Forensics Talk

How Facial Recognition Systems Work

How Stuff Works

by Ryan Johnson and Kevin Bonsor

   Inside This Article

1.

Introduction to How Facial Recognition Systems Work

2.

3D Facial Recognition

3.

Surface Texture Analysis

4.

Current and Future Uses of Facial Recognition Systems

5.

Lots More Information

6.

See all Security articles

Anyone who has seen the TV show "Las Vegas" has seen facial recognition software in action. In any given episode, the security department at the fictional Montecito Hotel and Casino uses its video surveillance system to pull an image of a card counter, thief or blacklisted individual. It then runs that image through the database to find a match and identify the person. By the end of the hour, all bad guys are escorted from the casino or thrown in jail. But what looks so easy on TV doesn't always translate as well in the real world.

In 2001, the Tampa Police Department installed cameras equipped with facial recognition technology in their Ybor City nightlife district in an attempt to cut down on crime in the area. The system failed to do the job, and it was scrapped in 2003 due to ineffectiveness. People in the area were seen wearing masks and making obscene gestures, prohibiting the cameras from getting a clear enough shot to identify anyone.

Full Article

Big Pharma bowing to the power of blogs

From:
Kevin M.D. Medical Weblog
Saturday, April 14, 2007

   Blogs are exclusively responsible for the current AstraZeneca scandal:

Where was the mainstream media in all this? Almost entirely absent. But already, the episode signals a new chapter in the way the pharmaceutical industry is being scrutinized and to whom drugmakers must answer, like it or not. Blogs, whether run by whistleblowers, marketers, patients or journalists, are a new front. And there's no going back.

Duke Accuser vs Isaac Newton

Duke Players Talk To "60 Minutes"

From CBS News

     In his first interview since declaring three former Duke University lacrosse players innocent of all charges stemming from a rape accusation, North Carolina’s attorney general says he was offended by the behavior of the Durham district attorney who pursued the case for nearly a year. Attorney General Roy A. Cooper also reveals new evidentiary details on why the young men were declared innocent, in an exclusive interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl to be broadcast this Sunday, April 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

The report also includes the first interviews with Colin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans since the three former Duke athletes learned that all charges were dropped. Of today’s apology issued by Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong, Finnerty tells Stahl: "It may be an apology, but it doesn’t make me feel any better…for what I’ve gone through. It was his actions more than anybody’s that caused the harm. I don’t think anyone is going to feel better after that apology."

"When you have a prosecutor who takes advantage of his enormous power and overreaches like this, then yes, it's offensive," Cooper tells Lesley Stahl.
Full Article

   

Point of View

   For the last two weeks, I've been researching for what I presumed would be my last post on the Duke lacrosse case. Although I was glad to see the end in sight for these boys and their families, I was concerned about the very vocal, high profile mouths, which I knew, would continue to spout off from now till Doom's Day that "Something Happened!"

     As I communicated to Professor Anderson, I was afraid they would never get away from that. So, I decided to try to show, with plain old science - specifically physics, biomechanics, and kinetics -  that there was no way any reasonable, logical person could believe that, "Something happened".

     To do that, I researched numerous on line sites and textbooks relating to physics, biomechanics of musculoskeletal and soft tissue injury, kinetics, boxing, accident reconstruction, and martial arts.

   While I'll be the first to admit Math has never been my favorite subject and I've never taken physics, I have done considerable independent study of the biomechanics and kinetics of trauma, relating mostly to accident investigation, over the last five years. It was with this added background knowledge, that I questioned the accuser's claims from the beginning.

     I had realized way back, that what was wrong with this picture, was that not only didn't the expected pattern of injuries from such an assault match up to the accuser's claims, or any transfer of evidence or DNA from any of the accused pop up, but the whole scenerio, as described by the accuser, just didn't make any sense whatsoever. Not if you're looking at it from a biomechanical perspective.

     This kept bothering me at the back of my brain somewhere for a long time. I just couldn't visualize it. I couldn't match up her claims with what I would expect the normal actions of the various "players" to be throughout her convoluted  stories.

     It wasn't just that most stranger rapes don't occur like she was claiming. It was the whole bathroom scenerio, complete with three large males and one hefty sized female all crammed in there together in that tiny, little room.

     All that choking, punching, hitting, pinching, kicking, and head banging against the sink - not to mention an actual rape and sodomy - that supposedly was going on. All apparently occuring without the slightest physiological reaction or injury on the part of the accuser. 

     Over the past year, I've tried to provide, on this blog, facts, education, and examples stemming from my own clinical experiences, to show that there was no way this assault could have happened. 

 From the very first time I read about the police report of the supposed "rape" on the Smoking Gun site, I knew that something didn't add up. I remember getting that kind of odd tingly feeling we all get when little red flags are waving about in our brains. Something's just not right here. What's wrong with this picture?

      As I stated in a post, dated April 12th, on my old Xanga blog site: ... as it stands right now, the pieces of the puzzle just don't seem to be fitting together. Perhaps when more information is available, certain aspects of this case will make more sense. Unlike many people, I'm not going to jump on the band wagon in vilifying these young men just yet. As any seeker of truth, I prefer to separate logic from emotion and fact from fiction. We will need to wait and see how it all plays out.

       And I wasn't the only one who thought something was screwy with this case either. Until I happened across KC Johnson's blog one day, and introduced myself, I hadn't been aware that others were also out there, jumping up and down, shouting, Wait a minute. Hold on there!

    I'm very thankful that I did stumble across his blog site that day, as it also led me to so many other wonderful people and their sites, such as Professor Anderson, and Liestoppers, with all its terrific people, and Lashawn Barber, and so many others.

     While I don't usually comment, I still read. And read, and read. It made my heart feel good to see that there were so many others out there - people of all colors, experiences, and backgrounds - who were willing to go up against a self-serving bandwagon, whose intent was to inflame racial tensions, propel their own agendas, and convict innocent young men.

     From the DA's office to the Durham community to the Jesse Jackson's of this world, pushed onward by the various newspaper and media outlets at the time; it was a bandwagon, whose obvious thirst for blood was sickening in the extreme.

     Finally, we'd come down to the end of this sorry saga. As of Wednesday, we finally heard the words we've all been waiting so long to hear: Innocent!  You would think, with AG Cooper laying it all out and pretty much ripping into Nifong, the local newspapers, and the accuser,  everyone - and I mean everyone - would finally admit the truth. The boys are innocent!

  But no, as I suspected would happen, certain people can't be big enough to do that! Instead, we have to be subjected to insulting diatribes from people like Shabazz who obviously refuse to accept reason and logic.

  This is why I wanted to try, one last time, to show just how illogical and unreasonable it would be to believe that anything at all had happened the night of the Duke party. It's because of people like this, who will continue to spew hate, no matter what the truth is.

  Aside from researching, I also questioned two experts in their fields:

     Dr. Lester Ingber, a physicist, former mathematics professor at George Washington University, and current research professor at Lester Inger Research. Dr. Ingber, with a very long, interesting background in math and physics, is involved in research within the information technology field, at his private company. Dr. Ingber also holds an 8th Dan Black Belt in Karate.

     Mr. Marc MacYoung hails from a very unique background that makes him an expert on street fighting. Mr. MacYoung, along with his wife Dianna Gordon, specializes in teaching others to recognize the danger signals of violence, and how to avoid it, as well as self-defense. I've used his excellent web site material, including The Five Stages of Violent Crime, and The Pyramid of Personal Safety as a resource before.

      Of course, as luck would have it, I woke up this morning to find that I didn't have to type up a huge report after all. After checking the news site first thing, I find out that good old Crystal did her own self in once again.

    Raped while suspended in mid air???

     When professor Anderson replied that we would have to suspend the laws of physics, in order to believe the accuser, I don't think either of us realized just how much!

     Looks like I will have to save all that research on Newton's laws of Motion, momentum, force = mass . acceleration; and the Physics of Power for another day and another post, as Crystal Mangum has apparently proven Isaac Newton wrong!

     Mr. Shabazz, since you believe in the accuser's allegations, and refuse to admit there are mental issues with this woman, could you please expound on this latest feat?

  I'm sure the two experts I communicated with would be interested to hear how Newton's laws of motion and gravity were overcome. I know I would be!

     Dr. Ingber had this to say:

 "Many times "inexperienced" fighters or even very strong attackers do not
"focus" their attacks very well.  This means that damage to internal
organs typically requires deposition of lots of energy to tear meat by
driving deeper than skin level with missiles like punches and kicks,
while damage to bone typically requires lots of momentum on contact to
cause sufficient pressure to create fractures.

  On the other hand, both experienced and non-experienced fighters can
often cause damage, even in small rooms or without throwing long punches
or kicks.  For example, the use of elbows and knees, if just delivered
at "reasonable" speed can cause lots of damage if they hit targets
correctly, since those limbs are close to the torso and will generally
carry lots of mass."

     Mr. MacYoung had this to say:

 "People are often outraged when someone gets off from charges that the press and pundits have already convicted them of."

       "Let's start out with a couple of major problems I have with the story from the start. I have worked as escort security for strippers before. There is no way in HELL any agency is going to allow two dancers to go unescorted (sans bodyguard) into a house party.

     Not only do the bodyguards keep the girls from being assaulted, but they are there to prevent the dancers from engaging in drinking, drugs and prostitution. Activities, if it is a legitimate dancer agency, they are going to do everything in their power to prevent because they don't want to get busted for pandering.

     And agencies, like strip joints, are going to be fined a LOT more seriously than the girl who is misbehaving, so they are definitely going to be paying attention to this problem."

      Supposing that the assailant is about 6'4, weighing approximately +210 lbs and the female is about 5'5, weighing about 150 lbs. My contention was that she >would probably be seriously injured or killed; due to a combination of restriction of blood supply to the brain, respiratory depression, and possible breaking of >the hyoid bone and others. Do you agree or disagree? 

      "Ron Sudders was an intoxicated football player fighting several police officers. He died in the drunk tank where he was left to pass out. The swelling occurred over a few hours causing asphyxiation. This created a police policy common to many departments that IF they are allowed to do chokeholds (some departments consider them lethal force) then the suspect is automatically taken to the hospital.   

 

     A small woman like that there would be no need to pick her up with a choke hold, the Lacrosse player could have just picked her up. Although I am not a large man, I commonly picked up women and carried them when I was younger and stronger.

     Why would he need a choke hold? He could just grab her by the waist and hoist her up thereby pinning her arms.  It is a far more stable grip to move someone."

   The accused were wearing short sleeves at the time. The woman claimed she tried to fight, yet no scratches were found. Does this make sense to you? Defensively speaking, wouldn't the first thing a person do would be to scratch and try to pull at the assailant's arms? Would she even have had the time or ability? 

 

    "If being choked, yes. If just picked up, then her arms would have been pinned. However, claiming you were choked sounds so much more dramatic doesn't it?"
   
  In the event she was still conscious when pulled into the bathroom, what would be the logical body mechanics of the different "players" in a typical 3 person gang rape scenario? What would be the likely sequence of events? Would they immediately throw her to the ground? How would they keep her quiet? With threats alone?

 

   "If a choke hold was applied for that long there would have been a good chance she would have been unconscious.

 

   I have seen a drunk picked up by the neck. Although it wasn't a proper choke hold, he was out in just under five seconds (alcohol as well as being physically picked up by the neck). He did manage to scratch the bouncer who grabbed him.

   However, upon passing out he became like a limp noodle and slipped out of the bouncer's grasp. The bouncer, a 250 pound weight lifter could not maintain a hold on the limp body and the drunk literally squirted out of his grip."

    Which is another issue about the credibility of the story. Given the size of the house, where she claims she was grabbed and where she was taken to, there is little chance she'd still be conscious if being choked.

 

>What about the claim of hitting & kicking? Is that typical in this type of scenario? ( my research has indicated it isn't) I was taught that an assailant will only use >the amount of force necessary to control the victim. What would be the point of this? 

 

    "Again you're looking at inconsistencies in the story. A three man stomping is going to cause some serious damage."
 
     She claimed she tried to fight them off but was overcome. Why continue to beat & kick then after choking - especially in a house full of people? What would be >the likelihood of her not sustaining any injuries? 

 

     "... if she was choked out why wasn't she unconscious?  It is really hard to come out of unconsciousness on the fight. Again, this story stinks."
   
     The accuser claimed she hit her head on the sink. How might that have happened if the sink is only waist high?

      "Maybe she was pogo sticking and slipped on a patch of water. That makes about as much sense as the rest of her story."

 

 Based on my experience, as well as research, I know about the pattern of injuries we would expect to see from hitting a woman in the face. Biomechanically speaking, if a woman is hit on the right side of the face, would her head then not rotate towards the left, followed by her shoulders & hips?  Wouldn't she then be more likely to hit her head on the mirror above the sink? (supposing they were standing in front of the sink? 

 

    "Depends on where she was. However, if she did fall when hit then she'd have contusions on both sides of her face. The sink probably causing a larger one."

   I would like to thank both Dr. Ingber and Mr. MacYoung for taking the time to answer my questions. I encourage readers to visit both their excellent websites!

 

      I would also like to take this moment to thank each of those persons who have written blogs and for the forums, for their on-going communications and support.

     I am honored to have gotten the chance to know each one of you with whom I've communicated over the last several months. You have all been a source of inspiration and have helped to reinforce my own (admittedly) somewhat shaky belief in the justice system and the goodness of mankind over the last year.
Modified 4/13/07
2:23pm

Washington Times: The limits of one-party liberalism

The Washington Times
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 31, 2007

   

In the past week, we've learned that at least when it comes to protecting children from sexual predators, there are limits to the power of one-party liberalism in Maryland. The General Assembly has acted with stunning speed in approving legislation to abolish parole for violent sex offenders, and Gov. Martin O'Malley is expected to sign the legislation implementing "Jessica's Law," named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender.
     Last Friday, it appeared that the bill would pass the Maryland Senate on Monday, but that it faced an uncertain future in the House of Delegates, where Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Vallario was determined to prevent its passage. Gov. Martin O'Malley had not taken a position on the bill, but it seemed plausible that the governor's position wasn't terribly different from that of his running mate in last year's election, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, who as a member of the House of Delegates joined Mr. Vallario in opposing enactment of "Jessica's Law."
     Over the next few days, Maryland's political universe -- at least on this one issue -- turned upside down. On Saturday, Mr. Vallario endorsed Jessica's law, and his committee unanimously approved it. The House and Senate gave gave preliminary approval to the bill. On Monday, the legislation overwhelmingly passed both chambers, with the House voting unanimously in favor and the Senate voting 43-3 to send the bill to the governor's desk. (For the record, one of the three voting no was Sen. Brian Frosh of Montgomery County.) Aides to the governor say he will sign the bill into law.
    During last year's session of the General Assembly, it initially appeared that Mr. Vallario had been successful in killing Jessica's Law, which included sentences of up to 25 years for violent sex offenders --who include persons who employ a dangerous weapon, or suffocate, strangle, disfigure or inflict serious physical injury in the course of committing such a crime. But after Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel attacked Mr. Vallario for blocking the bill, members of the General Assembly were inundated with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes demanding action. At a special session of the General Assembly in June, lawmakers agreed to a compromise that mandated a 25-year sentence for these crimes. But at Mr. Vallario's insistence, these perpetrators remained eligible for parole after serving just 50 percent of their sentences.
    That's what Jerry Norton and Joan Harris, president and vice president respectively of a grass-roots organization called Citizens for Jessica's Law in Maryland, were determined to change this year, even though the political climate in Annapolis seemed stacked against advocates of tough-on-crime legislation -- particularly with a more liberal legislature and a right-of-center Republican governor replaced by a liberal Democrat. But Mr. Norton and Mrs. Harris refused to accept political "reality" and take no for an answer. They worked to focus national and local media attention on the story. Once again Mr. O'Reilly turned his radio and television fire on Mr. Vallario for blocking "Jessica's Law," generating yet another barrage of angry telephone calls, e-mail etc. at Mr. Vallario demanding that he let the bill come to the floor for a vote. Local talk radio, particularly WCBM and WBAL in Baltimore, also played an important role.
    By last Saturday, Mr. Vallario (and, we suspect, most of the liberal Democratic establishment in Annapolis, including a lot of politicians who were cheering him on behind the scenes) had had enough and concluded there was no point to continuing the modern-day version of George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door when it came to cracking down on sexual predators. As the bill made its way toward House passage on Monday night, Mr. Vallario sounded almost as if the legislation was his idea to begin with. "We need to send a message to these terrible criminals," he said. "Maryland is in the forefront of addressing this most serious issue."
    Marylanders owe a particular debt of gratitude to Del. Christopher Shank and Sen. Nancy Jacobs, both Republicans, for their extraordinary leadership in getting Jessica's Law enacted in the state. Now, hot-button issues such as in-state tuition for illegal aliens, driver license's for illegals and expanded voting rights for felons are coming before the General Assembly. Mr. Norton and his colleagues have some valuable lessons to teach those of us on the political center-right about going over the heads of elected officials, taking our case directly to the public and illustrating how flawed these ideas are.
   

Seattle-Area Pedophile Has 'How-to' Web Site for Men Seeking Little Girl Activities

Friday, March 30, 2007
Fox News

 

SEATTLE —  A Web site created by a pedophile is a virtual "how-to" manual, complete with the best places in western Washington state to see little girls, and tips on how to avoid getting caught by the police.

The site, titled "Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Girl Love," has been around for a few years. The police know all about it, yet they say they can't shut it down because the site is legal.

"As disturbing and offensive as we find this, there's no evidence of a crime, or even suspicion of illegal activity," said Rebecca Hover of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department.

The man who runs it, 45-year-old Jack McClellan, has never been convicted of a sex crime, which means he can attend any family-friendly events where children are present, and take all the pictures he wants for his Web site. He also lives close to a school bus stop.

McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his "age of attraction" is between 3 and 11 years old.

"I guess the main thing is I just think they're cute, a lot cuter than women. I admit there is kind of an erotic arousal there," McClellan said.

Full Article

 

Point of View

     It's getting really scary when it gets to the point that pictures of our children are winding up being posted up on some pedophile's web site. And what's even scarier is not being able to do anything about it! As parents, we have to sign a permission slip just for our kid's school to even use their image. But pedophiles can just go follow our kids around and post their photos on some sick site? That's insane!

   I do not post my family photos up on my own site. I know many others do but I don't - and for a good reason. I don't want some on line predator seeing any pictures of my family. MY Space is banned from our computer. Our son is not allowed to visit that sight, especially after he had created a site last year and posted his picture. That came down real fast. That's for his safety. While the Internet can be a terrific tool, it can also lead some pervert right to your own back yard.

     I grew up in a very small town on the Eastern Shore. At the time, it was a terrific place to grow up. We kids ran and played throughout our neighborhoods from morning to dusk. Parents didn't have to worry about someone coming along and snatching their kid. You didn't hear the kind of horror stories that we see daily on the news casts today.

    However, years later, while I was in nursing school, a 10 year old friend of my brother's had been very sick. Finally, after several months of being homebound, he was well enough to be allowed outside to ride his bike. That bike ride lasted only a few minutes. His parents never saw him again. The murderer later lead the police to where his body was buried.

     That was almost 30 years ago, long before any of us even thought about home computers or the web. Just think how much faster that can happen today. This madness has to be stopped! It's got to the point where our kids aren't even safe in their own back yards anymore.

     As I said before, I'm all for protecting citizen's rights. But a pedophile's rights should not come before those of our innocent children. They can't protect themselves. It's up to each of us to do it for them. We all need to be very proactive in that respect, doing everything we can to prevent access to our children.

     When I posted my own concerns about child sexual offenders in the last month, I was disheartened that there wasn't more response and concern shown from the general public, even though there were certainly many visitors each day. I was saddened and dismayed to see such apathy.

     What really disturbed me though was who actually was showing interest the most in those posts. I followed some of my visitor tracking links back to some very disturbing sites. Anyone want to take a guess as to who it was? That bothers me a great deal. I'm especially glad now that I don't have my family photos on this site!

80% Of Ambulance Control Room Staff Experience Verbal Abuse

From Medical News Today
Article Date: 25 Mar 2007 - 0:00 PDT

      Four out of five ambulance control room staff are verbally abused by callers during a shift, suggests a small study in Emergency Medicine Journal.

Staff on the receiving end of these calls said that the extent of the abuse had made them consider leaving their jobs.

The findings are based on the detailed responses of 48 people working in an NHS ambulance service control room, serving a population of 1 million people.

Full Article

   

Diabetes and severe depression raise risk of death

From Reuters News
Fri Mar 9, 2007 2:52pm ET
    
By Karla Gale

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Heart disease, diabetes, and depression can be a deadly combination, according results of a study that suggest that, in people with coronary artery disease, the presence of diabetes or depression increases the risk of dying from heart disease.

The risk is even higher when both diabetes and severe depression are present, investigators reported today at the annual meeting of the American Psychosomatic Society in Budapest, Hungary.

Dr. Lana L. Watkins and her associates at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina studied 907 patients with coronary artery disease, which occurs when the arteries that supply blood to the heart muscle (coronary arteries) become hardened and narrowed.

Full Article

Stranger Danger Video: How Careful Are Kids?

  No matter how many times we tell our kids not to talk to strangers, or go near them, how often do they really listen?

   Parents should watch this important video

 

College Kids Can Be Easy Prey for Abductors

   

Parents teach their small children not to get into cars with strangers, but most kids abducted by strangers are teenagers.

     From CBSNEWS.com

"The Early Show consumer correspondent Susan Koeppen set up a hidden camera experiment near two college campuses: the Ivy League's Princeton and John Jay College, where students study criminal justice. She found that many of the students made unsafe decisions.

A Princeton, Ken Wooden, a child safety expert, pretended to be a modeling agent looking for young faces to star in a commercial. He told students that they needed to get in his van for their screen test "for sound purposes."

One male and one female student got right into the van, even though both said they felt strange about it...."

Full Article

Duke Rape Case: New Facts Aide The Prosecution?

    

   If you've visited the blogs discussing the latest in the Duke Rape Case, such as Ankle Biting Pundits by Bull Dog Pundit, Liestoppers, Friends of Duke, or Durham In Wonderland by KC Johnson, you'll notice there's been an avalanche of posts regarding the recent NY Times Article about the case.

   The NYT article states, “while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong’s case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury….  In several important areas, the full files, reviewed by The New York Times, contain evidence stronger than that highlighted by the defense”

     I read the article. It makes some interesting points. However, I would question whether those points tend to help the prosecution or hurt it. The biggest problem I had was the fact that Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's notes weren't turned over to the defense until July 17 - four months after the rape allegation was made. I highly recommend reading Ankle Biting Pundits by a former prosecute. He makes some excellent points himself.

     Since I have no experience as a law enforcement officer or detective, I can't answer as to what the protocols are for their documentation. I can, however, speak to the protocols for our own profession. In the medical field, whether written by physicians, nurses, physical therapists, or nursing technicians, the standard protocols for our documentation are all the same. We've all been taught that, according to the courts, "If it's not written, it's not done."

     For example, if we, as nurses, do not document that we called the physician to report a change in our patient's condition, then according to the court [should the case end up there], that call was never made. It doesn't matter what we say in court. We could stand there and shout to the world all we want, it wouldn't make any difference. All that would matter is what we documented at that time. We couldn't go back and document it four months later. That kind of back-dating is not allowed and questions of fraud could quickly arise were we to try something like that. When I worked as a nurse consultant, I taught the assisted living facility counselors how to correctly document using the elements of "FACT" documentation:

F - Factual
A - Accurate
C - Complete
T - Timely

      As I told the counselors: Follow these steps and you can't go wrong. Write only the facts as you know them. Document them accurately. Make sure your report is complete and always document in a timely manner -  as soon afterwords as possible. In our profession, backdating weeks or months later is totally unacceptable.

      According to Ankle Biting Pundits, the former prosecutor says almost the same thing: "The huge red flag here is that it appears that Sgt. Gottlieb does not appear to have written his notes, or typed his report contemporaneously with the events they describe.  And the fact that these notes and reports weren’t turned over until recently leads to the obvious conclusion that they weren’t prepared until AFTER the first batches of evidence were turned over, especially when those previous batches of discovery material contained evidence very damaging to the prosecution.

      However, any rookie cop knows that you do your reports immediately after the events they describe, and you only put down what you saw with your own eyes, and if you need to rely on what you heard from other cops, or read in other reports, you mention that in the report...It’s common sense that the the most accurate record of events will be one that is written contemporaneously.  Over time, the ability to recall events, conversations and observations fades. "

     As good as I think Ankle Biting Pundits' blog post is, I must take exception with his statement: " First of all the conversation with Ms. Levicy -who is not a doctor, thus making her opinion inadmissible - confirming the blunt trauma was consistent with the victim’s account occurred a week later. Plus, the information given by her should have been included in the report."

   With all due respect to Bull Dog, I must disagree with the first part. Although I'm not an attorney, as forensic nurse examiner who treats victims of sexual assault, I can say that SANE nurses most definitely can and do testify as expert witnesses.

       The Federal Rules of Evidence state, " if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

   According to Kimberly A. Lawson, Ph.D 2005, in her report, The use of expert Witnesses in Cases Involving Sexual Assault, commissioned by Office of Violence Against Women Online Resources, " for cases involving sexual assault, most expert witnesses called to testify are medical professionals such as physicians, physicians' assistants, or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE)."

  "... confirming the blunt trauma was consistent with the victim’s account."  We cannot make a diagnosis. Only a physician can and no one can determine whether or not the sexual contact was consensual. However, experienced SANE nurses can make a conclusion as to whether any injuries are "consistent with" sexual assault.

       The key word here is experienced. Experienced forensic nurse examiners (or SANE / SAFE), are qualified to testify by virtue of their advanced, specialized training and experience. Without that experience, I could testify as a fact witness, but not [in my jurisdiction] as an expert witness. In fact, Ms. Lawson states, in her report, " It is critically important that any medical professional who testifies in a sexual assault case regarding the forensic evidence has specialized training and experience - including extensive experience with "normal" gynecological examinations and findings - as well as a critical understanding of the research literature and its limitations."

   I've read repeatedly, in different articles, where the Duke nurse, Ms. Levicy, is "a SANE nurse in training." That is, of course, if she really is "in training." I've only seen that report coming from the media, so I'll take it with a grain of salt. However, if she is "in training", I have yet to read any article which states the name of the experienced SANE nurse who was supervising her.

   This is standard protocol. A SANE nurse "in training" must have another experienced SANE nurse, or a physician, in the room with her during the whole exam, so that she can be evaluated and later certified to perform exams on her own. We always use our own staff FNE's to supervise the new nurses. We don't use physicians, except for the initial GYN exams. Those initial exams are done before an FNE can begin to do full examinations.

   This was a full examination. If the media has no problems publishing Ms. Levicy's name, why not publish the supervising Rn's name as well? That would certainly lend more credibility to the "training" nurse's conclusions. The supervising SANE nurse's (or physician's) name should have been written on the standardized examination form. If there is no name written there, then that means there was no one supervising the new SANE nurse "in training". Hopefully, that's because the media got it wrong and she didn't need anyone supervising her.

 As to Bull Dog's statement that the information should have already been in the chart, I totally agree. Everything is supposed to be documented at the time of the exam. Now I've had detectives call me up and ask questions. However, it's usually been during, or right after, the exam and the answers to questions about any evidence or trauma is already in the chart. I always document it as I observe it. A couple of times I've had a detective call me a week or so later but that's only been to ask me to clarify something I had written in the chart.

   Now as to the Blunt Trauma injury the accuser was supposed to have, I admit to being a bit surprised. If you read my previous posting on Blunt Trauma, you'll see that the characterizations of Blunt Trauma are contusions, lacerations, abrasions, and bites. Simple edema can be caused by other factors such as infection but even then, you're usually going to see some redness due to inflammation and irritation of the tissues. When I see edema, in a sexual assault victim, I'm usually seeing [at least] erythema (redness) there as well.

     In my experience, I've found it difficult to see only edema on the vaginal walls, without any other signs, such as edema and erythema of the cervix, or around the outer vaginal area as well. And without any other signs or injuries at all, I don't know that I would classify it as consistent with sexual assault. I don't know, I would have to have been there. However, I do know that I've not seen simple edema (alone) as a classification of blunt force trauma. If it's not a classification of blunt force trauma, then how could it be consistent with it?

   One thing I've read that I question, has been a statement that a male hospital worker walked into the accuser's room, at the hospital, to grab some supplies. I was just floored with that statement and really question it. The standard protocol for sexual assault victims is to provide a private room, preferably locked, in which to do the exam. Two reasons: First, for the comfort and privacy of the patient. Second, is to maintain the chain of custody of the evidence. Either the room must be locked or the nurse must remain in the room, with the evidence, at all times. Otherwise, the integrity of the evidence can be questioned.

   We do not have hospital personnel walking in and out of the room during an examination. That simply isn't done. We maintain strict privacy for our patients and control over all evidence. Once an exam is finished, we call security and have the evidence locked up until the detective can pick it up. Never would we allow someone, especially a male, to just walk in to get supplies or anything else and I can't imagine any other SANE nurse allowing it either.

 

Parents: Beware dangerous shopping carts

Better designs, stricter regulation needed to protect children, doctors say

CHICAGO - With more than 24,000 U.S. children treated for shopping cart-related injuries last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics says better designs and stricter government regulation are needed.

Most injuries occur when children aren’t strapped in and fall while standing in carts. But many shopping carts are designed with a high center of gravity, making them prone to tipping over even when children are properly placed in the seating area, said Dr. Gary Smith, chairman of an academy committee that wrote the new policy.

Falls onto hard grocery store floors can result in head and neck injuries, and fractures also are common, according to the policy published Monday in the August edition of Pediatrics...

Full Article

Humanity Against Victimization of Children

    

--- "The world is dangerous to live in
not because of the people who do evil things,
but because of the people who know about it
but do nothing to stop it."

THE CHILDREN CONTINUE TO PAY FOR OUR INACTION WITH THEIR LIVES!

Research has dictated that there is a pedophile for every square mile of America, (250,000 to 500,00).

Link

Murder at Morse's Pond

   Did a distinguished doctor murder his wife of 31 years at a Wellesley park?

DATELINE-COURT TV

By Dennis Murphy

Correspondent

NBC News

Updated: 7:41 p.m. ET July 30, 2006


       WELLESLEY, MASS. -                     

To live in Wellesley, Massachusetts— a venerable Boston suburb, home to an exclusive women’s college— is to have arrived in taste and understated style.

    Tom Farmer, Boston Herald reporter: It’s an affluent suburb—one of the top in the state. It’s a great place to raise your kids... In a town like this, murder is most often a safe encounter in the true-crime section of the little book store on Central Street ...

Point of View

     There were several things that interested me about this case. First, here was a highly respected medical professional who had risen to the top of the academic ladder.

     He had everything anybody could want: a great career, respect, prestige, a loving family.  So why would anyone, who was in Dr. Dirk Greineder's position, risk losing everything - his family, his career, his socio economic status, his freedom -  by killing his wife?

     Even if he didn't love her anymore, there was always divorce.
And why in such a brutal fashion?

     Second, is that this is a good example of the various forensic elements utilized in a criminal investigation.

     This case ultimately showed the dark side of a man who had made it to the top. By most accounts, this was the kind of man any parent could point out as a role model for their children. Well, at least on the surface. Unfortunately, it's what was below the surface that turned out to be pretty hideous.

     The first red flags to jump out at me were the doctor's actions right after the murder and his 911 call. If you've read the article above, you know that Dr.Greineder and May, his wife of 32 years, were taking a morning walk in the park with their dogs [The reports differ on how many dogs were there. Greineder mentions only one dog] .

     According to Dr.Greineder later, May had twisted her back and had asked to sit awhile, telling him to go on ahead to the water. Ok, first off, how many husbands would go off, leaving their elderly wives alone on a wooded path with a "twisted back"?

     Also according to Dr.Greineder, the dog ran back and when he returned, he found his wife brutally butchered, almost decapitated. Yet, according to the report he gave the police, he checked her vital signs. Checked her vital signs? He stated twice that he had checked her carotid artery.

     Hmmm. I don't know, maybe it's just me but I always thought when a head's been nearly severed from the body, it's not much use checking for a pulse!

     So after he supposedly checks her vital signs, what does he do then? Does he do what any other normal person would do and scream for help? No, he doesn't. Does he quickly grab his cell phone and call 911? Ooops, no again. He had left his mobile cell phone at home and the other one was the car phone. A busy, professional man like that, not having his cell phone with him at all times? Amazing.

     Then, according to Greineder, he  tried to pick up his wife and carry her but she was too heavy. So instead of making a bee line back to his car, where he knew his car phone was, he decided instead to take the scenic route around the park.

     It took him quite awhile to finally get back to his car and call 911. According to the police, even after he arrived at the car, there was a 4-5 minute gap before he actually made the call. Had he by this time, being the physician that he was, figured out that his wife was dead yet? Apparently not. Here's the 911 call from the above CBS news article:

"Dispatcher: Wellesley Police. This call is recorded."

"Greineder: Help. I’m at the park. I think someone, someone attacked my wife. I’m trying to get police. "

   "Dispatcher: Is she injured?"

"Greineder: I think she’s dead. I’m not sure. I’m a doctor. I went back."

He's not sure???

     Ok, I realize that even we medical professionals can become hysterical when a loved one has been injured or killed. And I realize that we can momentarily forget certain aspects of our training. That's a normal reaction that can happen to anyone.

    But in a situation like this, for a well trained, former emergency room physician, to have found his butchered wife, supposedly checked her vital signs, attempted to carry her lifeless body -  with her head bludgened and a two and one half inch gaping hole around her neck - and still was not sure if she was even dead yet? I'm afraid that strains credulity just a bit!

 Blood Stain Patterns

     Another interesting factor was the blood stains on the defendant's clothes and shoes. Greineder stated that the blood stains got on his clothes when he tried to carry his wife.

     However, the state's expert, Ken Martin, testified that there was both transfer blood and impact blood splatter on the defendant's shoes and jacket, as well as bloody "hair swipes" that were caused when Greineder drug his wife's body from behind.

     Dr. Bernard Knight, author of Simpson's Forensic Medicine, and Professor of Forensic Pathology in Wales, defines blood splatter as, " blood that either falls or is thrown off by some active movement." He further states that it comes, not from the first blow to the head, but from the second, due to a delayed appearance of blood, caused by spasms, after the first blow.

     If a weapon strikes a second time, it then picks up blood droplets from the first wound and throws them off in splatter patterns. According to Dr. Knight, a similar pattern can be seen with a knife slashing someone's throat.

     If the defendant was standing behind his wife as he struck her twice with a hammer, it's logical that there would be blood splatter patterns on his jacket. If he's cutting her throat from the front, it's also logical that there would be splatters on his shoes. If he's dragging her body through the woods, it's logical that there would be transfer blood stains and hair on his jacket, the patterns consistent with a dragging motion. What was amazing, was that no blood was noted on his hands. According to the prosecution, it had a little bit to do with the latex gloves they found near the crime scene - along with the murder weapons.

   One thing I am curious about, that wasn't mentioned much in the articles I read. What was the German Sheppard doing all this time?  How far was the dog from the supposed attack?  How did Greineder manage to kill his wife without the dog going at him or making a huge ruckus?

     His attorney says he's innocent. His family says he's innocent. The jury saw it differently, however, and asked themselves many questions - like why did the good doctor call a hooker the day after his wife's murder?

Grundy's Closing

"Ladies and gentlemen, when this defendant ran across that circle with his dog, he did not scream, and he did not yell, and was not looking for help -- going down that pathway. And I suggest to you that those actions are completely inappropriate for a person looking to help his wife, but completely consistent with a person who has just killed her."