of the testimony, bear the burden of establishing the testimony’s admissibility by a preponderance of proof.” If inorganic oxidizing agents such as are found in black powder and the flash powders in firecrackers are present in residues from these low explosives, one may reasonably expect that chemical reactions, referred to as oxidation-reduction reactions, continue at the points of contact with the oxidizing agents and any matrix material which these chemicals come in contact with. Because the environments in which explosives initiate are not defined before the initiations one does not usually conduct controlled experiments to determine what reactions will take place between the explosives residue and the matrix materials. Therefore, during the transportation and storage phases of the bombing investigation, reactions may take place which render valueless any attempt to answer the question “What was the explosive charge in the device?” Again the word which continues to arise is “may” and the burden of proof is upon the party offering the testimony. Because of the large number of bombing incidents in the world and the paucity of qualified examiners of residues from such incidents, a necessary backlog of cases builds up which often requires storage of evidence for extended periods of time. Some explosives such as TNT and nitroglycerine have very high vapor pressures. [66] Those vapor pressures can result in evidence stored in the same evidence storage facility becoming cross-contaminated. For example, nitroglycerine-based dynamite stored in a three-story building, in the corner of a room on the first floor, was found to be detectable in large amounts in the air of that entire building within three hours. [67] Evidence storage facilities are by their very nature, secure, locked up areas in which cross-contamination of evidence over long periods of time could be very possible.

One may suggest storing those samples with explosives residues which have high vapor pressures in different areas. But what evidence has what residue is not known until analyses are conducted. And following the storage of evidence in such a manner, every surface that the evidence containers touch may be contaminated. For instance, the vapors from TNT residues or raw explosive may saturate the air of the storage locker in which the evidence was stored. The surfaces or shelves in that locker will then be contaminated with TNT. Evidence placed on those surfaces becomes contaminated with TNT. Testimony concerning TNT found on that evidence very possibly misleads the trier of fact into believing that TNT was actually found in the evidence analyzed. Proper packaging of the evidence might help to avoid this cross-contamination issue. However, data concerning testing of proper packaging is not available in the literature and evidence handlers continue to submit evidence in polyethylene ziplock bags which are well known to be permeable to explosives vapors.

A question ripe for counsel to ask is about the storage facilities used for the evidence presented in court. In order to have “scientific knowledge” that contamination has not taken place the expert will have to present evidence of surface testing from surfaces inside the evidence vault. According to Dr. Frank Conrad [68], “We have already alluded to the ‘stickiness’ of these molecules and their action can be simply stated that if they touch anything they stick to it.” Again returning to the guidelines set out by Daubert we have the quote “The subject of an expert’s testimony must be ‘scientific…knowledge.’ The adjective ‘scientific’ implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word ‘knowledge’ connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” For the explosives examiner to infer anything from data about presence of residues of certain explosives and to testify in a court of law, her analytical techniques must therefore be well grounded in “scientific knowledge,” i.e., in the methods and procedures of science. Proper scientific methods and procedures require the establishment and validation of appropriate protocols and strict adherence to controls. The court can determine if such measures are in place by asking to review the protocols, determining if the expert followed those protocols and determining if proper controls are in place.

In the area of explosives analysis, the court must ask how evidence was transported and stored, if sampling of transportation vehicles and storage areas takes place on a regular basis, how long samples are stored before analysis and if materials found in evidence could have come from cross-contamination from volatile explosives.

______________________

[1] Executive Director, Forensic Justice Project, Washington, D.C., B.S. Chemistry, 1974, East Carolina University, Ph.D. in Chemistry, 1980, Duke University, J.D., 1996, Georgetown University School of Law. (202)342‑6980.

[60] P.J. RODACY, D. INGERSOL, SANDIA REPORT DAND90-1326. UC-501 (1992) The Collection, Handling, Transportation and Thermal Desorption of Explosive Vapor Using Quartz Collection Tubes.

[61] Tudor Fernando & Steven Aust, Emerging Technologies In Hazardous Waste Management Ii (1991), Biodegradation of Munition Waste, TNT(2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene), and RDX (Hexahydro-1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5­Triazine) by Phanerochaete chrysosporium.

[62] Yinon, supra note 14.

[63] Kolla, supra note 52.

[64] Bradley v. Brown, 852 F.Supp. 690 698 (N.D.Ind. 1994).

[65] Id. at 697.

[66] Vapor pressure refers to the ability of individual molecules of a material to leave a surface of that material, to become vaporized, to evaporate. The higher a vapor pressure a material has, the larger the number of molecules that will be able to evaporate off the surface of that material and the higher the concentration of that material there will be in the air above the material. Certain explosives have very high vapor pressures and therefore if placed in confinement such as an evidence vault, they may be able to contaminate other evidence about them just through the evaporation process.

[67] The building was the Forensic Science Research and Training Center at Quantico, Virginia. The incident happened during a test of explosives sniffing instruments and forced the test to be held else whereas the instruments started to detect nitroglycerine every time they were activated.

[68] Frank J. Conrad, Proceedings Third Symposium On Analysis And Detection Of Explosives, July 10–13, 1989, Mannheim-Neuostheim, Federal Republic of Germany, supra note 15, at 1–4.

We live in an interesting time in forensic science. Frequently we find ourselves with very good technology and equipment that is capable of producing valid results. What is missing from this equation quite frankly is the most important part: the validation. Frequently, we miss out on proof of how the actions were preformed and/or how useful the actions are: traceability. Finally, we miss out on having an important double check of the process: quality assurance. It is only if there is a meaningful nexus between these three important concepts (validation, traceability, and quality assurance) that we can begin to have confidence in our reported results.

The lack of transparency in the validation of these techniques that are applied has built up over the years to the point of utter failure where we wake up routinely to headlines that dozens, hundreds and even thousands of results are cast into jeopardy. This is why I predict that we are quickly approaching the tipping point towards the ever bigger, and ever more alarming headlines that we are just starting to see that cast doubt over all forms of forensic science. When there is a lack of regulation and oversight (such is now the case in forensic science), activity moves into that area and overwhelming expands towards the absurd. Where forensic science activities might have had some legitimate use originally, in this day and age of modern testing, we see some really bizarre suggestions trying to slip their way into the mainstream of our courts of justice.

We need to remain ever vigilant and skeptical. Perhaps more so now than ever. The veneer of science and scientific processes is at an all time high, but when truly examined is simply superficial in some cases. The biggest threat we have is not in being wrong, but rather to allow the propagation of error to accumulate into mere repetition and the anchoring of forensic science techniques into our courts merely by their repeated presence instead of their fundamentals.

When court rulings suggest that a forensic technique must be valid simply because it has existed (perhaps never being questioned in the first place) and has been accepted into court for decades and by inference holding that science is static, then justice is a casualty. Who in their right mind believes that science is static? Our understanding of science is subject to change as we learn more. Science is evolutionary, and incremental. Yet, our court system by mere edict holds otherwise.

In essence, it comes down to our society’s willingness to accept risk. To what end are we willing to accept what level of risk in being wrong? In every sort of industry (environmental, pharmaceutical, manufacturing) there is a triad of reducing risk: validation, traceability, and quality assurance. It is enshrined in the very basic movement of Six Sigma.

According to Wikipedia:

Six Sigma is a business management strategy, originally developed by Motorola in 1986. Six Sigma became well known after Jack Welch made it a central focus of his business strategy at General Electric in 1995, and today it is widely used in many sectors of industry.  Six Sigma seeks to improve the quality of process outputs by identifying and removing the causes of defects (errors) and minimizing variability in manufacturing and business processes. It uses a set of quality management methods, including statistical methods, and creates a special infrastructure of people within the organization (“Black Belts”, “Green Belts”, etc.) who are experts in these methods… The term Six Sigma originated from terminology associated with manufacturing, specifically terms associated with statistical modeling of manufacturing processes. The maturity of a manufacturing process can be described by a sigma rating indicating its yield, or the percentage of defect-free products it creates. A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of the products manufactured are statistically expected to be free of defects (3.4 defects per million). Motorola set a goal of “six sigma” for all of its manufacturing operations, and this goal became a byword for the management and engineering practices used to achieve it.

If industry can do this, why on Earth can’t forensic science?

In the courtroom, shouldn’t we demand that we have a process in place that results in fewer defects than the making of a cell phone?

Of course.

When asked why do we see these forensic science scandals, I suggest the answer is simple. We have failed to demand processes (simple processes) that minimize the risk of being wrong.

Like the tip of an iceberg, when these scandals are discovered, it is quite simply the equivalent of the Fukushima-like disaster. There is a cascading effect of failure. There is a global failure of quality assurance or traceability or in underlying validation. The entire point of having a double check (what is called either technical review or a quality assurance review) with every result is to have someone greater qualified than the bench analyst disbelieve the data produced and seek to falsify its validity and only approve it if there is no question of the data. When there is a noticeable failure that reaches the headlines, there was undoubtedly a massive failure of the quality assurance (QA) program that may or may not have been in place. Was the QA officer not trained well in the technique? Was there too much throughput that the QA degenerated to nothing but a rubber stamp? Was the QA officer incompetent or fraudulent?

As is often the case in these cases where aberrant invalid results are produced, the knee-jerk reaction of those that are in political control of a testing laboratory is to seek to blame one analyst and claim that the sole analyst alone is the source of all that is wrong. In the process, this analyst is classified as either a rogue lone wolf or an incompetent oaf. A press conference is held with no meaningful information told to the public as to the scientific source of the error with non-scientists assuring the public that the issue has been identified, quarantined, and corrected with no damage. This oddly predictable pattern is repeated in all of the major national scandals: Houston Police Department, Washington DC, Colorado Springs, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Michigan and on and on.

“My policing background allows me to claim the science is OK now.”

The truth of the matter is that this types of event, it is never a lone wolf or a poorly trained analyst situation, but rather a systemic failure and is indeed symptomatic of some large scale issue that includes the training of the analyst, the supervision of the analyst, the lack of meaningful periodic proficiency training  of the analyst, the analysts’s proper training and initial review of his/her own data, the quality assurance officer, the lab supervisor, and ultimately the lawyers and judges of criminal justice system.

An error that is “discovered” to include many samples is not an accident or something that happened overnight. It is repeated error that should have been discovered by someone in that laboratory system or in the criminal justice system well before it got to the headlines. The laboratory’s after-generated claims that frequently report no source of the error and issues instead bald conclusions that are in keeping with its vested political interest to minimize the error and isolate the analyst is just babble and garbage.

When these things happen, it is incumbent upon the laboratory to release the data of its investigation so those of us in the scientific community can see if it is correct in what it is telling us. Many of us would offer to do this verification for free.

If these types of errors were an EPA regulated or FDA regulated laboratory in the private sector, it would be shut down immediately, fully investigated by a wholly independent laboratory auditor, heavily fined, possibly key members in the QA chain possibly indicted, and the documents and information made available to others to review the conclusions in a wholly transparent and scientific way.

From 60 Minutes in describing one such incident and the government and scientific reaction:

Of all the things that you trust every day, you want to believe your prescription medicine is safe and effective. The pharmaceutical industry says that it follows the highest standards for quality. But in November, we found out just how much could go wrong at one of the world’s largest drug makers. A subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to distributing adulterated drugs.

There was reason to believe that some of the medications were contaminated with bacteria, others were mislabeled, and some were too strong or not strong enough. It’s likely Glaxo would have gotten away with it had it not been for a company insider: a tip from Cheryl Eckard set off a major federal investigation.

She’s never told the public what she saw inside Glaxo, but now she has. Her story opens a rare window on how one company traded its good name for bad medicine.

When Fukushima happened, it was shut down immediately, fully investigated by wholly independent auditors (many auditors), and the documents and information made available to others to review the conclusions in a wholly transparent and scientific way. Then, after a while, it is checked again in a meaningful way by independent agencies. Most importantly, the lessons learned by that failure were examined in the light of current situations to insure that this failure was protected against happening elsewhere. Just to name a few of the auditing agencies and their detailed release of data:

• The Great East Japan Earthquake. Expert Mission. IAEA International Fact Finding
• American Nuclear Society Special Committee On Fukushuma
• USNRC Follow-up to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Station Fuel Damage Event

Meaningful quality assurance, proper training, method validation, adherence to a validated series of instructions, achieving traceability, and the like are not that hard to implement and monitor. We can do better.

The performance of tasks in forensic science should not be a leap of faith, but rather firmly grounded in science instead. But is it now?

We know how to do better. We must do better. The laboratory’s own assurances that it is doing truly validated science without complete transparency and documented proof must be suspect. We have independent third party review for a reason. Fukushima was well investigated by the company itself, the Japanese government, the International Atomic Energy Agency, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others. We must do likewise if there is to be confidence in the reporting of results in the forensic arena.

Trust but verify.

Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Thanks to the combined inspiration of Christine Funk, Esquire and Chuck Ramsay, Esquire, a new twist of this blog is being introduced. A weekly fun forensic science challenge/trivia question. The winner will be affectionately dubbed “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week.”

Rules:

1. The challenge will be posted Sunday morning 12 noon EST.
2. Answers to the challenge will be entered by responding to this blog post or thewww.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page.
3. All comments that are answers to this blog will released after 9pm EST.
4. The first complete and correct answer will be awarded the envious title of “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week”
5. “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week” is entitled a one time post of his/her picture on this blog and the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page. The coveted title will be his/her for that week. Additionally, a winner will be allowed one link to one webpage of his/her choice. Both the picture and the weblink is subject to the approval of Justin J McShane, Esquire and will only be screened for appropriate taste.
6. The winner will be announced Sunday night.
7. A winner may only repeat two times in a row, then will have to sit out a week to be eligible again. This person, who was the two time in a row winner, may answer the question, but will be disqualified from the honor so as to allow others to participate.
8. This is for learning and for fun. EVERYONE IS ENCOURAGED TO TRY TO ANSWER THE WEEKLY QUESTION. So give it a shot.

Here it is:

The www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com “Forensic Science Geek of the Week” challenge question. Remember the first full and complete answer wins the honor and also gets his/her photo displayed, bragging rights for the week and finally website promotion.

OFFICIAL QUESTION:

The Hall of Fame for the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Week 1: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 2: Rick McIndoe, PhD

Week 3: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 4: Stephen Daniels

Week 5: Stephen Daniels

Week 6: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 7: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 8: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 9: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 10: Kelly Case, Esquire and Michael Dye, Esquire

Week 11: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 12: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 13: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 14: Josh D, Lee, Esquire

Week 15: Joshua Dale, Esquire and Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 16: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 17: Joshua Dale, Esquire

Week 18: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 19: Amanda Bynum, Esquire

Week 20: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 21: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 22:  Stephen Daniels

Week 23:  Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 24: Bobby Spinks

Week 25:  Jon Woolsey, Esquire

Week 26: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 27: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 28:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 29: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 30: C. Jeffrey Sifers, Esquire

Week 31: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 32: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 33: Andy Johnston

Week 34: Ralph R. Ristenbatt, III

Week 35: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 36: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 37: Jeffrey Benson

Week 38: Pam King, Esquire

Week 39: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 40: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

WEEK 41: UNCLAIMED, IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 42: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 43:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 44: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 45: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 46:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 47:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 48: Leslie M. Sammis, Esquire

Week 49: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 50: Jeffery Benson

Week 51: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 52: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 53: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 54: Charles Sifers, Esquire and Tim Huey, Esquire

Week 55: Joshua Andor, Esquire

Week 56: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 57: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 58: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 59: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 60: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 61: William Herringer, Esquire

Week 62: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 63: Ginger Moss

Week 64: Richard L. Holcomb, Esquire

Week 65: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 66: Jeff Sifers, Esquire

Week 67: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 68: Dr. Barbara Vonderhaar, PhD.

Week 69: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 70: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 71: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 72: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 73: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 74: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 75: Mehul B. Anjaria and Peter Carini, Esquire

Week 76: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 77: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 78: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 79: Kevin Feeney, Esquire

Week 8o: Justin Harris, Esquire

Week 81: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 82: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 83: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 84: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 85: Pat Arata, Esquire

Week 86: George Schiro

Week 87: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 88: Rocky Babson, Esquire

Week 89: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU.

Week 90: Joseph Rome, Esquire

Week 91: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 92: Laura Magnuson

Week 93: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 94: Unclaimed. It could be you!

Week 95: George Schiro

Week 96: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 97: Unclaimed. It could be you!

[Editor’s Note: This is a multi-part series deigned to educate the defense bar on important issues concerning explosive and explosive residue investigations]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Back to the Basics: Was it the result of an explosive device in the first place? How do we know that?

Part 3: Daubert provides guidance and a means to expose limitations and evaluate explosive investigations, methods, and interpretation

Part 4: The Explosion Crime Scene: Sampling and Homogeneity Issues

Part 5: Disposition Homogeneity in explosive scene investigation

Part 6: Contamination and Cross Contamination in explosive scene investigation

Part 7: Contamination by “Render-Safe” acts of explosives

Part 8: Transportation and storage of evidence in explosive scene investigation

Part 9: Chemical analysis in explosive scene investigation

Part 10: Identifying Techniques in explosive scene investigation

Part 11: Interpretation of data in explosive scene investigation

Part 12: Experience: What makes for a proper expert in explosive scene investigation?

Part 13: Conclusion

Often evidence is received by the forensic explosives expert that has originated from bombs that have been “rendered safe” by explosives ordnance demolition technicians. “Render-safe” operations are first and foremost concerned with the safety of personnel as opposed to the collection of evidence as they should be. Devices used to render safe usually are designed with explosives/energetic materials as part of the device itself. These devices are those that incorporate gun powder propellant to project an object against the unexploded bomb in order to open it possibly without exploding it. Sometimes military explosives are attached directly to bombs to detonate them. Rendering a device safe can leave residues on the evidence which originated from the render-safe mechanism. Another issue arises when render-safe operations take place in specially designated areas which have been utilized in the past for the same purpose. The ground in these areas can be highly contaminated with explosives residues. Those residues can deposit on the evidence and result in misleading interpretation of the data unless the residue analyst has been made aware of the method used to render the bomb safe.

As the reader can see, the collection of evidence in this area can result in residues present on evidence which could lead to misinterpretation of the significance of data. In order for the court to determine if the scientific testimony or evidence admitted is even relevant, the court needs to know if proper controls were in place at the crime scene. (After all, of what relevance to the court and trier of fact are explosives residues that came from the bombing crime scene investigator’s explosives bunker and were placed on the evidence.) This relevance can only be established through the laying of proper foundation testimony. Questions concerning the implementation of proper protocols, gathering of control samples and proper transportation of evidence must be asked. The court must, in reviewing analytical data, look specifically at the data to determine if instrumental output exists from analysis of control swabs that would prove the bomb technician did not unknowingly bring explosives residues into the crime scene. The court also needs to review the testimony of the expert to determine if improper inferences are being drawn from the data.

The field of explosives residue analysis is essentially still in its infancy with many questions left unanswered. Yinon and Zitrin [59] describe the field, “The analysis of explosive residues, usually carried out in forensic laboratories, is a relatively new area. The first studies were published in the 1960s and the number increased in the following decades, coinciding with the spreading use of explosives by terrorists.” Validated protocols do not exist at this time which describe proper explosives residue evidence to be collected at all bombing crime scenes in order to reasonably establish what the explosive main charge was in the bomb.

Small devices used to explode mailboxes present somewhat controlled situations which can reasonably be tested. But large bombs such as those used in the World Trade Center present a completely different fingerprint of residue each time they are exploded. Until protocols are established and properly followed, testimony concerning explosives residue analysis must be very closely reviewed by counsel.

______________________

[1] Executive Director, Forensic Justice Project, Washington, D.C., B.S. Chemistry, 1974, East Carolina University, Ph.D. in Chemistry, 1980, Duke University, J.D., 1996, Georgetown University School of Law. (202)342‑6980.

[59] Yinon & Zitrin, supra note 12, at 163.

To that end of justice, I am proud to announce that there are newly minted lawyer-scientists who took the ACS/ Axion Analytical Laboratory Hands-on Forensic Chromatography VI class that was held in Chicago, IL.

ACS Forensic Chromatography VI

Recent Graduates

All Graduates

Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Thanks to the combined inspiration of Christine Funk, Esquire and Chuck Ramsay, Esquire, a new twist of this blog is being introduced. A weekly fun forensic science challenge/trivia question. The winner will be affectionately dubbed “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week.”

Rules:

1. The challenge will be posted Sunday morning 12 noon EST.
2. Answers to the challenge will be entered by responding to this blog post or thewww.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page.
3. All comments that are answers to this blog will released after 9pm EST.
4. The first complete and correct answer will be awarded the envious title of “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week”
5. “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week” is entitled a one time post of his/her picture on this blog and the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page. The coveted title will be his/her for that week. Additionally, a winner will be allowed one link to one webpage of his/her choice. Both the picture and the weblink is subject to the approval of Justin J McShane, Esquire and will only be screened for appropriate taste.
6. The winner will be announced Sunday night.
7. A winner may only repeat two times in a row, then will have to sit out a week to be eligible again. This person, who was the two time in a row winner, may answer the question, but will be disqualified from the honor so as to allow others to participate.
8. This is for learning and for fun. EVERYONE IS ENCOURAGED TO TRY TO ANSWER THE WEEKLY QUESTION. So give it a shot.

Here it is:

The www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com “Forensic Science Geek of the Week” challenge question. Remember the first full and complete answer wins the honor and also gets his/her photo displayed, bragging rights for the week and finally website promotion.

OFFICIAL QUESTION:

The Hall of Fame for the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Week 1: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 2: Rick McIndoe, PhD

Week 3: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 4: Stephen Daniels

Week 5: Stephen Daniels

Week 6: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 7: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 8: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 9: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 10: Kelly Case, Esquire and Michael Dye, Esquire

Week 11: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 12: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 13: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 14: Josh D, Lee, Esquire

Week 15: Joshua Dale, Esquire and Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 16: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 17: Joshua Dale, Esquire

Week 18: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 19: Amanda Bynum, Esquire

Week 20: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 21: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 22:  Stephen Daniels

Week 23:  Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 24: Bobby Spinks

Week 25:  Jon Woolsey, Esquire

Week 26: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 27: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 28:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 29: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 30: C. Jeffrey Sifers, Esquire

Week 31: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 32: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 33: Andy Johnston

Week 34: Ralph R. Ristenbatt, III

Week 35: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 36: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 37: Jeffrey Benson

Week 38: Pam King, Esquire

Week 39: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 40: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

WEEK 41: UNCLAIMED, IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 42: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 43:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 44: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 45: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 46:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 47:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 48: Leslie M. Sammis, Esquire

Week 49: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 50: Jeffery Benson

Week 51: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 52: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 53: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 54: Charles Sifers, Esquire and Tim Huey, Esquire

Week 55: Joshua Andor, Esquire

Week 56: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 57: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 58: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 59: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 60: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 61: William Herringer, Esquire

Week 62: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 63: Ginger Moss

Week 64: Richard L. Holcomb, Esquire

Week 65: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 66: Jeff Sifers, Esquire

Week 67: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 68: Dr. Barbara Vonderhaar, PhD.

Week 69: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 70: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 71: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 72: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 73: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 74: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 75: Mehul B. Anjaria and Peter Carini, Esquire

Week 76: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 77: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 78: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 79: Kevin Feeney, Esquire

Week 8o: Justin Harris, Esquire

Week 81: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 82: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 83: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 84: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 85: Pat Arata, Esquire

Week 86: George Schiro

Week 87: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 88: Rocky Babson, Esquire

Week 89: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU.

Week 90: Joseph Rome, Esquire

Week 91: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 92: Laura Magnuson

Week 93: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 94: Unclaimed. It could be you!

Week 95: George Schiro

Week 96: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Please visit the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page.

The week 62 “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week” honors goes to: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

According to his website (Rocky Mountain Instrumentation Laboratories):

We provide contract chromatographic and mass spectrometric analysis (HPLC/MS) of pharmaceuticals (both traditional drugs and biotechnology products, such as proteins and peptides and oligonucleotides), veterinary and human endocrinology, and forensic toxicology, including fentanyl, T HC, tryptamines, and other forensic testing and testimony. We now offer assays for certain antibiotics (cephalosporins and aminoglycosides) and the insecticide Fipronil. We develop stability-indicating assays, including degradant identification, for the pharmaceutical industry. We also provide therapeutic drug monitoring for several less-common drugs, such as Taxol, Doxorubicin, Tacrolimus, rapamycin ( Sirolimus.) and Everolimus. Everything that we do is centered about and united by chemical testing. We offer HPLC/MS/MS, HPLC/PDA, GC/MS/MS, FT/IR, Dissolution, and Stability Testing. We are FDA registered and inspected, follow cGLP protocols, and are CLIA certified. We also are certified by the Colorado Department of Health to perform clinical and forensic toxicology testing. We also have a number of LCMSMS analyses for antibiotics, such as cephapirin, amoxicillin, and vancomycin. We provide both clinical and pre-clinical method development and performance. Robert K. Lantz, Ph.D. and Patricia L. Sulik, Ph.D. are the directors of RML.

Congratulations to our Forensic Science Geek of the Week winner

OFFICIAL QUESTION:

1. What specific technique is depicted in this photo?

2. Why is it performed?

3. Explain it.

4. What are its limitations?

Our Geek of the Week answered:

It is a ThermoFinnigan GCMS system, with autosampler.  The GC is used to separate the volatile components in the pill extract. If the compound is not volatile or gives an uninteresting MS, derivatization can be used to make the substance more volatile or have a more definitive MS.

GC has much better resolution potential than does LC (HPLC), so the retention time for the analyte compound is more informative.

The limitations of the system include the lack of MSMS capability, and the common problem with all GC experiments, that the analyte must be volatile. I do not own this particular instrument, so I cannot speak to other features of this model.  If it is an ion trap MS, some have an MSMS option.

Some analytes, such as methampehtamine provide non-characteristic mass spectra and may not separate from likely interferences, such as phentermine.  Derivatization will, in this case, improve both the usefulness of the MS and the retention time.   That is, the MS of meth and phentermine are identical.  However, if the molecules are derivatized, the MS are quite different, as are the retention times.

[BLOGGER’S NOTE: Great answer. Thanks for participating.]

The Hall of Fame for the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week:

Week 1: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 2: Rick McIndoe, PhD

Week 3: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 4: Stephen Daniels

Week 5: Stephen Daniels

Week 6: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 7: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 8: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 9: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 10: Kelly Case, Esquire and Michael Dye, Esquire

Week 11: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 12: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 13: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 14: Josh D, Lee, Esquire

Week 15: Joshua Dale, Esquire and Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 16: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 17: Joshua Dale, Esquire

Week 18: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 19: Amanda Bynum, Esquire

Week 20: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 21: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 22:  Stephen Daniels

Week 23:  Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 24: Bobby Spinks

Week 25:  Jon Woolsey, Esquire

Week 26: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 27: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 28:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 29: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 30: C. Jeffrey Sifers, Esquire

Week 31: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 32: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 33: Andy Johnston

Week 34: Ralph R. Ristenbatt, III

Week 35: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 36: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 37: Jeffrey Benson

Week 38: Pam King, Esquire

Week 39: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 40: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

WEEK 41: UNCLAIMED, IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 42: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 43:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 44: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 45: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 46:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 47:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 48: Leslie M. Sammis, Esquire

Week 49: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 50: Jeffery Benson

Week 51: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 52: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 53: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 54: Charles Sifers, Esquire and Tim Huey, Esquire

Week 55: Joshua Andor, Esquire

Week 56: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 57: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 58: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 59: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 60: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 61: William Herringer, Esquire

Week 62: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 63: Ginger Moss

Week 64: Richard L. Holcomb, Esquire

Week 65: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 66: Jeff Sifers, Esquire

Week 67: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 68: Dr. Barbara Vonderhaar, PhD.

Week 69: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 70: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 71: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 72: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 73: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 74: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 75: Mehul B. Anjaria and Peter Carini, Esquire

Week 76: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 77: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 78: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 79: Kevin Feeney, Esquire

Week 8o: Justin Harris, Esquire

Week 81: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 82: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 83: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 84: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 85: Pat Arata, Esquire

Week 86: George Schiro

Week 87: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 88: Rocky Babson, Esquire

Week 89: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU.

Week 90: Joseph Rome, Esquire

Week 91: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 92: Laura Magnuson

Week 93: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 94: Unclaimed. It could be you!

Week 95: George Schiro

Week 96: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

]]> http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/the-week-62-forensic-science-geek-of-the-week-is-announced/feed/ 0 http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/the-week-83-forensic-science-geek-of-the-week-is-announced/ http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/the-week-83-forensic-science-geek-of-the-week-is-announced/#comments Sun, 06 May 2012 00:53:48 +0000 Justin J. McShane http://www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com/?p=4818 The Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Please visit the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page.

The week 83 “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week” honors goes to: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

According to his website (Rocky Mountain Instrumentation Laboratories):

We provide contract chromatographic and mass spectrometric analysis (HPLC/MS) of pharmaceuticals (both traditional drugs and biotechnology products, such as proteins and peptides and oligonucleotides), veterinary and human endocrinology, and forensic toxicology, including fentanyl, T HC, tryptamines, and other forensic testing and testimony. We now offer assays for certain antibiotics (cephalosporins and aminoglycosides) and the insecticide Fipronil. We develop stability-indicating assays, including degradant identification, for the pharmaceutical industry. We also provide therapeutic drug monitoring for several less-common drugs, such as Taxol, Doxorubicin, Tacrolimus, rapamycin ( Sirolimus.) and Everolimus. Everything that we do is centered about and united by chemical testing. We offer HPLC/MS/MS, HPLC/PDA, GC/MS/MS, FT/IR, Dissolution, and Stability Testing. We are FDA registered and inspected, follow cGLP protocols, and are CLIA certified. We also are certified by the Colorado Department of Health to perform clinical and forensic toxicology testing. We also have a number of LCMSMS analyses for antibiotics, such as cephapirin, amoxicillin, and vancomycin. We provide both clinical and pre-clinical method development and performance. Robert K. Lantz, Ph.D. and Patricia L. Sulik, Ph.D. are the directors of RML.

Congratulations to our Forensic Science Geek of the Week winner

OFFICIAL QUESTION:

2. What is it useful for?

Our Geek of the Week answered:

It is an ABI –SciEx LCMSMS.  It is at least an API-3200 (I cannot tell more than that).  It is a triple quadrupole system of intermediate sensitivity between the API-3000 and the API-4000.

Like all LCMSMS systems, it can be used properly to give important, accurate results or used badly to give very sensitive erroneous results.

By using the MSMS capability, the mass spectrometer can isolate analyte species for the background.  However, many substances are known to be had in isobaric (same mass) pairs, such as morpine-hydromorphone and codeine– hydrocodone.  Similarly, it is possible to confuse some of the tricyclic antidepressants with each other and some of the benzodiazepines with other members of the class.

[BLOGGER’S NOTE: Great answer. Thanks for participating.]

The Hall of Fame for the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week:

Week 1: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 2: Rick McIndoe, PhD

Week 3: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 4: Stephen Daniels

Week 5: Stephen Daniels

Week 6: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 7: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 8: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 9: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 10: Kelly Case, Esquire and Michael Dye, Esquire

Week 11: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 12: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 13: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 14: Josh D, Lee, Esquire

Week 15: Joshua Dale, Esquire and Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 16: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 17: Joshua Dale, Esquire

Week 18: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 19: Amanda Bynum, Esquire

Week 20: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 21: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 22:  Stephen Daniels

Week 23:  Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 24: Bobby Spinks

Week 25:  Jon Woolsey, Esquire

Week 26: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 27: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 28:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 29: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 30: C. Jeffrey Sifers, Esquire

Week 31: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 32: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 33: Andy Johnston

Week 34: Ralph R. Ristenbatt, III

Week 35: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 36: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 37: Jeffrey Benson

Week 38: Pam King, Esquire

Week 39: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 40: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

WEEK 41: UNCLAIMED, IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 42: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 43:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 44: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 45: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 46:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 47:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 48: Leslie M. Sammis, Esquire

Week 49: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 50: Jeffery Benson

Week 51: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 52: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 53: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 54: Charles Sifers, Esquire and Tim Huey, Esquire

Week 55: Joshua Andor, Esquire

Week 56: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 57: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 58: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 59: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 60: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 61: William Herringer, Esquire

Week 62: UNCLAIMED IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 63: Ginger Moss

Week 64: Richard L. Holcomb, Esquire

Week 65: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 66: Jeff Sifers, Esquire

Week 67: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 68: Dr. Barbara Vonderhaar, PhD.

Week 69: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 70: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 71: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 72: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 73: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 74: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 75: Mehul B. Anjaria and Peter Carini, Esquire

Week 76: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 77: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 78: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 79: Kevin Feeney, Esquire

Week 8o: Justin Harris, Esquire

Week 81: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 82: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 83: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Week 84: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 85: Pat Arata, Esquire

Week 86: George Schiro

Week 87: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 88: Rocky Babson, Esquire

Week 89: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU.

Week 90: Joseph Rome, Esquire

Week 91: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 92: Laura Magnuson

Week 93: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 94: Unclaimed. It could be you!

Week 95: George Schiro

Week 96: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

Please visit the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page.

The week 96 “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week” honors goes to: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

According to his website (Rocky Mountain Instrumentation Laboratories):

We provide contract chromatographic and mass spectrometric analysis (HPLC/MS) of pharmaceuticals (both traditional drugs and biotechnology products, such as proteins and peptides and oligonucleotides), veterinary and human endocrinology, and forensic toxicology, including fentanyl, T HC, tryptamines, and other forensic testing and testimony. We now offer assays for certain antibiotics (cephalosporins and aminoglycosides) and the insecticide Fipronil. We develop stability-indicating assays, including degradant identification, for the pharmaceutical industry. We also provide therapeutic drug monitoring for several less-common drugs, such as Taxol, Doxorubicin, Tacrolimus, rapamycin ( Sirolimus.) and Everolimus. Everything that we do is centered about and united by chemical testing. We offer HPLC/MS/MS, HPLC/PDA, GC/MS/MS, FT/IR, Dissolution, and Stability Testing. We are FDA registered and inspected, follow cGLP protocols, and are CLIA certified. We also are certified by the Colorado Department of Health to perform clinical and forensic toxicology testing. We also have a number of LCMSMS analyses for antibiotics, such as cephapirin, amoxicillin, and vancomycin. We provide both clinical and pre-clinical method development and performance. Robert K. Lantz, Ph.D. and Patricia L. Sulik, Ph.D. are the directors of RML.

Congratulations to our Forensic Science Geek of the Week winner

OFFICIAL QUESTION:

Our Geek of the Week answered:

This is a detector from an Agilent or HP GC.  It appears to be a Flame Ionization Detector (FID), possibly from a 6890 GC.  The part next to the detector body is the flame tip.

A FID works by impinging a voltage between the flame tip and the detector body.  As (typically) organics are burned in the flame, the number of ions increases, resulting in a decreased resistance and increased current.  The current is then converted in the electrometer section and digitized.

The digitized signal then goes to the computer where it is used to calculate the correlation between signal and analyte concentration.

It works well for anything that is sufficiently volatile to go through the gas chromatograph.

[BLOGGER’S NOTE: Great answer. Thanks for participating.]

The Hall of Fame for the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week:

Week 1: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 2: Rick McIndoe, PhD

Week 3: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 4: Stephen Daniels

Week 5: Stephen Daniels

Week 6: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 7: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 8: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 9: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 10: Kelly Case, Esquire and Michael Dye, Esquire

Week 11: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 12: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 13: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 14: Josh D, Lee, Esquire

Week 15: Joshua Dale, Esquire and Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 16: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 17: Joshua Dale, Esquire

Week 18: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 19: Amanda Bynum, Esquire

Week 20: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 21: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 22:  Stephen Daniels

Week 23:  Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 24: Bobby Spinks

Week 25:  Jon Woolsey, Esquire

Week 26: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 27: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 28:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 29: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 30: C. Jeffrey Sifers, Esquire

Week 31: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 32: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 33: Andy Johnston

Week 34: Ralph R. Ristenbatt, III

Week 35: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 36: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 37: Jeffrey Benson

Week 38: Pam King, Esquire

Week 39: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 40: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

WEEK 41: UNCLAIMED, IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 42: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 43:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 44: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 45: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 46:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 47:Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 48: Leslie M. Sammis, Esquire

Week 49: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 50: Jeffery Benson

Week 51: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 52: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 53: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 54: Charles Sifers, Esquire and Tim Huey, Esquire

Week 55: Joshua Andor, Esquire

Week 56: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 57: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 58: Eric Ganci, Esquire

Week 59: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 60: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 61: William Herringer, Esquire

Week 62: UNCLAIMED IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 63: Ginger Moss

Week 64: Richard L. Holcomb, Esquire

Week 65: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 66: Jeff Sifers, Esquire

Week 67: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 68: Dr. Barbara Vonderhaar, PhD.

Week 69: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 70: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 71: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 72: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 73: Josh D. Lee, Esquire

Week 74: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 75: Mehul B. Anjaria and Peter Carini, Esquire

Week 76: Kim Keheley Frye, Esquire

Week 77: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 78: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 79: Kevin Feeney, Esquire

Week 8o: Justin Harris, Esquire

Week 81: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 82: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 83: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU!

Week 84: Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 85: Pat Arata, Esquire

Week 86: George Schiro

Week 87: Jay Tiftickjian, Esquire

Week 88: Rocky Babson, Esquire

Week 89: UNCLAIMED. IT COULD BE YOU.

Week 90: Joseph Rome, Esquire

Week 91: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 92: Laura Magnuson

Week 93: John L. Buckley, Esquire

Week 94: Unclaimed. It could be you!

Week 95: George Schiro

Week 96: Robert Lantz, Ph.D.

[Editor’s Note: This is a multi-part series deigned to educate the defense bar on important issues concerning explosive and explosive residue investigations]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Back to the Basics: Was it the result of an explosive device in the first place? How do we know that?

Part 3: Daubert provides guidance and a means to expose limitations and evaluate explosive investigations, methods, and interpretation

Part 4: The Explosion Crime Scene: Sampling and Homogeneity Issues

Part 5: Disposition Homogeneity in explosive scene investigation

Part 6: Contamination and Cross Contamination in explosive scene investigation

Part 7: Contamination by “Render-Safe” acts of explosives

Part 8: Transportation and storage of evidence in explosive scene investigation

Part 9: Chemical analysis in explosive scene investigation

Part 10: Identifying Techniques in explosive scene investigation

Part 11: Interpretation of data in explosive scene investigation

Part 12: Experience: What makes for a proper expert in explosive scene investigation?

Part 13: Conclusion

Another problem which immediately faces the expert concerns the collection of samples in such a manner that the expert knows that explosives residues seen did not come from the technician collecting the evidence. This is the cross-contamination problem. Explosives residues can be and very often are of submicroscopic size. Unless personnel specifically trained in the proper collection of trace chemical evidence are present at crime scenes there is a likelihood that contamination will take place with evidence. This contamination goes to the issue of chain of custody. “The analytical chemist must be very concerned about the origin of his samples.…” [42] Inwinkelried [43] teaches us of weight attacks on the chain of custody. He raises questions concerning the witness omitting precautions that might have prevented substitution, the facts affirmatively suggesting a possibility of substitution, and substitution making the test results worthless. When we normally think of chain of custody, admissibility issues such as the ready identifiability theory and links in the chain of custody come to mind. [44] The reader must remember that explosives residues are very often not visible. A ready identifiability theory would not hold up under examination of the chain of custody of explosives residues. The evidence in question is not the substrate on which the residue is found but the residue itself. Though the witness may be able to identify the object on which the residues were found, she can not, while on the witness stand, look at a piece of residue evidence and identify it by sight if it is not visible. Indeed, explosives residues are just that type of material that does not carry with it identifiable characteristics which differentiate it from any other explosives residues from the same type of explosive.

In State v. Williams [45], for instance, the evidence in question was a gun. The court held that “absolute proof of the chain of custody, possession and control is not required for the introduction of evidence, and that a clear preponderance in favor of its introduction is all that is required.” [46] That proof was established through testimony. Courts have relaxed the chain of custody requirements even to the point where in Williams v. United States [47] the court noted that “The custody of the heroin exhibit, while inexcusably lax and subject to court criticism on that ground, did not here result in such absence of control as to render the exhibit inadmissible as a matter of law.… Nor did the discrepancy in the description of the substance by two witnesses (‘white’ in one instance; ‘tan’ or ‘light tan’ in another) render it inadmissible.”

However we have a very different situation presented to us in Davis. [48] In this matter the chain of custody was established for a gun used in a homicide. A question arose concerning one link in the chain being an individual who was in the military who had had custody of the gun. If this matter involved a criminal bombing and the evidence in question was explosives residues on that gun, the explosives residue analyst could not make any definitive statement about the significance of the presence of explosives on the gun unless that analyst had analyzed control samples from the hands and environment of the individual in the military. The residue which one might have found on the gun could have been placed there by the link in the chain of custody of the gun, the military soldier, and may very well not have originated from the suspect in any way. Though the Ninth Circuit was willing to admit evidence in Williams v. United States even though two witnesses found it to appear to be different in color, tan versus white, it is highly unlikely that explosives residue evidence would be admitted without some very positive proof that it was relevant to the matter at hand and not simply contamination.

In the United States, law enforcement bomb technicians are very often the first personnel to arrive at a bombing crime scene before evidence collection crews come on site. Secondary bombs placed at past bombing crime scenes have detonated resulting in investigative personnel being killed at the scene of the original bombing. Therefore bomb technicians are required at any bombing scene to clear the scene of possible booby traps. Bomb technicians work regularly with raw explosives as part of their job. Invisible residues from explosives adhere to the bomb technicians’ clothing, their equipment, their hands, the boots they wear to bomb ranges, their vehicles and many other objects the bomb technicians touch. [49] Some of the residues degrade over time [50], [51], [52] but other explosives residues stick to surfaces for long periods of time. [53], [54], [55] Normal washing of clothing and hands can remove some residues but not others. [56] Few personnel wash surfaces on the inside of their official vehicles and if those vehicles are utilized by personnel handling explosives then one can expect that surfaces on those vehicles may have significant explosives contamination on them. If evidence samples are picked up and transported by such personnel without due care to avoid contamination, then the explosives expert will generally not be able to offer more than conjecture to the trier of fact as to where such explosives originated from without control swabs from the surfaces which the evidence came into contact with. One can easily imagine the shaking of hands by personnel who arrive at bombing crime scenes. Just that contact can spread contamination to non-bomb technician personnel.

The court is ultimately looking for an opinion from the expert witness which can be rendered within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. If the expert has no idea whether the explosives residues she is detecting came from the evidence collector or the crime scene then she cannot render an opinion to within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the residues originated from the energetic material in the bomb.

The chain of custody is never established and the requirements of relevance and reliability are not met. A solution to this contamination issue, of course, is to have only personnel specifically trained in explosives residue collection and analysis handle evidence that will be tested for residues. This is not always possible and can be cost-prohibitive. However, the court does not recognize this as an excuse. Indeed in Stanczyk v. Black & Decker, Inc. [57] the court specifically addresses this issue: “Plaintiff argues that the net effect of this scrutiny of his expert evidence is to put the claim beyond his financial ability to pursue… This is true, but it is the very nature of Rule 702 and Daubert that requires these expenditures. Proof of any kind is often expensive to gather. Scientific reliability and validity in our times is seldom cheap,…”

In processing massive crime scenes with many sites for evidence collection, the collector of evidence must also be sure that explosives residues from one site are not carried to another site and therefore the chain of custody again broken. For instance, a bombing conspiracy investigation may involve lawful searches of a number of different residences. At one residence the entrance crew, the first law enforcement officers who secure the scene, or the collector of evidence may come in contact with explosives residues that can not even be seen but which are present in what the chemist would consider large amounts. If those personnel pick up objects or even come into contact with objects which have residue on them and then go on to process another crime scene shortly thereafter without proper precautions being taken, there is a high likelihood that the explosives residue will be transferred to the new crime scene. For example, if nitroglycerine is spilled on a carpet in a homemade bomb making facility in one residence, the crime scene investigation crew can and will likely walk over the spill without recognizing its presence. The nitroglycerine residue can only be detected with sophisticated explosives detection equipment or with solvent extraction and analysis on standard analytical laboratory instruments. The nitroglycerine can saturate the soles of shoes without anyone the wiser. And the same crime scene crew can carry that nitroglycerine to numerous other sites.

Such contamination can lead to erroneous conclusions linking different sites to bomb-making activities where in fact the investigation crew itself has transported the explosives from site to site. Such contamination could support evidence of a conspiracy while in reality being manufactured unknowingly by the crime scene investigators themselves. In order for the court to determine if the scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable, the court must ask whether proper controls over evidence have been maintained in these situations. Those controls are doubly difficult due to the fact that most explosives residues are not visible and can be innocently carried from site to site by crime scene investigators. The controls require clean suits that are worn and discarded at each site, controlled access of evidence response team personnel to sites and a thorough identification of all investigative personnel and others who have entered the crime scene. These controls also require control swabs to be taken from individuals who collect evidence from which explosives residues are going to be extracted for analysis. Control swabs should especially be taken from personnel such as bomb technicians who work regularly with raw explosives and personnel who use firearms which contain nitroglycerine-based gun powder. These swabs are necessary to ensure that contamination is not introduced by evidence crews who work with raw explosives on a regular basis. These controls also require strict discipline and adherence to proper protocols.

The FBI has published guidelines for establishing “evidence response teams.” [58] Those guidelines require securing and protection of crime scenes and suggest the use of crime laboratory examiners at the crime scene. In the area of residue analysis, these guidelines are particularly important.

______________________

[1] Executive Director, Forensic Justice Project, Washington, D.C., B.S. Chemistry, 1974, East Carolina University, Ph.D. in Chemistry, 1980, Duke University, J.D., 1996, Georgetown University School of Law. (202)342‑6980.

[42] Fischer, supra note 26, at 10.

[43] Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Methods of Attacking Scientific Evidence, 264–275.

[44] Id. at 83 to 102. 22

[45] State v. Williams, 273 So.2d 280 (1973).

[46] Id. at 281.

[47] Williams v. United States, 381 F.2d 20 21 (1967).

[48] State v. Davis, 249 So.2d 193 196 (1971).

[49] FBI Laboratory explosives experts have found in the past that bomb technician personnel assisting them at crime scenes are often themselves contaminated with explosives residues and therefore could transfer that residue to the objects they come in contact with. For instance at the Super Bowl in Tampa, Florida in 1991, the author worked with a local explosives ordnance demolition (EOD) crew in a security detail. The author and Dr. Dean Fetterolf of the FBI’s Forensic Science Research and Training Center, found explosives residues on many of the objects that the EOD crew used and came into contact with. Those objects included the bomb disposal truck, police vehicles used by the EOD personnel, the hands and clothing of the EOD personnel, door handles the EOD personnel touched, trunks of vehicles the EOD personnel drove and even the EOD bomb dog.

[50] Biodegradation and environmental impact is discussed inYINON, supra note 14, at 33 to 42.

[51] Yinon, supra note 14, at 33 cites Isbister, J.D., Doyle, R.C., and Kitchens, J.F., Engineering and development support of general decontamination technology for the DARCOM installation restoration program, Task 6, Adapted/mutant biological treatment, Phase 1, Literature review, Rep. No. DRXTH-IS-CR-80132 (AD­A110389), Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va, 1980.

[52] P. Kolla & P. Hohenstatt, Stability of Explosives Traces onDifferent Supports, 60 Forensic Science International 127 (1993).

[53] Experimental data acquired by the author from analysis of denim cloth placed near exploding dynamite composed in part of ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN) explosive has determined that the EGDN is still present on the cloth after over three years. Dr. Alexander Beveridge noted, while he was lecturing at the FBI’s explosives analysis school at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. In 1995, that he was aware that nitroglycerine had not decomposed beyond detection over a ten-year period of time on cloth used in the same types of experiments conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[54] Dr. Frank J. Conrad of The Entry Control Systems Division 9252, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, in explaining the fact that explosives can be found on so many surfaces touched by bomb makers, describes the explosives as sticky. Indeed Dr. Dean Fetterolf of the FBI’s Forensic Science Research and Training Section at Quantico, Va. has advised the author that he has been able to follow test subjects about the FBI’s Academy at Quantico, Va. just by sampling explosives residues on door handles touched by those individuals.

[55] In a paper presented at the Second International Conference on On-Site Analysis: Field Portable Instrumentation, held in Houston, Texas in January 1994, Dr. Dean Fetterolf and coworkers noted that “To demonstrate the transfer of explosives from hands to surfaces a subject touched C-4(RDX). The subject enacted several normal stages in operating a car, including: opening and closing the hood, the driver side door, the trunk, and handling the steering wheel, gearshift, and keys.… After contact, all touched areas showed easily detectable RDX residue. In a separate experiment, after handling C-4, eight consecutive hand washings with soap and water were required before the IMS could no longer detect the RDX.” (The “IMS” is an ion mobility spectrometer which has been tested and utilized by the FBI in the past to screen for explosives residues.)

[56] Washington Post, supra note 2, at H7 notes, “Minute traces of explosives stuffed into a suitcase usually appear on the luggage’s outer surface, as well as on the trunk handle and steering wheel of a car loaded with explosives, researchers said. ‘It can get in the hair of the person’ who has handled a bomb, said David Fine, Thermedics vice president, ‘and take days of showering to get out.’”

[58] Federal Bureau Of Investigation, U.S. Department Of Justice, Suggested Guidelines For Establishing Evidence Response Teams, 1994.