Forensic Report

pirelli

You are a public defender and your wondering if your client is guilty of a serious burgarly as he has no alibi and was in the area and looks suspicously like the suspect from the witness statement. The witness stated they show someone of the same height and build and similar clothes to the suspect running from the house. You have to decide whether he should plead guilty and possibly avoid jail. Your anxiously awaiting the crime lab results. They arrive and you read the following.


Suspect was an art student who worked in glass jewellery.

Suspect was found by police within a square mile of a possible very serious Burgarly only twenty minutes after a window was heard breaking.

The suspect was Arrested and eventually he is questioned and cops decide to confiscate his clothes as he is the only suspect they have.

After the cops are satisfied the clothes contain evidence from the crime scene...They send the clothes as evidence in a open brown bag to Dallas crime lab. The cops also send a sample of the control glass from the broken window.

A Doctor Quinn at the crime lab who has years of experience before the courts and an expert in the field of glass aand fibres takes the clothes for analysis.

He gently brushes down the clothes and particles of glass fall onto the lab table. He collects about 15 peices of glass from the jumper and 13 from the trousers and 7 from the socks and shoes and prepares them for testing.

He tests the control glass from the point of entry.

Dr Quinn then details the following in his report:

I tested 36 fragments of glass from the suspects clothing and discovered that 1 fragment from the jumper and one fragment from the socks match from the point of entry with respect to their refractive index.

The two fragments were further examined and found to be non toughned glass as is the control glass.

The fragment from the sock also matched the control glass with respect to chemcial composition. Most of the the maining glass likely originate from different sources.

Conclusion: The findings strongly support contact with the point of entry.

While there might be other circumstanial evidence in an entire case.. lets look at this evidence. Can we determine if this is good or bad for the suspect as public defender.

johnnyskeleton

All it tells us is that there was glass on his jumper and sock, a small part of which might be similiar to the glass in the jewelers, but the predominance of which is not similar to the glass in the jewelers.

Without knowing the specifics of the testing of glass (but from a quick wikipedia it is cannot identify glass specimens with any real accuracy, if it can even identify glass at all) there could be all sorts of problems with the manner in which the test was done.

However, that most of the glass wasn't a match and none of the shards on the trousers were a match, suggests that it is more probable that the glass came from another source.

The fact that he works with glass jewelery gives him a very plausible alternative explanation for having glass shards on his jumper.

By the way, your example is not realistic for Ireland at all.

EDIT: And now you've completely edited your original post. Why not just tell us about how this test has some fatal flaw in it which you haven't referred to and then we can all tell you how right you are? Is it something to do with the contamination of the sample in the open brown bag?

johnnyskeleton

Here's a 2 minute google search on refractive index testing:

Glass Fragment Evidence

Glass fragments from a crime or accident scene sometimes stick to weapons, tools, automobiles or clothing, notes Saferstein. Forensic glass examiners compare the density of glass fragments--typically, one sample from a suspect and one from the scene of the accident or crime. If the densities fail to match, police may have enough information to exclude fragments as coming from the crime scene source, states Saferstein.



However, identical densities do not indicate a match, since many types and samples of glass may share the same density, notes Saferstein. Therefore, forensic glass examiners also analyze the refractive index of both samples. Refractive index measures the ratio of the velocity of light as it passes through a medium versus through a vacuum, according to Saferstein. A match in refractive index may mean that two glass samples came from the same source, although no glass expert can proclaim that with 100 percent certainty.

Read more: Forensics Glass Analysis | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6724889_forensics-glass-analysis.html#ixzz1CBgDum3z

Even an overworked public defender can use google.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All it tells us is that there was glass on his jumper and sock, a small part of which might be similiar to the glass in the jewelers, but the predominance of which is not similar to the glass in the jewelers.

Without knowing the specifics of the testing of glass (but from a quick wikipedia it is cannot identify glass specimens with any real accuracy, if it can even identify glass at all) there could be all sorts of problems with the manner in which the test was done.

However, that most of the glass wasn't a match and none of the shards on the trousers were a match, suggests that it is more probable that the glass came from another source.

The fact that he works with glass jewelery gives him a very plausible alternative explanation for having glass shards on his jumper.

By the way, your example is not realistic for Ireland at all.

EDIT: And now you've completely edited your original post. Why not just tell us about how this test has some fatal flaw in it which you haven't referred to and then we can all tell you how right you are? Is it something to do with the contamination of the sample in the open brown bag?

I haven't edited ...anything, I corrected a spelling and its time stamped.

Well I would have assumed he might have used a two phase contrast microscope to group some of the glass by refractive index. Then again he might have and might not have.

The findings strongly support contact with the control glass?
Is this correct.

Why is this not realistic to ireland. This is what they do in the Garda HQ every day.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Here's a 2 minute google search on refractive index testing:



Read more: Forensics Glass Analysis | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6724889_forensics-glass-analysis.html#ixzz1CBgDum3z

Even an overworked public defender can use google.

As can the suspect...

That is precisely where it all goes wrong ... the more you investigate the more you become convinced of their guilt. That link would convince anyone that he is guilty.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

I haven't edited ...anything, I corrected a spelling and its time stamped.

You put in the first paragraph as an edit, you changed the contents of his report which had no reference to non toughened glass and some other changes too.

pirelli wrote: »

Well I would have assumed he might have used a two phase contrast microscope to group some of the glass by refractive index. Then again he might have and might not have.

Hey, this is your story. If there is some information that you haven't given to us, how can we possibly know what the point you are making is?

pirelli wrote: »

The findings strongly support contact with the control glass?
Is this correct.

No. All they can say is that a few of the shards are consistent. The vast majority of the shards are inconsistent. As glass shards on clothes would be a relative rarity, and he is an art student who works with glass, clearly the findings suggest that the glass on his clothes most probably comes from his artwork.

pirelli wrote: »

Why is this not realistic to ireland. This is what they do in the Garda HQ every day.

Extremely rare that they would perform such tests, and where they do perform tests they are confined to stating the probability of a match. E.g. tested two samples and there was a 99.9999999999999999999999% match. They don't simply state that the findings strongly support contact, as you had originally posted.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

As can the suspect...

That is precisely where it all goes wrong ... the more you investigate the more you become convinced of their guilt. That link would convince anyone that he is guilty.

No it wouldn't. It says, quite clearly, that these tests cannot be certain. Criminal trials are not a matter of probabilities, but of certainties.

Taken at its height, all it shows is that the glass is of the same kind. It could be that the factory that makes the windows for the jewelers will sell their miscasts to the art schools or it could be that it came from an entirely different robbery of a jewelers across town.

Look, forget it. Everyone thinks that guy is guilty. Now tell us how we are wrong.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

The findings strongly support contact with the control glass?
Is this correct.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No. All they can say is that a few of the shards are consistent. The vast majority of the shards are inconsistent. As glass shards on clothes would be a relative rarity, and he is an art student who works with glass, clearly the findings suggest that the glass on his clothes most probably comes from his artwork.

They are not a rarity .. In fact it is quite common to find glass on clothes. Have you read your own google. your not convincing any Jury he is innocent your just arguing with me. The report is from an Irish case. It is real. Do your job.

Significance
•Glass is such a common material that it shows up on shoe soles and clothing for almost anyone, notes Kiely. With so much glass picked up from casual contact, courts and investigators need some way to determine which fragments actually have relevance in cases. This makes forensic glass analysis essential to the criminal justice system


Read more: Forensics Glass Analysis | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6724889_forensics-glass-analysis.html#ixzz1CBs9R4Qk

Bosco boy

Was there cross contamination of the sample before it was sent away by the police i.e the same police officer dealing with both samples, scene and suspect." which would be incorrect procedure and a basic no no. I can't imagine then sending a sample in an open bag either. Anyway if the case is an Irish one as you say please explain why you initially say the samples are being sent to a Dallas lab?

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It says, quite clearly, that these tests cannot be certain. Criminal trials are not a matter of probabilities, but of certainties.

Taken at its height, all it shows is that the glass is of the same kind. It could be that the factory that makes the windows for the jewelers will sell their miscasts to the art schools or it could be that it came from an entirely different robbery of a jewelers across town.

Look, forget it. Everyone thinks that guy is guilty. Now tell us how we are wrong.

The article does not say that the test are uncertain quite the opposite. It state's that the densities are different across the same control glass. They go on to say that is why they use refractive index. ... at least read your own article. If your struggling to even understand this then you should take time on it.

You can distinguish between glass made in the same factory, and in case of burgarly some years ago it's in no way going to be the same refractive index and chemical compositon. In modern times the refractive index of glass has been fine tuned as the tolerances of the machinary in Manufacturing facilties are improving to such a high degree. However that does not mean chemical composition will be the same in each batch. They can differentiate between chemcial composition however nothing in analysis comes with out a probability. There are no certainties but we still consider them highly reliable. However to truly undertsand The forensics of glass you must read the founding principles in the journals.

pirelli

Bosco boy wrote: »

. Anyway if the case is an Irish one as you say please explain why you initially say the samples are being sent to a Dallas lab?

I am just keeping simple. It's just as easy to say Dallas lab as to say the FSL in Dublin. It keeps it impersonal. there is only one Doctor that would likely to have handled such a case in Dublin.

Bosco boy wrote: »

Was there cross contamination of the sample before it was sent away by the police i.e the same police officer dealing with both samples, scene and suspect." which would be incorrect procedure and a basic no no. I can't imagine then sending a sample in an open bag either. ?

Cross contamination of the control glass and the glass is not relevant in this.
That's work for another day. It was an open bag with everything thrown in on top of everything.

IMO We can deduce the suspect is likely not to broken the window from the results alone.

Bosco boy

I think your confusing everthing rather than making it simple, there are loads of points for a defence even if the glass evidence was being pursued by the prosecution. No fingerprints at scene, no positive identification, no admission, no property found on him, no CCTV and any decent solicitor should able to cast doubt on the glass evidence especially if the bag was open.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

The article does not say that the test are uncertain quite the opposite. It state's that the densities are different across the same control glass. They go on to say that is why they use refractive index. ...

Look, there are two alternatives:

1) the conclusions are open to being challenged, in which case I have set out the points as to why the conclusions are wrong.

2) the conclusions are not open to challenge (which is what you are suggesting) then we are wasting our time.

pirelli wrote: »

at least read your own article. If your struggling to even understand this then you should take time on it.

I did. It says that the results cannot be certain. Whatever about the minutae of forensic sampling of glass (facinating as that may be), in court all that needs to be done is get that admission from the scientist - that it is not certain. Nothing further. In fact, by delving further into it you are only weakinging the doubt raised by one very simple fact - the forensics are not conclusive. Then, when you explain to the jury that there were only 2 matches out of 37 or whatever, and that the accused is an art student so would most likely have lots of fragments of glass from all sorts of sources in his. That's a very strong point for the jury to acquit on, much stronger than reading out of some dusty journal (which is inadmissible anyway because you would have to get an expert to read out of the said journal).

Your point seems to be that there is some highly technical point about testing glass that could prove the conclusions wrong. This is something for expert evidence. But to be honest, I'm not going to bother reading through everything that was ever written about glass analytics for a boards thread.

Reloc8

The only way to approach a case of the nature described by Pirelli is to sell your client down the river and make sure that his protestations of innocence are hushed up. Otherwise you'd probably have to spend ages working on the case and listening to him whinge.

If you can secure a few quid from the prosecuting authorities involved by way of a bribe so much the better.

The last thing you would want to be doing would be to engage an independent expert so as to examine the report provided by the prosecutor and advise on frailties within, whether arising from the qualifications of the person authoring it, the nature of analysis carried out, the treatment of samples or the conclusions drawn.

Oh sorry that's the first thing you would do.

Before getting the hush money/bribe that is.

p.s.

pirelli wrote: »

You have to decide whether he should plead guilty and possibly avoid jail.

You're absolutely wrong. I do not make those decisions. The client does. This to some extent gives an insight into your perception of what a lawyer client relationship in fact involves.

To advance matters, there is no way a client could make such a decision in the absence of expert advice of the type described above, nor could the evidence proposed to be called by the state be challenged in court without that you had such an expert commissioned and ready to testify (which by the way is covered by legal aid in cases such as this, in case anyone thinks its only available to millionaires).

There seems to be some belief in the way this situation is being presented in the OP that a lawyer can march into court with academic journals and start challenging evidence based on his own reading/knowledge. That's not how it works. Equally, faced with forensic evidence of a highly technical nature, the responsible lawyer will equip him or herself with some relatively basic knowledge concerning the type of evidence in question and then advise the client that an independent expert can be commissioned, should the client wish to challenge the evidence in question).

Tom Young

CSI Lucan

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Look, there are two alternatives:

1) the conclusions are open to being challenged, in which case I have set out the points as to why the conclusions are wrong.

2) the conclusions are not open to challenge (which is what you are suggesting) then we are wasting our time.



I did. It says that the results cannot be certain. Whatever about the minutae of forensic sampling of glass (facinating as that may be), in court all that needs to be done is get that admission from the scientist - that it is not certain. Nothing further. In fact, by delving further into it you are only weakinging the doubt raised by one very simple fact - the forensics are not conclusive. Then, when you explain to the jury that there were only 2 matches out of 37 or whatever, and that the accused is an art student so would most likely have lots of fragments of glass from all sorts of sources in his. That's a very strong point for the jury to acquit on, much stronger than reading out of some dusty journal (which is inadmissible anyway because you would have to get an expert to read out of the said journal).

Your point seems to be that there is some highly technical point about testing glass that could prove the conclusions wrong. This is something for expert evidence. But to be honest, I'm not going to bother reading through everything that was ever written about glass analytics for a boards thread.

No! there is one conclusion and that is you do not understand whether or not you can challenge the data. Yes! you can challenge the data and in fact prove the Doctor is being dishonest and misrepresenting facts. There are two words you must understand quantative and qualitive. Paint evidence is for the most part qualitive while Glass is quantative. imo To prove a Doctor misrepresented quantative facts would destroy any qualitive evidence they wished to tender.

I would think that forensics should be included in law studies for solicitors and barristers that intend to practice criminal law. It should involve cases that have challenged forensic findings. The courts do like to have to deal with expert testimoney and particuarly any challenges to existing status quo. They the judges and by that extension the Jury think it is ultimately their decision to maek that decision.... but If a prominent scientist has been dishonest then regardless of whether it means thousands of cases going before their court or universal unrest they must accept it and pardon the wrongly accused.

DPP V Anothony O'Reilly 2010

Lord Cooper, made a statement as to the correct approach to experts’ testimony which this Court will adopt:-

“Expert witnesses, however skilled or eminent, can give no more than evidence. They cannot usurp the functions of the jury or Judge sitting as a jury, any more than a technical assessor can substitute his advice for the judgment of the Court – S.S. Bogota v. S.S. Alconda [1923] S.C. 526. Their duty is to furnish the Judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested, becomes a factor (and often an important factor) for consideration along with the whole other evidence in the case, but the decision is for the Judge or jury.”



Dr NIAMH NIC DAÉID Among other things a consultant in statistical evaluation of evidence

Occurrence of glass on clothing and choosing sample sizes has indicated that it is not uncommon to recover glass fragments from clothing of individuals both associated and not associated with criminal activity. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to recover multiple fragments and to recover fragments from multiple sources. This suggests it may be necessary to select a representative subgroup of recovered glass fragments for analytical measurement. Because of this, it may be helpful to have a method for determining the probability of recovering glass fragments which match those of a control glass within the total number of recovered fragments given the analytical results of a subgroup of the total. One type of mathematical expression which may help to accomplish this task is the hypergeometric distribution [4] and its use in determining matching probabilities in respect of glass evidence is illustrated below


Example

Thirteen glass fragments were recovered from the clothing of an individual accused of breaking a specific window. Five fragments were chosen at random and subjected to refractive index (RI) measurement. Of these, three were found to have RI values which indicated that they could have come from the control window

What is the probability that these three fragments represent 50 per cent of the matching fragments within the recovered fragments?

N13
M6
n5
m3

giving p0.3264 (32.64 per cent).

So should Doctor Quinn at the very least have used a statistcial method to better present the evidence. If so what would that result be. ?

Let me give you some more facts :


So what would we expect to find in burgarly where the suspect broke a small window with several strikes.

Pounds and Smalldon conducted an experiment, previously discussed in connection with backward scattering of glass, in which they counted the number of fragments of glass trapped in the clothing and hair of test subjects.

It is generally accepted that when you a break window that 20% of that window backscatters onto the person who is breaking the window.

Of course how soon you can get the clothes form your suspect is very important. After 8 hours, the glass remaining consisted of small (0.2–0.5mm) fragments, whereas about 30 minutes after breaking, many particles larger than 0.5mm were observed.


A Bayesian statistical approach to the retention and persistence of glass fragments in clothing.

The authors enunciate the factors that influence the final number of observed fragments of glass:

•The degree of fragmentation.
•The type and thickness of the glass.
•How many times the window was struck.
•The position of the person relative to the window that was struck.
•The size of the window.
•The type of clothing worn by the person breaking the window.
•The activities of the person between the time of the commission and the time of apprehension.
•The time between apprehension and confiscation of the clothing.
•The efficiency of the laboratory searching process.
•Whether or not the person gained entry to the premises.
•The mode of clothing confiscation, i.e. was force required or not.
•The weather at the time of the incident
Wet clothes retain glass fragments more favorably than dry clothes.

In fact there have been many studies in this field and we can wonder why a suspect has no glass on their clothes after breaking a window of such a size and is accused of gaining entry through such window in circumstances set out above. Of course a professional burglar would never be trusted but an innocent art student who has no previous record and who has glass from his work on his clothes is very interesting as he can not be eluding detection due to presence of his work glass.


However what has any of this got to do with the Doctor msirepresenting facts in his findings. Where is the fraud?


The Key to understanding this is:

Andrasko J., Maehly A. (1978). The discrimination between samples of window glass by combining physical and chemical techniques. Journal of Forensic Science22:250–26

The public defender discovered the Doctor Quinn at the crime lab used a scanning electron micrscope and not a two phase contrast microscope so refractive index in this situation might mean something else.

The scanning electron microscope as the tool and not a mass spectrometer or a two phase contrats microscope. So now we can apply that tools accuarcy into the findings of Andrasko J., Maehly A and we should discover that the threashold for chemical compund is so so much higher than that for refractive index that should the chemical compound of the glass fragment found in the jumper not match the control glass it certainly is not a match by virtue of the refractive index. Hence how signifigant is the match for chemcial compound. Does anybody know where I am going with this ?

If we uncover the fraud we can also can then show to a scientific standard that the arts student is very unlikely to have broken the window and the Doctors asertation that the suspect broke the window at the point of entry is a very strongly misleading. To prove that legally is possible as there are trasncripts from judges in the appeal cases that have dealt with the ambigious work such as this.

Of course in the old days you would bever be able to find this information. there was no internet and no experts. You took the word of the scientist.

The law libraries in Black hall and the law society have books on forensics but are very basic and it would be very hard to find anything that explains Analysis of glass. Also public libraries have nothing really. So why has a doctor so much more information and where did they get it. Do the universities have books and could the doctor claim that actually there were no prescribed methods back then and this seemed an appropaite formula for the time. However in some respects while that might be true... there remains a possible fraud on the part of the Doctor although times have changed.

Grolschevik

pirelli wrote: »

Do the universities have books

Yes. Yes they do. Glad I could clear up one point at least...

pirelli

Bosco boy wrote: »

I think your confusing everthing rather than making it simple, there are loads of points for a defence even if the glass evidence was being pursued by the prosecution. No fingerprints at scene, no positive identification, no admission, no property found on him, no CCTV and any decent solicitor should able to cast doubt on the glass evidence especially if the bag was open.

Consider it an appeal based on newly discovered evidence. Can we dervie newly discovered evidence from these lab results alone. Are they misrepresentated. Then all other factors you mention have a signifigance and we can then bring those into play but first you have to prove that.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Without knowing the specifics of the testing of glass (but from a quick wikipedia it is cannot identify glass specimens with any real accuracy, if it can even identify glass at all) there could be all sorts of problems with the manner in which the test was done.

The specifics of the Test carried out by Dr Quinn at the crime lab are:

Dr Quinn noted the glass fragments were non toughend glass.

In order to distinguish the 36 glass fragments.

Dr Quinn used a scanning electron Microscope quipped with xray -Japan ElectronicOptic Laboratory JSM-35 scanning electron microscope equipped with a PGT-1000 X-ray analyzer.

Dr Quinn tested the 36 fragment for refractive index on the SEC ( scanning electron microscope )
Dr Quinn found 2 fragments ( fragment 1 from the sock and fragment 2 from the jumper ) had similar refractive index to the control glass.
Dr Quinn tested fragment 1 from the sock for chemical compound on the scanning electron microscope (xray analyzer) and found it had a similar chemical compund to the control glass
Dr Quinn then either tested fragment 2 from the jumper for chemical compound and decided the result was unfavorable to the prosecutions case and did not record it in his report or Dr Quinn did not carry out analysis of the chemical compound on fragment 2 in order to exclude it despite it being proper procedure and a short analysis.


When question Dr quinn said:
Dr Quinn has implied that there was no further testing on the fragments.
Dr Quinn said in the test he used a scanning electron and never said that he used a Two phase microscope - mettler hot stage / becke line.
Dr Quinn never said he used a Emission spectograph or any other tool to distinguish the glass fragments.
Dr Quinn never said he conducted another test such as fracture or density etc


Dr Quinn Concluded that he had found that 2 fragments of glass Matched the control glass for refractive index and one fragment for chemical compound and that both fragments were non toughend glass as was the control glass. As the control glass was the point of entry Dr Quinn further concluded notwithstanding any other evidence that it very strongly suggested contact with the point of entry.

pirelli

The public defender discovered the Doctor Quinn at the crime lab used a scanning electron micrscope and not a two phase contrast microscope so refractive index in this situation might mean something else.

The scanning electron microscope as the tool and not a mass spectrometer or a two phase contrats microscope. So now we can apply that tools accuarcy into the findings of Andrasko J., Maehly A and we should discover that the threashold for chemical compund is so so much higher than that for refractive index that should the chemical compound of the glass fragment found in the jumper not match the control glass it certainly is not a match by virtue of the refractive index. Hence how signifigant is the match for chemcial compound. Does anybody know where I am going with this ?

Here is the report from Andrasko and Mahely ..it is the best insight you will get into a crime lab. It is the basis for all criminal testing and if some scientist takes the piss it this journal that will send them to prison. Dr Quinn took the piss and should go to prison. His work has probably going to have huge backlash in the justice department when it is exposed.

I suggest reading it to understand the workings in a crime lab. They even tested a real crime case and the resulst are in table 7.

http://docs.docstoc.com/orig/950628/009ff8c1-dff9-421b-9c81-1d4cbcf2d4b0.pdf

J. Andrasko, ~ Ph.D. and A. C. Maehly, ~ Ph.D.
The Discrimination Between Samples of Window
Glass by Combining Physical and ChemicalTechniques

In forensic science laboratories it is frequently necessary to compare properties of glass fragments. The forensic scientist is asked to determine if a glass fragment came from a certain automobile headlight, from a certain window, and so forth. The comparison of glass fragments by means of several physical methods is a routine operation in forensic science applications.

Physical Methods

The physical methods for glass investigation show generally high reproducibility and precision, are convenient and rapid, and do not require expensive instrumentation. Discrimination between large fragments of glass can sometimes be achieved by comparing color and by measuring the thickness of glass samples if they have smooth and undamaged surfaces. Certain glass specimens also fluoresce and can thus be distinguished from other specimens.

For many years, determinations of density and refractive index have been the generally accepted and widely used methods for discriminating between samples of glass. These methods are applicable to small sample sizes and exhibit high accuracy of measurement. Both absolute measurements and comparative measurements between pairs of samples are carded out. Recent improvements in density determination have been published by Dabbs
and Pearson [2] and others. Refractive index methods have been refined in later years by Ojena and De Forest [3] and others. Many authors recommend measurements at various wavelengths (dispersion).

One inherent weakness of these determinations is the well-known fact that density and refractive index are mutually dependent properties. The higher the density, the greater (in general) the refractive index. Plots of these parameters have been assembled and discussed by Dabbs and Pearson [1] and Cobb [4]. A second weakness is the narrow range of the values of these properties for the same type of glass. Thus, modern window glass (manufactured since 1945) has a refractive index in the range of 1.515 to 1.518 [1] and a density in the range of 2.43 to 2.52 [3].

Furthermore, because of the inhomogeneity of glass, the variation of refractive index and density within one sample is often greater than the error in the measurements. To increase the evidential value of discrimination between glass samples further means of comparison are desirable. In recent years the application of chemical analysis to the discrimination of glass specimens has been shown to be promising.

Chemical Analysis

The basic elemental composition of glass samples can vary considerably and should be examined in forensic science laboratories. The presence of trace elements arising from the raw materials and the manufacturing processes may further characterize glass specimens. Various analytical techniques have been suggested for the analysis of glass by trace element determination. Glass analyses have been done with spark source mass spectrometry
[5-7], neutron activation analysis [8-10], X-ray fluorescence [11], atomic absorption spectroscopy [12, 13], emission spectrography [14], and energy dispersive X-ray analysis in a scanning electron microscope [15]. With these methods different samples of glass may be distinguished from each other even though they possess the same physical properties.

Complete analysis of the major and minor elements in glass presents a challenging problem. In this work an attempt was made to discriminate between samples of window glass by combining two methods of chemical analysis. The main effort was centered on comparative analyses using energy dispersive X-ray analysis in a scanning electron microscope. When this analysis failed to distinguish between the samples the glass fragments were
analyzed for trace elements with emission spectrography.


Density and Refractive Index Determinations
Absolute values of densities for glass samples can be determined by using Archimedes' principle . Comparison of glasses sent to our laboratory is, however, usually carried out by varying the density of a liquid as a function of temperature. Refractive index was measured with a Mettler hot-stage and the Becke line technique. Clove oil and MS 710 silicon oil were used as immersion liquids. The refractive index of the immersion liquids was calibrated as a function of temperature with standard glass samples. Usually, three readings were taken on each specimen of glass. The apparatus was equipped with a monochromator, enabling the measurement of dispersion of refractive
index. Our experiences as well as the data reported in the literature indicate, however, that the studies of dispersion of refractive index generally do not distinguish between glass samples with the same refractive index.

Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis

Energy dispersive X-ray analysis of glass samples was carried out in a Japan ElectronicOptic Laboratory JSM-35 scanning electron microscope equipped with a PGT-1000 X-ray analyzer.

Emission spectrography

For measuring the trace element content of the glass samples
emission spectrography was carded out on an Ritzl, Seitner & Vdth 3.5-m emission spectrograph (with a resolutionof 75 600). Generally, only specimens that could not be distinguished by energy dispersive X-ray analysis were analyzed.



Results

Material
Group A consisted of samples from two panes (about 60 by 80 cm) of window glass.One of the panes was manufactured about 15 years ago, and the second pane was new.(The panes came from two different factories.)
Group B comprised 29 samples of window glass collected in one Swedish town (about100 000 inhabitants) over a period of several weeks. Glass from broken windows in both new and older houses were represented in this collection. the glass fragments varied from 2 to 20 cm and the thicknesses between about 1.8 and 3.7 ram.

Group C comprised ten samples of show window glass with thicknesses of around 6 mm and similar densities as well as refractive indexes. They were selected from a larger collection acquired from casework in our laboratory in 1952 and 1953.


Group D consisted of three glass samples from an actual case, indistinguishable with respect to refractive index and density. One of the samples was a comparison window glass, and the other two were glass fragments collected from suspects.



Because of the variation in the physical parameters within the same sample, many of the specimens could not be distinguished on the basis of their physical properties alone. On the other hand, the elemental ratios obtained by energy dispersive X-ray analysis showed large variations between the samples. The ratios were mean values of three separate measurements.

Nearly all of the samples could be distinguished by this method. In this
discrimination, a greater uncertainty in the high values of elemental ratios was considered when the concentration of one of the elements was near the detection limit of the method.Figure 3 illustrates clear differences in chemical composition of two of the samples with identical refractive index. A short analysis of such samples would be quite sufficient to notice the differences

Quote: Figure 3 illustrates clear differences in chemical composition of two of the samples with identical refractive index.

A short analysis of such samples would be quite sufficient to notice the differences.

So there is the the Criminal Act. We know that Doctor Quinn Knew that the so called matching refractive index required a short analysis and it is without doubt that he did such a short analysis due to the severity of the crime.

However he wished to strengthen the evidence against the suspect and decided this was an acceptable deciet.

Energy dispersive X-ray analysis did not distinguish between the glass Specimens 5 and 6; 12, 15, and 17; and 32 and 34.

Glass Samples 12, 15, and 17 had, however, quite different refractive indexes.

Finally, emission spectrography showed that Samples 12, 15, and 17 were different from each other, as were Samples 32 and 34.

Only Samples 5 and 6 were indistinguishable by all the methods employed in this study.

So the Precison of the Scannning electron - energy dispersive x ray while highly accurate yet failed to differeniate between 6 peices of glass. We know Dr Quinn did not use emission spectrography. So his evidence that the fragment from the sock is a match for chemical compound is worthless. It was a far greater probability that he would find a match from so many fragments than that he wouildn't. Dr Quinn should have actually done his job and as required by criminal law of evidence and measured the final fragment in the emission spectrography to determine more closely if it was match but even then as we know from the conclsuion of Andrasko and A. C. Maehly results it would have just proved the same statistical conclusion that has been tested before that if you measure 40 random fragments of glass 2 will be impossible to differeniate.

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

Table 7 shows the results of an actual case. Eight glass samples were sent to our laboratory for investigation. Three of the samples were indistinguishable with respect to refractive index and density. By using energy dispersive X-ray analysis, all these samples were found to be clearly different from each other.

So we know for certain that Dr Quinn was aware of the correct procedure since as far back as 1977. His data that the suspect broke the window is absolutely false and in fact shows more than likely the suspect was a perfect test for someone who did not break the window.

Conclusions

The comparison of glass fragments may be performed by four methods in our laboratory.The measurement of refractive index and density of samples is a routine operation. In this study, two semiquantitative methods for chemical analysis of glass have been added. By combining these methods, 38 of 40 window glass specimens could be distinguished from each other.

All the methods, with the exception of emission spectrography, are nondestructive and can be used for a single glass fragment. The whole procedure for the examination of actual cases in our laboratory is as follows.
The physical properties of samples are examined first. Density, refractive index and, when possible, the thickness of glass fragments are measured. A rapid discrimination between samples with sufficiently different refractive index may be done on the Mettler hot stage equipped with a monochromator. At constant temperature, the Becke line will disappear at different wavelengths for such samples. When the physical methods do not discriminate between the glass samples, they are analyzed by energy dispersive X-ray analysis. This method is nondestructive, applicable to
extremely small fragments (submilligram samples), and rapid in comparison with, for example, emission spectrography. A complete analysis (that is, sample preparation, analysis, and calculation of elemental ratios) of two glass samples requires approximately 1 h.

We also know Dr Quinn did not use a two phase contrast microscope / monochromator but the much faster Scanning electron microscope. However the scanning electron is no where near as accurate for refractive index as a the mettler hot stage. So Dr Quinn knew the refractive index was extremely unreliable as a match and as he had already cut corners would have to have applied a short analyis for chemical compound. Which it obviously did not match for.

Two or more analyses performed on each sample increase the analysis time a little, but the precision is improved. A short analysis time and small sample size (such as samples obtained by vacuuming) are the greatest advantages of this method. Emission spectrography is a more laborious method. It is used if energy dispersive X-ray analysis finds samples indistinguishable. Because of its longer analysis time, this method is employed as a last resort for discriminating between the samples. The analysis is destructive and requires at least 1 mg of glass for each measurement.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Extremely rare that they would perform such tests, and where they do perform tests they are confined to stating the probability of a match.

I hope you learn foresnics more closely if you wish to practice criminal law. While your standard of is very high and your very much on the right track ... you really need to be able to understand forensics. With the rigth information you could easily learn forensics of glass from within the crime lab within an evening class..it shoudl not be a lesson about how powerful and brillaint scientists are but the real facts and limitations of forensics.


Each module should be learned otherwise no Irish law person should touch a criminal case. It's no excuse to say your not bothered to learn the essentials in a few evening classes and would instead hire one of these fictional experts for tens of thousands from across the globe and pay for their accomodation and flights.

Who would you hire to take on such a figure. It's not a battle betweeen experts it's exisiting laws of physics and is no mystery. The fault lies in the legal professon who seem to think they do not have to learn these facts about the businesss they work in and judges require dozens of experts with costs tens of thousands at thr expense of some poor person. That's a country that wont last long.


Judges will want to sit down and be thought every facet of criminal forensics. Scientists that lie or delibertly mislead shoudl face appropiate prosecution.

Reloc8

You're kidding yourself.

Lawyers can't give evidence in their cases.

Its a matter of court procedure and the law of evidence.

You can pick it up in a few evening classes.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

You're kidding yourself.

Lawyers can't give evidence in their cases.

Its a matter of court procedure and the law of evidence.

You can pick it up in a few evening classes.

Your beginning to sound like a broken record... always pandering to some legal ethic which in my opinion has been long since eroded. It's all about hard facts and your just dressed up wigs who only justfiy themselves by cynicism.

Take off the mask and wig and look the facts and be honest and admit that few of you have a clue. If you don't have a clue, then you will have to take your expert witness at their word; and that is a very risky and reckless thing to do.

I have encountered many so called expert witnesses, and they are just doing this job as a nixer, from their usual work, and they are biased; and have never trained as forensic professionals. So many doctors... work out of office, as so called expert witnesses who have absolutely no forensic training...I could list hundreds that have testified as experts relying on their PHD to make extra cash.

You need to be able to instruct your expert witness, and evaluate them, as they are merely a vehicle to present your case, and not vice versa. The expert witness are not the Judge and jury, and it is the court that is the Judge and jury, and if you give these so called experts free rein; then it's chaos.

There are many so called expert witnesses that are using basic academic qualifications that do have the front line know how to tackle real forensic problems. If you hired a expert witness and gave them that report they could only agree with the findings unless they knew the goings on in the crime lab.

You fellas need to understand the crime lab and how it works, and be able to work you expert witness, and not vice versa. So please don't trot out how it's not your job. If your useless then the expert witness is useless. They need to be instructed on the strategy, and they will not just realise these hidden or concealed techniques, and will take the report at face value...otherwise your wasting everybodies time.

Not one of you seems able to comment on the forensic report; which was almost word for word from the real report. Telling me that they should have probabilities and that they would not use words as very strong or strong while helpful does not change the fact that is how the most senior scientist at the crime lab has written it.

Incidently they use the terminology 'very strong and 'strong' etc and i agree it's a controversial issue within forensic reporting as it is very subjective to different crime labs and scientists as to whether eveidence is 'strong' or 'very strong'.

The Director of the FLS here in ireland commented about that issue in the contribution to Brian Caddy's book Forensic Examination of Glass and Paint. At the very least you should have read that book, and make an effort to understand how some evidence is subjective and qualitative while other evidence is quantatitive. It wouldn't surprise me to hear a barrister arguing color and texture with a scientist over evidence that is quantative. You need to have strategy when dealing with quantative evidence otherwise it wins and you lose.

The evidence in this forensic report is quantative and is damning and not fit to argue in court. You need to investigate this before a court case and eliminate it completely or you will lose.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

No! there is one conclusion and that is you do not understand whether or not you can challenge the data.

I do understand it - yes you can challenge the data. All prosecution evidence can be challenged. Just because I would challenge it in a different, more forensic manner than you (who would challenge it from a scientific point of view), doesn't mean that I don't know that you can challenge it.

pirelli wrote: »

Yes! you can challenge the data and in fact prove the Doctor is being dishonest and misrepresenting facts. There are two words you must understand quantative and qualitive. Paint evidence is for the most part qualitive while Glass is quantative. imo To prove a Doctor misrepresented quantative facts would destroy any qualitive evidence they wished to tender.

That doesn't make any sense.

pirelli wrote: »

Thirteen glass fragments were recovered from the clothing of an individual accused of breaking a specific window. Five fragments were chosen at random and subjected to refractive index (RI) measurement. Of these, three were found to have RI values which indicated that they could have come from the control window

This is exactly why I said your previous example was unrealistic. You posited a scenario where the scientist concluded that the test strongly supported the conclusion that there was contact. In the above, the scientist does no more than conclude that they "could" have come from the window.

pirelli wrote: »

What is the probability that these three fragments represent 50 per cent of the matching fragments within the recovered fragments?

N13
M6
n5
m3

giving p0.3264 (32.64 per cent).

So should Doctor Quinn at the very least have used a statistcial method to better present the evidence. If so what would that result be. ?

That is just a more complex way of saying what I already said i.e. if only 2 out of 37 were matches then it is more probable that the glass came from somewhere else.

pirelli wrote: »

The law libraries in Black hall and the law society have books on forensics but are very basic and it would be very hard to find anything that explains Analysis of glass.

How do you know? Given that "Blackhall" is usually a reference to the law society's building on Blackhall place, you are presumably referring to the same institution twice. But that is just a legal educational facility, it isn't supposed to have books on anything and everything.

pirelli wrote: »

I hope you learn foresnics more closely if you wish to practice criminal law. While your standard of is very high and your very much on the right track ... you really need to be able to understand forensics.

Good on bloodstains, shaky on the law of landlord and tennant.

pirelli wrote: »

With the rigth information you could easily learn forensics of glass from within the crime lab within an evening class..it shoudl not be a lesson about how powerful and brillaint scientists are but the real facts and limitations of forensics.

Is it not fair to say that in the unlikely event of a glass sample coming up in a criminal trial, a lawyer can then look it up themselves if they wish, rather than learning it and hoping for it to come up when it probably never will.

pirelli wrote: »

Each module should be learned otherwise no Irish law person should touch a criminal case.

But where do you stop? Should every lawyer know everything about everything? If they have to learn about glass sampling, first they should learn about DNA testing, blood samples, spatter patters, scar tissue patters, drug testing and pathology which are much more likely to come up. But each one of those things is a vast area, and I'm not sure it would be possible to know all of that information and know all the information needed to be a lawyer. Hence, experts deal with their field of expertise.

pirelli wrote: »

It's no excuse to say your not bothered to learn the essentials in a few evening classes and would instead hire one of these fictional experts for tens of thousands from across the globe and pay for their accomodation and flights.

First of all, it's ridiculous to say that someone is not bothered to learn these, just as it is ridiculous to say they are essentials. The essentials are the laws, procedures, rules of evidence and advocacy skills required to conduct a criminal trial. Knowledge of forensic science is handy, but hardly essential.

Second, wouldn't it be better to learn about such things when the cases arises, rather than learning all about it in the hope that somehow it comes to pass?

Third, they are not fictional experts and you don't have to pay tens of thousands for them - Keith Borer and Associates will do it on legal aid and are only coming over from England. They do have an expert on glass, but I wonder do the FSL have such an expert? http://www.keithborer.co.uk/services/view/glass-fragments-and-materials-transfer

pirelli wrote: »

Who would you hire to take on such a figure. It's not a battle betweeen experts it's exisiting laws of physics and is no mystery. The fault lies in the legal professon who seem to think they do not have to learn these facts about the businesss they work in and judges require dozens of experts with costs tens of thousands at thr expense of some poor person. That's a country that wont last long.

As I've already explained, you don't even need an expert to create a doubt. You simply ask the expert to clarify that of the 39 fragments, only 2 were a match. Then you let the jury decide if there is a doubt. That is nothing but common sense. But if you want to get an expert.

But it is not a fault of the legal profession. Quite simply, no one can know everything. It's like saying that a GP should be able to diagnose rare conditions without having to refer to a consultant. But since consultants are experts in their own unique fields and cannot be expert in more than one or two areas, asking a GP to know all specialisations is madness. But the GP has to be able to diagnose, using good analysis and common sense, which is the appropriate consultant. That's what a legal team should do when dealing with a forensic science issue. In Ireland, such experts are available on legal aid and that system seems to work fine.

pirelli wrote: »

Judges will want to sit down and be thought every facet of criminal forensics. Scientists that lie or delibertly mislead shoudl face appropiate prosecution.

I would say the opposite. Judges, and juries, don't want to be lectured on every single piece of information in relation to forensic science. In fact, I would wager that a jury would respond better to my simple analysis based on common sense than they would on your argument that cites lots of studies. My version is readily comprehensible to them, yours would only lead to confusion and such confusion may prompt them to simply follow the prosecution witness' evidence blindly.

And, as Reloc8 says, a lawyer can't just stand up and read off a load of academic articles and expect it to be accepted as evidence.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

The Director of the FLS here in ireland commented about that issue in the contribution to Brian Caddy's book Forensic Examination of Glass and Paint.

I'll tell you what - any criminal lawyer who gets a case where glass fragmentation evidence is an important part of the case will have this at the top of their reading list, just as any criminal lawyer who gets a case involving complex financial fraud will read books about complex financial fraud, or if the case is about sick puppies will read a book about sick puppies. But they shouldn't read that book on the off chance (can you name a single real world case where glass evidence was used in Ireland, by the way?) that such a case would come up.

pirelli wrote: »

The evidence in this forensic report is quantative and is damning and not fit to argue in court. You need to investigate this before a court case and eliminate it completely or you will lose.

I'm not sure that you really understand how a criminal court case works, so I fail to see how you can state quite positively that unless you completely eliminate a forensic report by responding with massive tomes of academic articles you will lose a case.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is exactly why I said your previous example was unrealistic. You posited a scenario where the scientist concluded that the test strongly supported the conclusion that there was contact. In the above, the scientist does no more than conclude that they "could" have come from the window.

Perhaps; but that is what the scientist wrote letter for letter in their report except they used the word very strong. So it is a real case so how is it not realistic ? ( note my next post which might clear this issue )

Dr Niamh is a consultant statician so she would use probabilites ... i will get back to this later in the next two posts that might explain how times have changed.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'll tell you what - any criminal lawyer who gets a case where glass fragmentation evidence is an important part of the case will have this at the top of their reading list, just as any criminal lawyer who gets a case involving complex financial fraud will read books about complex financial fraud, or if the case is about sick puppies will read a book about sick puppies. But they shouldn't read that book on the off chance (can you name a single real world case where glass evidence was used in Ireland, by the way?) that such a case would come up.

They can read this all they want and it is a very useful addition. As a contribution The FSL director almost apologizes for previous work which they now consider below standard.* ( see above post ) However it will not answer the hard questions you need answered in the short time you have to prepare your case.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As I've already explained, you don't even need an expert to create a doubt. You simply ask the expert to clarify that of the 39 fragments, only 2 were a match. Then you let the jury decide if there is a doubt. That is nothing but common sense. But if you want to get an expert.

But it is not a fault of the legal profession. Quite simply, no one can know everything.

It is the fault of the legal profession.

If you have read anything i had posted you would have already discovered that were not 2 matches out of 36 fragments. The match for refractive index for the fragment on the jumper was not a match. That is the fraud. It was not a match as has been explained. It's a complete deceit to say that is a match.

Seems it has you fooled and yet i gave you years of hard to work to a how it was not a match and you still don't get it. The work i quoted is very seective to this problem and yet you still don't get it.

Also the fragment for the sock is not a match, as we know from Andrasko and mahely. In fact Andrasko and Mahely give us a working example of just such a scenario in their labatory ( in table 7) where they have 3 fragments with identical refractive index from a suspect they want to match to a broken window. They exclude the fragments (and presumably the suspect ) by using sec - xray analysis. It is a short analysis to do this and not time consuming.

This is a well established practice and there is no excuse for deceiving you and I by saying something is a match when in established practice it is not a match. The law is quite clear on this and you must proceed to exclude it it would be criminal to say it is a match. I can quote an irish judge explaining this in an irish criminal appeal case (I have to find that as it the so relevant of this problem ). So this is a serious matter for the scientist.

Also the fragment from the sock is also not a match and required further testing. If it was too small for testing on the emission spectrography it could have been tested on the mettler/ two phase contrast for a more accurate refractive index as could have the jumper fragment.

Not to mention desity and fracture and many other tests that could have been useful in distinguishing the fragments further.

The reason which you seem to be unable to grasp is that Andrasko and Mahely have set a standard where you cannot claim a match without further testing unless you group the glass. The doctor has tried to decive by including the fragment from the jumper as a match to pass of the findings a group. It is not a group it is just one fragment that can never be called a match using the tools normally available in a crime lab but it could be excluded and of course this was not done. The jumper fragment could have been excluded by a short analysis and likely was but yet we are to believe it is a match by virtue of refractive index reading from a SEC.

Basic probablilities for chemical compound

SEC and refractive index combined - 1/6 - 1/7
Emission spectography and SEC combined and refractive index 1/39

Probabilities for refractive index on the SEC are very low. Where you fail to identify a group you must at the very least combine refractive index with chemical compound to even approach having any meaning.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That is just a more complex way of saying what I already said i.e. if only 2 out of 37 were matches then it is more probable that the glass came from somewhere else.

Your injuring your client by arguing that the glass probably came from somewhere else. You should be arguing A Bayesian statistical approach to the retention and persistence of glass fragments in clothing. You should be using curran or even better Pounds and smalldon, and hicks; to show the probability that the suspect could not have broken the window.

Your client has not any fragments on his clothing matching the control glass and you are perpetuating the lie that he has 2 matching fragments. That is why I get fustrated.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Third, they are not fictional experts and you don't have to pay tens of thousands for them - Keith Borer and Associates will do it on legal aid and are only coming over from England. They do have an expert on glass, but I wonder do the FSL have such an expert? http://www.keithborer.co.uk/services/view/glass-fragments-and-materials-transfer

There you go. An expert from the UK. Your telling me to be realistic!

As for the FSL having an expert in paint and glass. The director wrote the book on paint and glass. I am surprised you don't know these things.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How do you know? Given that "Blackhall" is usually a reference to the law society's building on Blackhall place, you are presumably referring to the same institution twice. But that is just a legal educational facility, it isn't supposed to have books on anything and everything.

Because I checked and read all the books they had. They are mainly from the 1930's hardback basics. Only a couple were from 1980's and i am not sure there were any form the 1990's. As that was ten years ago they might have a few new books and might have Brians caddys 2003 book.

The internet has changed everything.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not sure that you really understand how a criminal court case works, so I fail to see how you can state quite positively that unless you completely eliminate a forensic report by responding with massive tomes of academic articles you will lose a case.

I understand that you don't understand and perpetuate lies rather than prove them. Some one is lying and it is not me and it is not incompetence or a mistake.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

You're kidding yourself.

Lawyers can't give evidence in their cases.

Its a matter of court procedure and the law of evidence.

You can pick it up in a few evening classes.

Would you stand up in court and tell the defence they are kidding themselves. Is that your case.


The lawyer has to understand these things long before court. You seem to think only about your day in court. Your come across as pompous because all you think about is parading around in your wig feeling indispensable in front of an audience. How essential you are.


Who said anything about giving evidence. Someone has to get this work done before trial. Wigs like you are useless pansies that think they contribute but secretly rather their client is guilty so they can pander to their vanities prattle off their nonsense and go through the motions and get rewarded for it.

What you don't realise is; that there are people..Men Women and children that are innocent and deserve better than to be represented by vultures like yourselves.

You have no opinion on the forensics. You would fail your client that is certain. You are not going to hire a expert from the Uk with 5000 euro and get paid from that. You might steal his money and you might fail to prepare a proper defence. That is all we have learned so far.

You would then just shrug it off and go and make someone elses life miserable. Why don't you clowns go to another country and practice law then you wont to have allegedly hire experts from abroad out of the tax payers pocket.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

Perhaps; but that is what the scientist wrote letter for letter in their report except they used the word very strong. So it is a real case so how is it not realistic ? ( note my next post which might clear this issue )

Link? If they did it was a very shoddy report, and it is curious that your later posts had the much more realistic wording that the glass "could" have come from the window.

pirelli wrote: »

They can read this all they want and it is a very useful addition. As a contribution The FSL director almost apologizes for previous work which they now consider below standard.* ( see above post ) However it will not answer the hard questions you need answered in the short time you have to prepare your case.

Do you have a link to this apology? Was it in Ireland? I still don't know what case you are referring to, yet you refer to it as though we all knew it or should know it.

As regards short time to prepare a case, it usually takes several months for a case to come on for trial. Where the case involves such an esoteric forensic report, it could take even longer based on adjournments.

pirelli wrote: »

It is the fault of the legal profession.

If you have read anything i had posted you would have already discovered that were not 2 matches out of 36 fragments. The match for refractive index for the fragment on the jumper was not a match. That is the fraud. It was not a match as has been explained. It's a complete deceit to say that is a match.

Maybe. But you never gave us the information that we could use to uncover the problems with the microscope. Such would probably be discovered by the expert witness who is retained to observe a recreation of the tests. But in any event, there is enough to create a doubt.

pirelli wrote: »

Seems it has you fooled and yet i gave you years of hard to work to a how it was not a match and you still don't get it. The work i quoted is very seective to this problem and yet you still don't get it.

If you did do so, you did it in such a convoluted manner that I didn't pick up on it. Perhaps that is because I am a fool, or perhaps you presented it so badly that I missed the point. Which do you think a jury would more easily understand?

pirelli wrote: »

I can quote an irish judge explaining this in an irish criminal appeal case (I have to find that as it the so relevant of this problem ). So this is a serious matter for the scientist.

Please do.

pirelli wrote: »

Your injuring your client by arguing that the glass probably came from somewhere else. You should be arguing A Bayesian statistical approach to the retention and persistence of glass fragments in clothing. You should be using curran or even better Pounds and smalldon, and hicks; to show the probability that the suspect could not have broken the window.

You see that's where I think you're wrong. Making the point as simply as possible is best in a criminal trial. Going off on a mad tangent about academic articles is dangerous and could lead the jury to an incorrect conclusion. You also don't understand the burden of proof. You don't need to show the probability that the suspect could not have broken the window, you just have to raise a doubt.

pirelli wrote: »

Your client has not any fragments on his clothing matching the control glass and you are perpetuating the lie that he has 2 matching fragments. That is why I get fustrated.

In fairness, you didn't give us enough information in your original post for us to possibly have discovered that. As it relates to the failure in testing methods the answers given by myself and other posters would be correct - that it is an appropriate matter for an expert defence forensic scientist to visit the lab and see a recreation of the test.

pirelli wrote: »

There you go. An expert from the UK. Your telling me to be realistic!

Yeah, not an expert in Ireland.

pirelli wrote: »

I understand that you don't understand and perpetuate lies rather than prove them. Some one is lying and it is not me and it is not incompetence or a mistake.

Before you continue calling me a perpetuator of lies, you presented a fictitous scenario based, you claim, on a real case which you don't name or link or provide evidence of, then you deliberately mislead by excluding from your scenario the relevant details in relation to the test, then you obfuscate your solution in reams of uninteligible comments then you claim that anyone who can cast doubt on the test is a liar unless they know the hidden information that you have retained.

Suffice it to say that you haven't convinced me that lawyers should learn everything there is to know about forensic testing of glass instead of obtaining the services of an expert witness.

pirelli

I am socialising at the moment so i will be brief but i will tackle your responses later. The report is letter for letter as the Doctor wrote it. It is directly from the the case file.

The reason I did not give you the additonal information about the TEST was because that information was not in the case file. I had to undercover that information myself. I gave you what the case file had and that was the report.

I knew i was being stubborn but thats real life and no there are no experts maybe there is one in the UK in this day and age, but come one please.

Who questions a Doctor from state lab?
Obviously lawyers don't (reloc8 has made that clear) and don't say an expert because they didn't exist. The legal system perpetuates the lies of the corrupt. You guys seem very loyal to that system.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Link?

.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/3.html

In his judgment (at page 130) Hardiman J. characterised the issue in the case:
“It will be seen that the issue raised by the applicant is a net one. Does the fact that the video tape is unavailable because the Gardai parted with possession of it require in the circumstances that the further prosecution of the applicant be restrained? In addressing this issue it is important to recall that the video allegedly shows the crime in progress and allows the identification of the perpetrator. No other identification evidence was apparently available and no person was asked to see if he or she could identify the applicant even though it appears from the papers that there was at least one eye witness to the robbery.”

The learned judge went on to say at page 132:
“This video tape was real evidence and the Gardai were not entitled to dispose of it before the trial. It is now admitted that they should not have done so. Lest, however, the sentence already quoted from the State’s Solicitor’s letter…can be read to suggest that because the prosecution was based wholly on an alleged confession, other items of evidence can be destroyed or rendered unavailable, I wish to state emphatically that this is not so. It is the duty of the Gardai, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt of innocence. This is so whether the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence or not, and regardless of whether it assists the case the prosecution is advancing or not.”

In the later case of Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] 2 I.R. 305 it was stated by Hardiman J. (at pages 323 to 325):
“The emphasis, which is quite explicit in both Braddish v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] 3 I.R. 127 and in this judgment, on the need for the obligation to seek out, and indeed to preserve, evidence to be reasonably interpreted requires, I hope, that no remote, theoretical or fanciful possibility will lead to the prohibition of a trial.....The exercise of [this] jurisdiction must be careful and realistic. There is also responsibility on a defendant’s advisers, with their special knowledge and information, to request material thought by them to be relevant.”

In that case also McGuinness J. stated (at page 309 of the Report):-
“Where a court would be asked to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence, it would have to be shown that any such evidence would be clearly relevant, that there was at least a strong probability that the evidence was available, and that it would in reality have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that its absence created a real risk of an unfair trial.”

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But where do you stop? Should every lawyer know everything about everything? If they have to learn about glass sampling, first they should learn about DNA testing, blood samples, spatter patters, scar tissue patters, drug testing and pathology which are much more likely to come up. But each one of those things is a vast area, and I'm not sure it would be possible to know all of that information and know all the information needed to be a lawyer. Hence, experts deal with their field of expertise.

It is not where you should stop it is where you should start. Ye are making this more complicated than it is.

We have one crime lab in ireland. There are maybe 12 tools in that crime lab.
Where you start is you learn the accuracy of each of those tools. I.E
How many pieces of glass can I distinguish between using an SEC/EDX
based on refractive index and chemical composition from a group of 40 random fragments: All but 5 fragments.


It should take maybe an hour to do that. Then you learn the procedure for each type of test. You learn the process used exclude say two fragments of glass or paint.

This should take a weekend course helped im sure by a reference booklet. The only thing esoteric about the system is the legal profession who are isolate themselves not vice versa.

There is no excuse for not having this as part of your trainings as a criminal solicitor or barrister.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Link? If they did it was a very shoddy report, and it is curious that your later posts had the much more realistic wording that the glass "could" have come from the window.

The report was the report. Shoddy is doing it justice.
Please quote the (post number) or ( post itself) where I have re worded the report. I think your mistaken about that.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
Do you have a link to this apology? Was it in Ireland? I still don't know what case you are referring to, yet you refer to it as though we all knew it or should know it.
.

Forensic Examination of Glass and Paint Analysis and Interpretation
12.The interpretation of paint evidence
SHEILA WILLIS, JOHN MCCULLOUGH and SEÁN MCDERMOTT

The scientist has traditionally stated that the fragments under consideration match, or are indistinguishable, or some such phrase.The scientist has come up with a set of analytical results but now has to put them in context, in other words to interpret them. The eventual function of the expert witness is to assist the court in an area of expertise not available to the layman, so interpretation of laboratory findings is just as much part of the scientist’s work as the analytical and comparative work leading to the production of the laboratory report. As forensic science has evolved, so has the level of interpretation included in scientists’ reports.


In the past, interpretation of paint evidence has largely been based on intuitive feelings, on experience and on the application of common sense: the so-called ‘classical’ approach. In more recent times the wider acceptance in the forensic community of Bayes’ theorem and the statistical background which underpins it has led to a growth in interest in applying Forensic Examination of Glass and Paint this approach to a variety of materials, including blood and glass.

Implicit in the Bayesian approach is the need to consider alternative scenarios, not just the one put forward by the prosecution side.

Its application in the area of forensic science demonstrates the even-handed approach required by the scientist, whose aim should be to find the truth, not to support one side over the other.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
As regards short time to prepare a case, it usually takes several months for a case to come on for trial. Where the case involves such an esoteric forensic report, it could take even longer based on adjournments.
.

In the real world the date just arrives and you go to court.

Esoteric: Well, I gave you the same information they provided. Esoteric is such a fine word it would wasted on the that forensic report. That report was meant to intimidate and 'imo' was coercive and untruthful and should not be considered esoteric and more a deceit or fraud.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
Maybe. But you never gave us the information that we could use to uncover the problems with the microscope. Such would probably be discovered by the expert witness who is retained to observe a recreation of the tests. But in any event, there is enough to create a doubt.
.

That was not available in the origional report. Also You also never asked and you would not really have understood enough to ask. I am not being condecending but you wouldn't have requisite knowledge to ask the right questions or the resources to find the answers. You need training.

To be honest Bosco boy really hit the nail on the head. His instinct were spot on. But it was not relevant to this exercise.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
If you did do so, you did it in such a convoluted manner that I didn't pick up on it. Perhaps that is because I am a fool, or perhaps you presented it so badly that I missed the point. Which do you think a jury would more easily understand?
.

No, I gave you the words from the report as they were in the file. I merely allowed the same confusion to envelope you as it would the origional reader.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
Please do.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/3.html

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
You see that's where I think you're wrong. Making the point as simply as possible is best in a criminal trial. Going off on a mad tangent about academic articles is dangerous and could lead the jury to an incorrect conclusion. You also don't understand the burden of proof. You don't need to show the probability that the suspect could not have broken the window, you just have to raise a doubt.

.

I very stongly disagree. Your thoughts are in the courtroom again.
I would do this work before courtroom and would not risk arguing their fraud in a trial. That is unfair. I would go to the newspapers and cry scandal. I would have the trial prohibited on the grounds there was a failure to seek out evidence.



r

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.

In fairness, you didn't give us enough information in your original post for us to possibly have discovered that. As it relates to the failure in testing methods the answers given by myself and other posters would be correct - that it is an appropriate matter for an expert defence forensic scientist to visit the lab and see a recreation of the test.

.

That would never ever happen. Has an expert ever gone to the Crime lab and witnessed a test being recreated. I doubt it. Unless you mean to recreate itin the courtroom which would be beyond the jurys ability to understand. We do not want to cast doubt we want to have the evidence exposed as not just flawed but untruthful.

Essentially What the doctor did was a failure to preserve evidence that would have excluded the glass fragment and prove the defendants innocence. It's actually as much legal as technical and the expert is really just a voice box.

Mcguinness J has laid out what must be shown in order to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence.imo
It would a fair in circumstances like this. I would try present many more reasons to show a msicarriage of justice but i would try do alot more than just sow doubt in the minds of the jury. I would try have the trial prohibited.

Hardiman J.
It is the duty of the Gardai, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt of innocence. This is so whether the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence or not, and regardless of whether it assists the case the prosecution is advancing or not.”

McGuinness J. stated ):-
“Where a court would be asked to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence, it would have to be shown that any such evidence would be clearly relevant, that there was at least a strong probability that the evidence was available, and that it would in reality have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that its absence created a real risk of an unfair trial.”

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.
Yeah, not an expert in Ireland.
.

Yeah! Sure it is only the tax payers money.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.

Before you continue calling me a perpetuator of lies, you presented a fictitous scenario based, you claim, on a real case which you don't name or link or provide evidence of, then you deliberately mislead by excluding from your scenario the relevant details in relation to the test, then you obfuscate your solution in reams of uninteligible comments then you claim that anyone who can cast doubt on the test is a liar unless they know the hidden information that you have retained.

Suffice it to say that you haven't convinced me that lawyers should learn everything there is to know about forensic testing of glass instead of obtaining the services of an expert witness.
.

I did not mislead you, those details were not in the origional report. Yoo do no understand them and that is the only reason you were obfuscated. You don't have the training to understand. You should not be struggling over a forensics of glass...it's not a hard case.

Obviously i haven't convinced you to go the only crime lab in Dublin ireland 'The Forensic science Labatory' and learn the function and accuracy of the 12 or so tools that are there.

I have been there and learned for myself !

All barrister and solicitors practising crime shoudl have A weekends course in forensics at the law society and a quick study of the Dublin Forensic science Labatory analytical tools and a reference book to their accuracy in measurement of the few materials that crop in crime.

i.e paint,glass,blood,gun powder and narcotics.

How that is not part of your training is ...because you perpetuate it.

Your guilty ....but you know not what you do.




About time you learned IMO

[/QUOTE]

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/3.html

Reloc8

pirelli wrote: »

All barrister and solicitors practising crime shoudl have A weekends course in forensics at the law society and a quick study of the Dublin Forensic science Labatory analytical tools and a reference book to their accuracy in measurement of the few materials that crop in crime.

Actually they should have considerably more books than that on this area, or access to same and ensure they are fully au fait with forensic methodology as it applies to their area of practice.

Reloc8

I suppose pirelli, the only difficulty I have with what you are saying as a matter of general principle in that regard is that you seem to suppose/presume that they don't, that is to say, all of them, without exception.

pirelli

Reloc8 wrote: »

I suppose pirelli, the only difficulty I have with what you are saying as a matter of general principle in that regard is that you seem to suppose/presume that they don't, that is to say, all of them, without exception.

In regard to the legal profession?
Do you mean that i presume no legal professional understands forensics.

I would say the majority do not understand enough. That is all i need to show is that the majority do not.

It's not fair if some one has to search for a needle in a hay stack to find that one legal professional that undertsands forensics. What other lawyer can guage their expertise or knowledge so as to recommend them specifically. Likewise whether an expert is required or not and which expert and what to instruct them. Apart from that expert in the Uk they do not really exist as experts.

There is no standard set and it would be sheer luck to find such a lawyer.

Tom Young

Hello - I have been requested to close this thread as it has been suggested that it has run its useful course. Personally, I found it almost impossible to follow at times particularly after the teenage posts.

If someone can remark as to its usefulness and why it should be kept alive, then speak now or forever hold your peace!

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

Hello - I have been requested to close this thread as it has been suggested that it has run its useful course. Personally, I found it almost impossible to follow at times particularly after the teenage posts.

If someone can remark as to its usefulness and why it should be kept alive, then speak now or forever hold your peace!

Please leave it open. I would like to hear opinions on Hardiman j. and McGuiness j. to discuss the grounds for prohibiting a trial for failure to seek out evidence having a bearing as to the innocence or guilt of the defendent.

Also who says I am right. Maybe the fragments did match. I would like to hear views to the contrary. As johnny skeleton said it would take time to workout such a report so I think the posters involved deserve some time to formulate their opinion.

Do you wish me to remove some names?
(please feel free to edit)

Hardiman J.
It is the duty of the Gardai, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt of innocence. This is so whether the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence or not, and regardless of whether it assists the case the prosecution is advancing or not.”

McGuinness J. stated ):-
“Where a court would be asked to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence, it would have to be shown that any such evidence would be clearly relevant, that there was at least a strong probability that the evidence was available, and that it would in reality have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that its absence created a real risk of an unfair trial.”

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

This should take a weekend course helped im sure by a reference booklet. The only thing esoteric about the system is the legal profession who are isolate themselves not vice versa.

There is no excuse for not having this as part of your trainings as a criminal solicitor or barrister.

If it only takes a weekend to learn this, why then do people spend all that time becoming forensic scientists?

On the apology, I don't see that what you wrote amounts to an apology. Link please.

pirelli wrote: »

Also You also never asked and you would not really have understood enough to ask. I am not being condecending but you wouldn't have requisite knowledge to ask the right questions or the resources to find the answers. You need training.

Being given the document in real life might lead to asking questions and looking behind it. A thread on boards that was set out to highlight a common misconception does not warrant asking further questions i.e. if you are going to post something to see if people spot the flaw, you have to post the flaw. Otherwise it is silly.

For example, if I post on the Motors forum that my car doesn't start and the lights don't work and ask people if it is the battery, and people say that it could be the battery, it is silly of me to say "wrong, the problem with my car is that the engine has fallen out, you are perpetuating a lie by suggesting that the battery is gone." Do you not see the difference between boards and reality?

pirelli wrote: »

To be honest Bosco boy really hit the nail on the head. His instinct were spot on. But it was not relevant to this exercise.

Strange that he was right, I was wrong, but we both said pretty much the exact same things i.e. contamination of sample, other evidence, reasonable doubt.

[QUOTE=pirelli;70397600http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECCA/2005/3.html [/quote]

What does Cristo, a case fundamentally concerned with inter racial identification, have to do with broken glass fragmentation sampling?

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If it only takes a weekend to learn this, why then do people spend all that time becoming forensic scientists?
On the apology, I don't see that what you wrote amounts to an apology. Link please.

On the apology..maybe that's an exaggeration on my part but they do say this. They say the aim is to find the truth, so if there is a suggestion the Garda mishandled the evidence then they should demonstrate that. That's what they promise in their book. So yes i hope thats what happens.

"Its application in the area of forensic science demonstrates the even-handed approach required by the scientist, whose aim should be to find the truth, not to support one side over the other".

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Being given the document in real life might lead to asking questions and looking behind it. A thread on boards that was set out to highlight a common misconception does not warrant asking further questions i.e. if you are going to post something to see if people spot the flaw, you have to post the flaw. Otherwise it is silly.

For example, if I post on the Motors forum that my car doesn't start and the lights don't work and ask people if it is the battery, and people say that it could be the battery, it is silly of me to say "wrong, the problem with my car is that the engine has fallen out, you are perpetuating a lie by suggesting that the battery is gone." Do you not see the difference between boards and reality?

I think that is a very poor metaphor. A professional on the motor forum would quickly discover there was no engine in the car. Would they not.

You might never discover that.

For example you might ask why the car wouldn't start and if there was any petrol in it.

The professional would ask if it was diesel or petrol or hybird car and not just ask if their was any petrol in it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Strange that he was right, I was wrong, but we both said pretty much the exact same things i.e. contamination of sample, other evidence, reasonable doubt.

To the exercise you handled the propblem and presented and very good argument that is correct but i am looking for a working standard where i can elevate matters and for example seek to have the trial prohibited on the grounds of a failure to seek evidence. You do not seem to know the way to those types of legal challenges because you have a too basic grasp of forensics which is more hamful than good. No expert required.

However if i am being critical of your qualifications then you are right and there was not enough information in the forensic report to work with. It took me many years to figure it all out and i am qualified engineer and you only browsed through it on the internet in a very brief amount of time.


Bosco boy just went in a direction I hadn't looked at.
He was literally thinking outside his box. He never tackled the actual exercise though.

However johnnyskeleton and Bosco boy the fact remains that you are unable to even discuss it with me. I am saying they are not matches and a fraud. You do not seem to have an opinion that is strong enough either way. You are vulnerable to believing anything an expert tells you. You simply do not know.

It's not that I have all the cards in my hands. You could argue that the peice of glass was not large enough to measure on the emission spectograph. However that is of little relevance in this exercise but still a point you might not see coming from the prosecution. In fact what would you say to that.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What does Cristo, a case fundamentally concerned with inter racial identification, have to do with broken glass fragmentation sampling?

It has everything to do with evidence. A garda tech or scientist can't measure a peice of glass, and find it's not favorable to the prosecution... because it proves the man innocent, and then dispose of it, or conceal the distinguishing measurement.

The doctor has concealed measurements; that were as far as i am concerned, evidence of a mans innocence. When the garda tech/scientist disposed of that measurement it was wrong but it would be criminal to use the previous measurements as evidence of the defendants guilt.

It's criminal and almost worse than simply disposing of evidence as it is akin to fraud.
Unlike the video evidence this is evidence that is part of an identical process. So it is fraud.

johnnyskeleton

I think that is a very poor metaphor. A professional on the motor forum would quickly discover there was no engine in the car. Would they not.

A mechanic would discover that there is no engine pretty quickly if they were to examine the car in real life.

However, given limited information (none of which even suggests the absence of the engine) on a boards thread, how could he possibly discover that?

I am saying they are not matches and a fraud.

Can you state why in under 5 sentences, providing an internet link if necessary?

It has everything to do with evidence.

I ask again, what does Christo, a case about visual recognition evidence have to do with scientific evidence of glass fragments?

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I am saying they are not matches and a fraud.

Can you state why in under 5 sentences, providing an internet link if necessary?

I ask again, what does Christo, a case about visual recognition evidence have to do with scientific evidence of glass fragments?

I will answer these questions over the weekend. I just don't have time to answer in full.

Christo case might be about visual evidence but the Judges legal findings were general to evidence and police behaviour not just visual evidence.

The hardiman j. and mcgunniess j. below are from the Christo case.

Hardiman J.
It is the duty of the Gardai, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt of innocence. This is so whether the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence or not, and regardless of whether it assists the case the prosecution is advancing or not.”

McGuinness J. stated ):-
“Where a court would be asked to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence, it would have to be shown that any such evidence would be clearly relevant, that there was at least a strong probability that the evidence was available, and that it would in reality have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that its absence created a real risk of an unfair trial.”

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

I will answer these questions over the weekend. I just don't have time to answer in full.

Christo case might be about visual evidence but the Judges legal findings were general to evidence and police behaviour not just visual evidence.

The hardiman j. and mcgunniess j. below are from the Christo case.

Hardiman J.
It is the duty of the Gardai, arising from their unique investigative role, to seek out and preserve all evidence having a bearing or potential bearing on the issue of guilt of innocence. This is so whether the prosecution proposes to rely on the evidence or not, and regardless of whether it assists the case the prosecution is advancing or not.”

McGuinness J. stated ):-
“Where a court would be asked to prohibit a trial on the grounds that there was an alleged failure to seek out evidence, it would have to be shown that any such evidence would be clearly relevant, that there was at least a strong probability that the evidence was available, and that it would in reality have a bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused person. It would also be necessary to demonstrate that its absence created a real risk of an unfair trial.”

That was in Dunne v DPP. The Courts have rolled back significantly from that position. See this decision, for example: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/7134b76c9da955b2802577de0038d316?OpenDocument

Also, what you are talking about is not strictly a matter of missing evidence, it is a matter for a determination of fact at trial. Missing evidence would be, for example, if there was a CCTV camera overlooking the shop which the Gardai obtained and viewed but didn't keep.

Bosco boy

I find it amazing that this evidence was even debated in court after it was disclosed that the bag was unsealed.

If i was a member of the jury my confidence in this particular evidence would end there and the wide ranging debate that follows would be a side show and irrelevant to me and i would argue the rest of the jury.

I would want to know some basic facts before I would convict

1. What excuse did the defendant give for being near the location and is it plausable
2. Had he any cuts on him consistant with coming into contact with glass? it can be hard to avoid not getting cut in these cases
3. Did he co operate with gardai at the scene or during interview or did he say "No comment" / uncooperative etc. I would be suspicious of the latter!!
4. (even if the bag was sealed) What excuse does he have for the glass on his clothes, if i have a doubt then its gone and any decent barristor would throw doubt on it.
5. The defendants evidence if he gives evidence, is it convincing? does he not give evidence in the case!


I believe that if this case is real and the forensic evidence was being admitted its likely that he didnt have a plausible reason for being near the scene, he may have had injuries and probally didnt co operate, hence the forensic evidence now comes into play as a part of the case not as the sole evidence. There may also be other factors we dont know about.

johnnyskeleton

Bosco boy wrote: »

I find it amazing that this evidence was even debated in court after it was disclosed that the bag was unsealed.

Well so far we haven't been given any link to this hypothetical scenario having happened in reality, all we have is pirelli's word for it.

Bosco boy wrote: »

I would want to know some basic facts before I would convict

1. What excuse did the defendant give for being near the location and is it plausable
2. Had he any cuts on him consistant with coming into contact with glass? it can be hard to avoid not getting cut in these cases
3. Did he co operate with gardai at the scene or during interview or did he say "No comment" / uncooperative etc. I would be suspicious of the latter!!
4. (even if the bag was sealed) What excuse does he have for the glass on his clothes, if i have a doubt then its gone and any decent barristor would throw doubt on it.
5. The defendants evidence if he gives evidence, is it convincing? does he not give evidence in the case!

As a side point, this shows the dangers of a person giving evidence. If they don't, a jury will say that they don't know what happened and apply the benefit of the doubt. If they hear him, they might not like the way he talks or his demeanor and decide to convict him on that basis.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That was in Dunne v DPP. The Courts have rolled back significantly from that position. See this decision, for example: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/7134b76c9da955b2802577de0038d316?OpenDocument

Also, what you are talking about is not strictly a matter of missing evidence, it is a matter for a determination of fact at trial. Missing evidence would be, for example, if there was a CCTV camera overlooking the shop which the Gardai obtained and viewed but didn't keep.

They have not rolled back from that decision. They have applied common sense to it.

I feel that if a shop wishes to have someone prosecuted, then they should have a standard policy for their cctv system with training in how to store and burn cd's.

The failure lies with the merchants who if they wish to avail of our police service and time in lengthy trials then they must have established policies for cctv retention.

Conclusion:
If it is a shop that is not directly involved in the crime then a solictor should not uneccessarily force a Garda to seek evidence from every cctv system in every shop on the street and expect the Garda to more or less micro manage the shops internal storage and retrieval. Most importantly this should not be used as an excuse to prohibit a trial.


However should the findings of Hardiman j. and McGuinnes j. be applied soley to Video evidence. Should They?

A deliberate concealment by a scientist of evidence that proved a suspect innocent does qualify for consideration particuarly if the scientist decision is important to the case and the scientist is trying to convey the suspect as guilty when they know otherwise.

A failure of a shop on a street to keep a cctv image of a possible crime on it's harddrive; the failure of which, does not involve the conduct of the Gardai or the prosecution would be treated differently in the minds of people than a Garda who fails to keep evidence. The shops incompetence is not seen as suspicous behaviour but plausible.

We do not suspect shops of trying to stitch people up. We do suspect police of trying to stitch people up.

To delibertely conceal the video is never suspect misconduct by a shop but is suspected msiconduct by the Garda and prosecution, as police in general are very well known for prosecutional misconduct due to their eagerness to prosecute. That is common sense also.

However merchants should have a consistant policy in place and it would not be acceptable to sometimes provide the ccctv and othertimes not provide it. As it would an abuse of the security tool in my opinion.

Bosco boy wrote: »

I find it amazing that this evidence was even debated in court after it was disclosed that the bag was unsealed.

If i was a member of the jury my confidence in this particular evidence would end there and the wide ranging debate that follows would be a side show and irrelevant to me and i would argue the rest of the jury.

I would want to know some basic facts before I would convict

1. What excuse did the defendant give for being near the location and is it plausable
2. Had he any cuts on him consistant with coming into contact with glass? it can be hard to avoid not getting cut in these cases
3. Did he co operate with gardai at the scene or during interview or did he say "No comment" / uncooperative etc. I would be suspicious of the latter!!
4. (even if the bag was sealed) What excuse does he have for the glass on his clothes, if i have a doubt then its gone and any decent barristor would throw doubt on it.
5. The defendants evidence if he gives evidence, is it convincing? does he not give evidence in the case!


I believe that if this case is real and the forensic evidence was being admitted its likely that he didnt have a plausible reason for being near the scene, he may have had injuries and probably didnt co operate, hence the forensic evidence now comes into play as a part of the case not as the sole evidence. There may also be other factors we dont know about.

Hi Bosco,

The purpose of the thread was to focus on the forensic evidence. It was noteworthy that you discovered the signifigance of the bag not being sealed. It was just what was written in the forensic report. That is the written word for word.

I did say this at the start and kept the other facets of the case as ambigous as possible. I would have to readjust the ambiguous scenario to explain these aspects. We are not at this early stage ready to convict or not convict as it is in actuality a much larger case.

If we are to get into every detail of the case then it would be unfair as it is a lengthy case and involves serious police misconduct and many classic elements of a miscarriage of justice.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Can you state why in under 5 sentences, providing an internet link if necessary

I will do that later tonight in less than five sentences.

In relation as to why the the glass fragments were not matches and why it the evidence tendered by the Doctor was false and misleading. I have done that already in this thread. However you must understand what match means and what the Doctor meant in this case.



Briefly

The doctor used a SEC to measure 36 glass fragments to compare them to the control glass. We would need to understand the meaning of the forensic word 'match' , 'point of entry'.
The Doctor in his report states it as very strong evidence and that is the highest threshold just below zenith.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T-mYFVouMc4J:www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/its-your-birthday-lcn/+meaning+of+the+word+match+in+forensic+science&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&source=www.google.ie


What constitutes a “match” in forensic science?

It seems to me that a good working definition of the word “match” ought to be something such as the two items examined are so unique to one another that it excludes all other explanations. That is unique. No other possibility of error. In a word “identical.

pirelli

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyskeleton
Can you state why in under 5 sentences, providing an internet link if necessary

I will do that later tonight in less than five sentences.

In relation as to why the the glass fragments were not matches and why it the evidence tendered by the Doctor was false and misleading. I have done that already in this thread. However you must understand what 'match' means and what the Doctor meant in this case.

In the case the Doctor used the word 'point of entry' and the words very strong and the word matched. The word match was used it's most potent form. The objective of this exercise was to establish that Johnnyskelton , Bosco boy and any other legal eagle could not establish from the forensic report (as it was) any worthy defence. Johnny skeleton did challenge the fact that many other pieces or fragments examined did not come from the control glass and that perhaps the glass on the suspect was from his workplace and that possibly it just happened that the glass from the workplace was made in the same factory that produced the control glass.

The fundamentals of that defence are good particuarly if it was a refractive index match, but it wasn't just refractive index, therefore focusing your defence on glass coming from the same factory is very weak defence and falls far short of what you could have actually proven.* The tolerances of modern manufacturing machinary now produces glass of a very tight range of refractive index making the distinguishing of glass by refractive index much less reliable. However in this case the Doctor tested for Chemical compound and refractive index which is still a reliable method to distinguish glass fragments.

I expanded on the report and explained in much more detail how the forensic test was conducted and still no worthy defence was offered. I gave you all a chance and i am satisfied that despite me explaining important aspects of Forensic examination of glass that you failed to prove to me that a professional would not be taken in by Doctor Quinns forensic report. The Doctor was a highly recognised expert on Glass and Paint examination and highly respected and perhaps that is what made you accept the Doctor's evalutaion that the Glass fragments measured were a Match.

In a typical case there may be dozens of forensic findings that your bogged down with and it would be impossible to afford an expert for each one. Why should you sacrafice an expert in say paint or fingerprints or ballistics for a glass expert in this case.

You really don't know the answer to that ..none of you seem to. That's my point you can not manage a large case. You cannot properly defend your cleint and i am not here to complain about that. I am simply pointing out that the Doctor in a case more serious than this where there is dozens of different forensic findings knows that the average professional will accept their evidence without question. Particualry 15 years ago when there was nothing to challenge to these people.

Unfortunately a solictor could only hope to mismanage their clients case and wast money and not focus on the strengths of the case... the prosecution just see this as part of their job in winning the case. That is without doubt the attitude and the same attitude that legal professionals have going silently into a contract that would be unfair to the other party should all facts be known. The law operates that way.

Why should I respect your failure in criminal defence and understanding forensics. Why?

There is an expected procedure in a crime lab that Doctor Quinn has undermined to deceive the defence. Andrasko J., Maehly have shown the scanning electron microscope can only distinguish between fragements for refractive index at a very low ratio, Combined with the energy dispersive x-ray and further distinguished by chemcial compound this ratio is improved but is only maybe 1/6- 1/7. So out of 36 peices and notwithstanding some glass being from a similar group it would be extremely unlikely not to find similar quantities/qualities for refractive index and chemical compound especially if there was such a random abundance of glass.**
The emission spectrograph measures higher chemical compounds and therefore has a much higher ratio combined with SEC-EDX which measures lower chemcial compounds which is about 1/39.

In less than five sentences:

**********************

Dr Quinn checked the fragment for refractive index and found it was similar and then checked it for chemical compound and found it was not similar. Instead of reporting this Dr Quinn has tried to pass of the fragment as a matching refractive index. As for chemical compound Such is the statistical accuracy of these tool's it is highly expected to match random glass. In a situation like this there are superior tools in the lab to distinguish higher and lower chemical compounds.

**********************

However using higher and lower chemcial compounds in just one match out of 40 is of no value even at these high levels as per established science. However two fragments mathing in higher and lower chemcial compounds would at the very most be vaguely interesting.

It is a short analysis to test the fragment for chemical compound and it's inexcusable the doctor hasn't because it would mean that if all the Doctors work is of this quality, then the statistical modelling for all cases that this doctor has worked on are a likely fraud and every other case would have to be reviewed Either this is a massive scandal or the Doctor is guilty of fraud in this case, Either way it is a disaster.

The doctor has not matched anything. There was other glass available should the Doctor wish to try and continue find a match using superior tools but this is such lazy and dishonest work for a serious crime and can not be passed off as a match.

**Usually a real criminal burglar will have two or three identical sets of glass which can easily be grouped and eliminated from one another. Leaving the task of grouping and statisical modeling as a potential means of finding a match. I would never trust the crime lab after this however and it would raise questions about every other case this Doctor has worked on.

*What you could prove in a case like this is as follows:

The glass found on the suspect was from 8 hours earlier while cutting glass into jewellery. As we know from hicks, and small and pounds, is that it would be impossible to find glass from 8 hours earlier and not detect glass from 35 minutes earlier in the same conditons and the same clothes. We can prove to a high degree that this suspect in these conditions and clothes could not have broken the window by striking and making contact with the point of entry 35 minutes earlier it.

The evidence suggests suspect could not have broken that window and yet Dr Quinn matches and very strongly implies contact with the point of entry.

Bosco boy

Hi Pirelli,

I really think that if this alleged case is to be commented by anyone then the full facts of the case should be told to us. The case has obviously concluded and as a result it is a matter of record. It should then be referred to directly. Focusing on the forensic elements alone give the impression that it was the only evidence presented.

I would like the answers to the questions I posed earlier in relation to the suspect and his reasons for being near the location, had he cuts, answers in custody etc.

The comments in relation to Garda corruption should be backed up, i'm sure they didnt pass our national media and should be a matter of record also and are definately relevant to the case.

pirelli

Hey Johnny,

You can't just thank Bosco boy and leave it at that. You took on this forensic report. You don't seem to undertsand it. I do not see how anyone could have gotton a fair defence from our legal system.

Bosco boy,

You were the poster kicking up a fuss about the unsealed bag.. not me. I am at liberty to say there was police corruption in this case, I can say that.

This case is not a matter of record and is being filed for court. As for the our national media..they don't care about tax payers or the innocent.

Where were they for Noral Wall, Hannon , Conmey etc.. Why are they not fighting to have Nora Wall compensated. Our media are only beginning to find an interest in Miscarriages of Justice. They have been rather dilligent in regard rooting out stories on politicians but that's as far as they have gotton in regard social justice. Politically motivated justice more like.

Bosco boy

Rather than discussing it any futher i'll wait for the book to be released and read the whole story, will keep an eye out for it in the fiction section!

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

In less than five sentences:

**********************

Dr Quinn checked the fragment for refractive index and found it was similar and then checked it for chemical compound and found it was not similar. Instead of reporting this Dr Quinn has tried to pass of the fragment as a matching refractive index. As for chemical compound Such is the statistical accuracy of these tool's it is highly expected to match random glass. In a situation like this there are superior tools in the lab to distinguish higher and lower chemical compounds.

**********************

Ah. If you'd told us this vital ommission in the original post, there wouldn't have been all this confusion.

In any event, that suggests that my very first answer:

However, that most of the glass wasn't a match and none of the shards on the trousers were a match, suggests that it is more probable that the glass came from another source.

The fact that he works with glass jewelery gives him a very plausible alternative explanation for having glass shards on his jumper.

Appears to be correct.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ah. If you'd told us this vital ommission in the original post, there wouldn't have been all this confusion.

In any event, that suggests that my very first answer:


Appears to be correct.

It does appear to be correct but falls short of what you should be able to do. However if we are to accept your observation we must accept that the glass present on his clothes came from his workplace.

If you undertood forensics you would be able to determine the Doctor did in fact not match any fragments to the individual. There should be no confusion on this the doctor did not match any glass to the suspect.
Link for this.
J. Andrasko Phd C. Maehly phd.
http://docs.docstoc.com/orig/950628/009ff8c1-dff9-421b-9c81-1d4cbcf2d4b0.pdf


So if we accept what you are saying or indeed if you had conviction about what you say then indeed if the glass if from the workplace 8 hours previously then we can make further observations and important ones.


Now that we have established no glass has been detected contrary to the lies of Doctor Quinn and we accept your defence Johnny skeleton that the glass present is very likely to be from his workplace 8 hours previously.
Pounds and Smalldon and hicks will prove that it would be almost impossible for someone to break a window as per experiment in the same clothes 35 minutes earlier.

It would not be impossible by any means to not find any glass on suspect after breaking a window with so many variables... but to find glass from 8 hours previously on person in normal conditions and not detect any glass from a substantial contact ( heavy breaking and vigorous physical contact with the window) only 35 minutes previously is impossible. It defies scientific logic.

Link for this.. Pounds and Smalldon and hicks
http://unbox.org/wisp/trunk/glass/intrpretatn_and_dbing/Transfer%20and%20Persistance%20of%20Glass%20Fragments%20on%20Garments.pdf

This is what i want to hear as a jury member, Your defence johnny lacks any real understanding of forensics. You could do alot more justice for your client if your understood forensics. So to use one of your own metaphors.. your defence is like a vehicle without an engine. You need an engine in your vehicle to get anywhere.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

This is what i want to hear as a jury member, Your defence johnny lacks any real understanding of forensics. You could do alot more justice for your client if your understood forensics. So to use one of your own metaphors.. your defence is like a vehicle without an engine. You need an engine in your vehicle to get anywhere.

Pirelli, there are two important things that you need to understand:

1) a boards.ie thread and real life are completely different. What would be done in a real life case (which, among other things, would involve a real client and real payment of fees) would be significantly more thorough and time consuming than what would be done in response to a boards.ie thread. While in real life lawyers will look behind the evidence if they are instructed to do so (in particular, by engaging an independent expert to review the evidence and by seeking further information on the tests), in a boards.ie thread if you are posing a question I am not going to look behind what you say in too great detail. That means that if you pose a scenario on boards and ask us what conclusions to draw from it, unless you include the omissions that you are concerned with we are not going to discover it.

2) I think you lack an understanding of what a jury wants to hear. A jury will not understand a lawyer merely asserting that there are studies which prove the expert to be incorrect, a jury will want to see cross examination of the expert and evidence from an independent expert who confirms that the conclusions are wrong.

So while you say that the defence lacks an engine, you are asking the impossible - that boards.ie put together a thorough and real life defence to a snippet of a report which, if it is a real life case, we only have your word for it and you have ommitted the most important details.

So it is not the answers that are wrong, it is the question.

pirelli

Bosco boy wrote: »

Rather than discussing it any futher i'll wait for the book to be released and read the whole story, will keep an eye out for it in the fiction section!

What book ?
You can keep an eye out for it in the criminal appeal courts. The only thing fictional is the so called professionalism of the legal system including the Police although they are at least clever. While your browsing the fiction section make sure to keep an eye for the irish economic tiger.

You wont find these books in the book shop. These are real results from real cases.

J. Andrasko Phd C. Maehly phd.
http://docs.docstoc.com/orig/950628/009ff8c1-dff9-421b-9c81-1d4cbcf2d4b0.pdf

Group D Eight glass samples were sent to our laboratory which consisted of three glass samples from an actual case, indistinguishable with respect to refractive index and density. One of the samples was a comparison window glass, and the other two were glass fragments collected from suspects.

Table 7 shows the results of the actual case as above.
Eight glass samples were sent to our laboratory
for investigation. Three of the samples were indistinguishable with respect to refractive index and density. By using energy dispersive X-ray analysis, all these samples were found to be clearly different from each other.

Emission spectrography is a more laborious method. It is used if energy dispersive X-ray analysis finds samples indistinguishable.

Pounds and Smalldon and hicks
Link for this

http://unbox.org/wisp/trunk/glass/intrpretatn_and_dbing/Transfer%20and%20Persistance%20of%20Glass%20Fragments%20on%20Garments.pdf

Forensic examination of glass and paint .. Brian Caddy