Week 78 Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge

On December 25, 2011, in www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week, by Justin J. McShane

Our good friend, Ron Moore, Esquire writes us “I actu­ally had a client research­ing lawyers who looked at the Truth About Foren­sic Sci­ence geek of the week posts and liked my answers. It made a dif­fer­ence in who he decided to hire. Thanks!” So, there is a lot of value in www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Foren­sic Sci­ence Geek of the Week Chal­lenge. Try it out today.

Foren­sic Sci­ence Geek of the Week

Forensic Science Geek of the Week
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:

Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge

Foren­sic Sci­ence Geek of the Week Challenge

1. What is pic­tured above?

2. What is it used for?

3. How does it work?

4. Are there any known issues with respect to its foren­sic suit­abil­ity? If so, what?

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 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

 
About the author

Justin J. McShane

Harrisburg DUI attorney Justin J. McShane is the President/CEO of The McShane Firm, LLC - Pennsylvania's top criminal law and DUI law firm. He is the highest rated DUI attorney in PA as rated by Avvo.com. Justin McShane is a double Board certified attorney. He is the first and so far the only Pennsylvania attorney to achieve American Bar Association recognized board certification in DUI defense from the National College for DUI Defense, Inc. He is also a Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency. Justin McShane is the first and so far the only Pennsylvania attorney to achieve American Bar Association recognized board certification in DUI defense from the National College for DUI Defense, Inc.

Visit Authors Website

Share |

1 Response » to “Week 78 Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge”

  1. Anthony Graviano says:
    January 23, 2012 at 1:50 am

    1. The image is of an Duquenois-Levine reagent pouch which is part of an ODV Nar­coPouch nar­cotics field test­ing kit.
    2. It is used by inves­ti­ga­tors to test an unknown sub­stance for the pres­ence of Mar­i­juana.
    3. The test is per­formed by first plac­ing approx­i­mately 10-20mg of the tar­get sub­stance into the ampoule that comes with the test­ing kit. The Duquenois-Levine reagent pouch is then added to the ampoule. The mix­ture is shaken to allow for a proper mix­ture and if the mix­ture turns pur­ple it is an indi­ca­tion that the unknown sub­stance is Mar­i­juana.
    4. This test has a num­ber of known issues. There is room for error in the tester’s per­cep­tion of the color. Fac­tors such as improper light­ing or the back­ground in which the test is viewed upon could impact the tester’s per­cep­tion and they might think the test turned pur­ple when it is, in-fact not. Start­ing in the 1960’s and 70’s, there were var­i­ous stud­ies that indi­cated the Duquenois-Levine reagent test is not spe­cific to Mar­i­juana. In 1969, a UK gov­ern­ment sci­en­tist named M.J. de Faubert Maun­der dis­cov­ered that 25 dif­fer­ent organic sub­stances pro­duced a sim­i­lar color as Mar­i­juana in the Duquenois-Levine reagent test, warn­ing that it should never be used as the only con­clu­sive evi­dence. Another study which was pub­lished in 1975 in The Jour­nal of Crim­i­nal Defense stated “The micro­scopic and chem­i­cal screen­ing tests presently used in mar­i­juana analy­sis are not spe­cific even in com­bi­na­tion for ‘mar­i­juana’ defined in any way.” In con­clu­sion, the Nar­coPouch field test­ing kit is not foren­si­cally suit­able to be used by itself as con­clu­sive evi­dence that an unknown sub­stance is Marijuana.

Leave a Reply



Go To Top »