CCL Solutions Group’s Post

The ASCLD Forensic Research Committee (FRC) is proud to announce a new submission to the Validation and Evaluation Repository. As you may already know, the purpose of this FRC initiative is to create a central repository of forensic validations and evaluations. ASCLD hopes that this repository will foster information sharing and promote collaboration with the forensic science community. The Kansas City Police Crime Laboratory has submitted a new validation report highlighting a Ultrasonic Cleaner Validation Study aimed at determining if the ultrasonic cleaner will cause damage to the marking surfaces of a firearm. For more information about this validation or other validations or evaluations within the repository please check out https://lnkd.in/eG7kpuS Please consider submitting information about your lab’s validations or evaluations to the repository. Information could include basic information such as validation/evaluation title, lab name, and point of contact information (which enables other forensic scientists to contact you with questions) or additional information such as a short validation or evaluation summary or even a full validation or evaluation report. By sharing this information, you are supporting other laboratories that wish to expand their forensic capabilities! #forensics #forensicscience #innovation #kansascity

The ASCLD Forensic Research Committee (FRC) is proud to announce a new submission to the Validation and Evaluation Repository. As you may already know, the purpose of this FRC initiative is to create a central repository of forensic validations and evaluations. ASCLD hopes that this repository will foster information sharing and promote collaboration with the forensic science community. Virginia Department of Forensic Science has submitted a new validation report entitled “A foundational study of #fire debris interpretation using quantitative measures of #chromatographic features in #gasoline and the use of graphical display to demonstrate data sufficiency”. The methodologies introduced are a step toward a documentation process that ensures greater transparency in fire debris examinations and comparisons. The methods generate a quantitative sufficiency graph for consistent data interpretation and documentation. For more information about this #validation or other validations or evaluations within the repository please check out https://lnkd.in/eG7kpuS Please consider submitting information about your lab’s validations or evaluations to the repository. Information could include basic information such as validation/evaluation title, lab name, and point of contact information (which enables other forensic scientists to contact you with questions) or additional information such as a short validation or evaluation summary or even a full validation or evaluation report. By sharing this information, you are supporting other laboratories that wish to expand their forensic capabilities! #forensics #forensicscience #astm #research

Free! Publicly accessible report! Please reach out with questions. We hope this report starts some crucial conversations!!

It has come to my attention that the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science Forensic Science Standards Board will vote on whether “OSAC 2022-S-0024, Best Practice Recommendations for Evaluative Forensic DNA Testimony” will be added to the registry today. This document allows for evaluation of findings given proposed activity to be performed ad-hoc on the witness stand and ‘notional’ non- numerical assignment of likelihood ratios. These two points diverge from the framework based on balance and transparency. This is a death knell for forensic DNA in the US, a system that has placed DNA on a high pedestal BECAUSE of its use of numerical weights and applied statistics. This a big step back toward subjective language which often overstates the value of results. It subverts our forensic DNA quality process and legal discovery laws. It cannot pass this vote and become accepted practice in the United States. I urge anyone with the power to vote against this document to do so today. #forensicdna #forensicscience

Read the latest issue of the Analytical Reporter! In this issue you will see our newly upgraded application laboratories, learn about our NIRS and Raman solutions for lab and process analysis, our solution for great sample preparation and more... Find it here: https://lnkd.in/devRQ7kS #AnalyticalScience #LaboratoryInnovation #SamplePreparation #PetrochemicalAnalysis #metrohm #laboratorysolutions

The Forensics TTA ‘Resources’ page features numerous publications relevant to our grantees’ work. One of them is a 2016 report from the Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council titled ‘Strengthening the Medicolegal-Death-Investigation System: Improving Data Systems.’ This report provides federal-level policy recommendations on best practices when working with data from medical examiner and coroner offices. Read the full report here: https://ow.ly/NQ0y50QzCq7

I have received feedback that my post on activity level testimony in court may have given the impression I feel we should not do this. We absolutely should testify at activity level if we have the knowledge. Duncan Taylor has allowed me to post his method for handling segues to activity level Taylor: This is certainly the current difficulty that most scientists face when sitting on the stand. The trick is to train the courts that they need to provide information about specific activities (or transfers) prior to the stand through the answers given.   If a specific question on transfer in a case is asked (e.g. could the DNA have transferred from the suspect to the true offender as a party and then ...etc) then I would suggest the following structure of answer: Studies have shown that transfer events can happen over a varied range of scenarios, however they also show that in many instances transfers don't occur. Simply stating that something is possible could lead to a misleading impression of the strength of my opinion. The factors relating to DNA transfer are numerous and can act in complex ways with regards to when DNA will be transferred, and in what quantity. I can't provide an opinion on specific scenarios that you put forward as I haven't had an opportunity to consider the factors and read through the forensic research literature. I can provide a general response to your question... DNA can transfer from item to item or person to item when they come into contact with each other. Each contact is different in the length, vigour, pressure, movement, properties of the item contacting, or properties of the person contacting the item and each of these factors will affect how much and how often DNA is transferred. In addition, there are a number of factors that determine whether DNA will persist on an item. In general, the more transfers that occur the less there will be of the original DNA source to detect, and the longer the time between DNA being deposited and sampled, the more of the originally deposited DNA will be lost.   Victoria has a good policy on this sort of testimony. Their non-activity trained scientists can testify to general comments on transfer but if they get into specific questions then they refuse to go any further and say that the questions would need to be answered by the activity team. Having that team certainly makes the above response an easier pill to swallow for the courts.

#BPASurvey A call from The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences is asking for participants to complete an online digital survey around the current methodologies for classifying bloodstains. The survey is part of a larger PhD project by researcher Emma Hook at Staffordshire University . The purpose of the survey is to gather data on the current methodologies used by Bloodstain Pattern Analysts to classify bloodstains, why these methods are used, and what it is practitioners want from a bloodstain pattern classification method. https://lnkd.in/eyU2fWfn

Do they have the right tools? Have they testified before? There are so many questions to ask when choosing a lead investigator. Learn more: https://lnkd.in/gP6Pk7dV #Investigations #TheModernGC

The ASCLD Forensic Research Committee (FRC) is proud to announce a new submission to the Validation and Evaluation Repository. As you may already know, the purpose of this FRC initiative is to create a central repository of forensic validations and evaluations. ASCLD hopes that this repository will foster information sharing and promote collaboration with the forensic science community. The Idaho State Police recently submitted a validation executive summary report highlighting their internal validation utilizing the Foster & Freeman RECOVER LFT application for latent print development on metal items such as cartridge casings. For more information about this validation or other validations or evaluations within the repository please check out https://lnkd.in/eG7kpuS Please consider submitting information about your lab’s validations or evaluations to the repository. Information could include basic information such as validation/evaluation title, lab name, and point of contact information (which enables other forensic scientists to contact you with questions) or additional information such as a short validation or evaluation summary or even a full validation or evaluation report. By sharing this information, you are supporting other laboratories that wish to expand their forensic capabilities!