Happy Holidays to all!

http://www.ncsu.edu/faculty-and-staff/bulletin/2011/12/the-science-of-santa-2/

Forensics of Horror Part 1: Ted Bundy

It's October again, the leaves are falling, the pumpkins are out, and so are the Christmas Halloween decorations. Which means it's time to focus on the Forensics of Horror again. Last year I focused on the supernatural boogie men, but this year I'm going to focus on the human monsters, which in my opinion, are infinitely more scary.

This week: Ted Bundy

 I had quite the surprise researching Mr. Bundy, nee Theodore Cowell, to find that he had his very own tie to my home state of Vermont. He was born in 1946 at the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers right in Burlington. The Lund Family Center still exists helping pregnant young Vermont women though the name has changed. He was only in Vermont for a couple of months before moving to Philadelphia where he was raised under the impression that his grandparents were his parents. In 1951 he moved with his real mother where she married  Johnnie Bundy, a military cook.


His profile seems to be that of every successful serial killer. Well behaved, charismatic, quiet... He met his first love in 1968. When she left, deciding he was not husband material, he was devastated and became withdrawn and depressed. He learned his mother was not his sister as he had believed for so long. Eventually he started another relationship and though "Elizabeth" thought he was unfaithful she stayed utterly devoted.


In 1974 women began disappearing from the local college campus...


In 1975 he was stopped by police for a moving violation. In the vehicle, police found pantyhose, handcuffs, an ice pick and a crow bar. The front seat was missing. Police suspected him of burglary. Now at this time there was a woman who claimed to be attacked, the items she described were the same as those found in Bundy's car. The police made the connection and he was charged with attempted kidnapping. He was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Police were also trying to tie him to a known murder and eventually felt they had the evidence to move forward. According to credit card statements he had been in the area at the time of the murder.


In the murder trial Ted Bundy decided to represent himself. This allowed him to be in the court room without leg irons and move with complete independence in the court room, and more importantly, freely between the courtroom and the court library. In June of 1977, he escaped, leaping from a window in the library. A week later he was captured.


One would think this would make the guards more cautious but on December 30th, he escaped from prison and moved to Tallahassee Florida, next to Florida State University. He lived under the name Chris Hagan and would occasionally attend lecture. 


On Saturday, January 14, he broke into Florida State University's Chi Omega sorority house and bludgeoned and strangled to death two women, raping one of them and brutally biting her on her buttocks and one nipple. He beat two others over the head with a log. They survived thanks to the arrival of their fellow roommate Nita Neary, who came home and interrupted Bundy before he was able to kill the other two girls.

On February 9th, 1978 he killed again, this time a 12 year old girl who he mutilated. Investigators were able to match bite marks on the victims to Bundy. Remember at this time, DNA evidence was not used but we do have an example of forensic work in the bite molds which are still used to this day.


Good ol' Ted thought he could still beat the guilty verdict and turned down a plea deal.


In 1979 he want on trial for the sorority murders where he again acted as his own attorney. The trial was televised and Ted attempted to play up to the media and charm the jury. It didn't work. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.


In 1980 he was put on trial for the death of Kimberly Leach, the 12 year old victim. This time he had an attorney and his court room behavior was nothing like the charismatic man known to so many. He appeared angry, slouched and glared. Appearing perhaps more the man he really was than the congenial mask. He was found guilty and received a third death sentence.


During the sentencing phase, he surprised everyone by calling Carol Boone, who was convinced of his innocence, as a character witness and marrying her while she was on the witness stand. She later gave birth to Bundy's child, a little girl who Bundy adored. Eventually Boone divorced Bundy after finally realizing he was guilty.

On January 7th, 1989, prior to being put to death, he gave details of more than 50 women he claimed to have murdered. Those closest to the case thought there were as many as 100 victims to Ted Bundy, but whether this is true or not has not been proven. He confessed to keeping severed heads and participating in necrophilia. On January 24th, 1989 at 7:13am he was put to death by electric chair while the crowd outside cheered his death.

But it's not over, because just recently Ted Bundy has made the news again. Speculation was that eight year old Ann Marie Burr may have been Ted's first victim when he was 14 years old and lived in the girl's neighborhood. A DNA profile of Bundy was recently obtained and now cold cases are being brought to light again in an attempt to link Bundy to previous murders with the forensics capability that is available now. This case did not show a match, but how many others will? The very fact that we are still looking at Bundy after his death shows the fascination is not over.




 

Four Loko Removes Caffeine...Surprise, Surprise

Well, we didn't really think Four Loko was going to go away just because of a ban did we? Of course not! As I posted last November the focus on Four Loko appeared to be all on the caffeine content which was a dramatic missing of the point. Well, Four Loko has removed the caffeine, guarana and taurine, and is good to go again.

Almost.

Apparently someone has actually noticed that the alcohol content is kind of a problem. Probably because all those kids were suffering from alcohol poisoning rather than caffeine overdoses.

The focus is now on changing the label so that people know that when they consume one Four Loko, they are actually consuming 4 or 5 drinks rather than one. I'm sure this labeling will stop the problem, after all it's not like anyone ever abuses alcohol or that college kids knew full well that they were getting a good deal for $2.50... I'm sure it will all be better now.

Gender Bias in Pharmaceuticals

This post has nothing to do with forensics, but it does have to do with pharmaceuticals and thus toxicology so I deem it relevant. I'm sure I could find an overdose case and really tie it in, but the reality is this is my blog so...

It all started with a quick trip to my local Rite Aid where I went to the analgesic section of the store actually in search of Pamprin which they didn't have. That's ok. We shall change and adapt, it's alright.

So I saw Excedrin Menstrual which seemed like a good substitute, but as a chemist I never actually buy anything pharmaceutical related without looking at the ingredients so I picked up the box and took a look. When I did this I saw something unusual. You see I'm also a migraine sufferer and happen to have a bottle of Excedrin Migraine at home. The unusual thing was that this bottle of Excedrin Menstrual looked an awful lot like my Excedrin Migraine.

When I say an awful lot alike, I mean exactly the same. See below. Anyone see a difference? Bueller? Bueller?

Well... ok. So it's exactly the same medication. I can see that, they'd market it differently so people will understand that it can be used for different things. Alright. I'll buy that.

Now here's where I suddenly got angry. 

The Excedrin Migraine medication was priced at $5.49 for 24 geltabs whereas the Excedrin Menstrual was priced at $6.49 for 20 geltabs.  That's 22.8 cents per pill for the Migraine medication versus 32.4 cents per pill. Is the pink ink more expensive? Is that what I should believe here?

(BTW: looking at the inactive ingredients there are very slight differences with the Migraine meds having more inactive ingredients than the Menstrual.)

Looking online you can find the Excedrin Menstrual pill cheaper than what I saw at my local Rite Aid, but then again you can also find the Migraine version cheaper as well. The funny thing is when I went to the Excedrin website I saw advertisement for several promotions for money off, including one for the Migraine medication but none for the Menstrual product...

Now to be fair women are also more likely to get migraines than men so the larger purchasing community for the migraine meds will also be women. However, migraines are also found in men and are not just a "woman problem" making those meds slightly more universal.

We're all familiar with gender bias in pharmaceuticals. The focus on erectile dysfunction, the push back on the male birth control pill until ALL of the side effects are worked out even though women have been dealing with the side effects from theirs for decades.

So, what do you think? Is this another example of gender bias or am I reading too much into this?

Casey Anthony and the CSI Effect

If you have been living anywhere other than inside a cave you have heard about the Casey Anthony case, the woman accused of killing her two year old and lying to her family and authorities about the girl's whereabouts. Just this past week a jury found her not guilty to the murder, manslaughter and child abuse charges citing the lack of physical evidence, though they did convict her of lying to authorities. Granted, I was not on the jury and I was only privy to the information any other public person has had during the course of the trial, but I admit I was stunned by the verdict. The evidence seemed overwhelming and as a mother to me her behavior certainly indicated guilt. This seems to be the opinion of most people in the country seeing the number of calls for Dexter Morgan to rectify the situation. So what went wrong?

The jury cited a lack of forensic evidence to convict. The body of Caylee had been left to the elements for so long that by the time it was found, no forensic evidence could be gathered. I've talked about the CSI effect before where juries have been so influenced by shows like CSI that they expect complete forensic evidence that unequivocally ties a person to a crime. That is simply not possible in most cases and is unrealistic to expect, but as a culture we've become so conditioned to expect evidence to say "yes, she did it" that people seemed to have lost their ability to reason.

Forensic evidence is not always perfect, it may be compromised by time or elements as in this case, there may only be a partial fingerprint, full analysis may not have been performed due to cost and time. Yes, these things are expensive, and yes they do take time. It's not CSI where a speck of blood will tell you who it was and bring up a picture, an address and a full criminal record in minutes. I don't fault CSI. The show is there for entertainment and let's face it, real forensic work is often boring and tedious. Watching an autosampler spin around with a hundred faceless samples would not make good tv.

We just have to remember that shows like that are fiction. They are entertainment and not what anyone should expect when a person goes to sit on a jury. It wasn't that long ago that forensic evidence really began to be used an accepted in the courtroom. Before that juries had to sit and listen to all of the people involved and ask themselves, does this make sense? We seem to have lost some of that ability. Forensic evidence is a valuable tool and has not only put people behind bars, but exonerated them as well, but it is not the only evidence in a case, and it would be a shame if juries forgot that.

Phineas and Ferb, Climate Change and Language Barriers

I recently read an article on climate change that made me laugh. Not because it was particularly funny, but because it was about the language discrepancy between the scientific community and the lay person. In this article they attributed the general population's reluctance to believe in climate change to the lack of concrete language used by the researchers. They urged these experts to use more black and white statements and "regular" language. This is the point where I laughed.

Because here's the thing. We just can't do it! When I went to write this blog post I looked for the original article I read but couldn't find it. I did however find a great article here and I love this portion of it:

"Scientists are often compelled by their education to tell you more about what isn't known than what is known. That intellectual and academic honesty allows critics to use the scientists' own honesty as a brickbat to pummel their work. As an example, for the past 20 years when reporters would call and ask whether this flood, or hurricane or that tornado was due to global warming, the entire scientific community studying the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere would say, "No single event can be attributed to global warming." That is the truth, and climate change skeptics will use that honesty to say, "See, there's no detectible change." "

As a scientist myself I understand this dilema. The more you study science the more variables you discover and you start getting in to the, well that depends on what the definition of "is" is! And it's true. Define your terms is a common phrase in the scientific community. What do you mean by "change?" It's a valid question to the scientific community and unfortunately the lay comunity just thinks you're being difficult or avoiding the truth, when another scientist would simply define their terms and move on.

So why am I talking about climate change on a forensic blog? Because this language barrier exists every time you take the stand. Not only do we have the barrier between ourselves and the jury, but then you have to throw in lawyers and hoo boy, now you have a third language!

I'm reminded of an episode of my son's favorite show. In Phineas and Ferb, the spy bosses give Perry the platapus a robot, but then tell him that the manual is only in Dutch. Unfortunately they don't have a Dutch to English dictionary, but they do have a Dutch to French Dictionary and a French to English Dictionary. So Perry has to use both dictionaries to figure out how to control the robot.

That's like being an expert witness. You have to translate the attorneys question from legalese into science speak and then translate your science speak into layman's terms for the jury. Here's the problem. There are no dictionaries. When you gain familiarity to the legal community you get to the point where you know what they mean to ask even if that's not quite where they're asking, and over time you begin to answer what they mean to ask as opposed to what they actually asked.

Now, what do I mean by this? In breath testing for example an attorney may ask you "Is this test accurate?" I have always hated this question. Why? Because all the attorney wants to know is, is this test right or wrong. To me, my science side starts piping up and yelling in the background what do you mean by "accurate?" To what degree? And accurate of what? Of what the instrument saw or the body burden of the individual?

To answer that question I would state what I was relying upon and then answer whether the test result met the accuracy requirments as by Rule for what the instrument saw in the breath chamber. Is that what the attorneys were always asking? No, probably not.

And the reason I say that it is probably not is because I often run into attorneys who don't understand how two different test results could both be "accurate." Well, define your terms. What do you mean by accurate? When a scientist answers that question they're going to answer whether they were within the accuracy limits required (10% in Vermont for breath alcohol testing) for what was in the instrument at the time the sample was analyzed. If that isn't what the attorney wants to know then they need to change the question.

Although scientists are often aware that there is a language barrier I find that attorneys are often baffled by it. I have often sat on the stand arguing what appears to be minutea to the attorney but what matters quite a bit to me. It's furstrating because although I may know what they mean by their question I simply can not answer it if the terms are inaccurate.

And this is why the urge to researchers to change their dialogue when speaking about their research is doomed to fail. They are still scientists and they must first and foremost be repsected in that community. A person who speaks in blacks and whites and absolutes is not a scientist and will not be taken seriously by that community. That's not how research works. The scientific process will always be to form a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. The answers will always be that the evidence thus far indicates or research suports x, y and z. It will never be x causes z. It will never be in absolutes.

In order to be effective in the courtroom, expert witnesses need to be able to bridge the language barriers without compromising their scientific integrity. It's a difficult balance because you often do fall into answering what is meant by the question as opposed to what is asked. That is why it is so important to qualify every answer you give with what you are basing your answer on. The problem remains that there are no dictionaries and far too often attorneys or the public may not realize that there even is a barrier present.

How we can work more effectively together and walk that line is a difficult one and if anyone has ideas that have worked well, let me know. To me the best we can do is help the attorneys we work with understand that words matter. They already understand this concept in the court room they just need to understand that there is another language spoken by scientists.

I love how the article I mentioned above ends:

"So, scientists are changing the message. It is a subtle change, but important. When reporters like me ask the question, "Was the flood, or the drought or the tornadoes caused by global warming?" The scientists now respond, "No single event can be attributed to global warming, but we told you this was going to happen.""

To scientists that's the compromise you'll get and it's the best our integrity will allow.

Personal feelings and the expert witness

I've expressed the statement before of course that the role of the expert witness is to be objective and speak for the science, but no matter how often I've said that, I'm constantly encountering the attitude that it is a personal thing. As if feelings have some sort of place in science. Remember the "There's no crying in baseball!" it's the same thing, there's no emotion in science.

Compare evolution and creationism. Evolution is based on observations in nature, experiments carried out in the lab, and fossil evidence. Creationism is based on feelings. As a scientist I have to look at the evidence and see that the evidence for evolution far, far outweighs the "feelings" of creationism. I'm obviously not in the minority there and that's because that is what science is about.

When an experiment is carried out, the goal of a scientist and all scientific procedure is to disprove the theory, not to prove it. That's a huge distinction and one that is crucial to scientific understanding. Whether I want my theory to be true or not, doesn't matter. At least not to any credible scientist.

Most of my work involves DUI and let me tell you, my personal feelings play no part. Why? Because it's not my job. It's not my job to argue the case, it's not my job to make the decisions. I am not the fact finder. That is a wonderfully freeing thing and I'm not sure why people resist that. My only job is to explain the science and see if everything is working properly. If it is, I say so. If it isn't, I say so. How I "feel" doesn't matter.

Pointing out a problem is not a personal attack. It is the role of the scientist to look at the data and base your opinion on the data, not on what you want the outcome to be. And that's what I always strive to do. The only difference in being an expert witness is that you have to express it in layman's terms so that the non-science community can understand it and make their own decisions.

I've worked for both the prosecution and the defense. I've been thanked by parents who have lost a child to an impaired driver. I've seen people facing the loss of their pension over a mistake. It's not a simple thing.

Thankfully, it's not my job to have feelings about it and any "scientist" that puts their emotions before the data is no scientist at all. I'm human. I'm not cold. I do have feelings of course, but they don't matter. My job is to explain the science, and that's what I do.

Man brings beer to DUI hearing

Some people are just their own worse enemies... Enjoy some light reading on this beautiful Friday!

 

 

 

 

 Man brings beer to DUI hearing

By Associated Press

Devils Lake Journal

Posted Mar 23, 2011 @ 01:00 PM

Devils Lake, ND —

MONTICELLO, N.Y. (AP) — Authorities say a New York man appearing before a judge on a felony drunken driving charge arrived at court an hour and a half late, drunk and carrying an open can of Busch beer.
Sullivan County Undersheriff Eric Chaboty says Keith Gruber of Swan Lake had four unopened beer cans in his bag Monday when he tried to walk through the metal detector at the county courthouse.

The Middletown Times Herald-Record reports that Judge Frank LaBuda asked the 49-year-old Gruber if he enjoyed his "liquid lunch." Gruber said he did, then said he was sorry. The judge revoked his bail and sent him to jail, where he remained Tuesday.

Gruber was arrested Dec. 27 in the town of Liberty and was out on $30,000 cash bail. He has prior DWI convictions.

The judge dismissed Gruber's court-appointed lawyer Monday because Gruber refused to cooperate with him. A phone number listed for Gruber was disconnected.

Killing Superman: The Importance of Good Laboratory Practice

People who are not laboratorians often don't understand the importance of Good Laboratory Practice. And yes, I meant to capitalize each of those words. Whenever you hear a scientist talk about Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) you should hear those capital letters because GLP is not the good practice of measuring twice and cutting once, it's the good practice of paying your taxes.

Good Laboratory Practice standards were first discussed in the 1970s when the realization came to light that you can't always take scientific data at face value. Before that time, the assumption was that the study was always done properly and recorded precisely. Pretty naive when you think about it. That's not to say that any action outside of GLP standards is malicious, all too often it's done out of ignorance, which is why it's so important to have well qualified and fully trained people who understand the importance of GLP.

People who don't understand the importance may balk at GLP because it is detailed, it is rigid and there is very little wiggle room. What does the minutiae matter? Isn't it just the final outcome that matters? Why the obsession with the process?

Killing Superman: A Parable on Good Laboratory Practice

One day in Gotham an analyst at Gotham Laboratories Inc was preparing her Hal 9000 to analyze water samples for Kryptonite levels. Lex Luther was at it again and there were a group of wide eyed orphans clutching teddy bears, stranded on an island surrounded by rising water. It was a sad sight, and Superman was chomping at the bit to go rescue the tiny tots.

There was just one problem. The water surrounding the area was not only fast moving and too dangerous for the mere mortals to rescue the orphans, but it was known to often be contaminated with Kryptonite. It was too dangerous for Superman to plunge in, he needed the laboratory tests first.

The Hal 9000 was calibrated, but when the analyst looked at her low Kryptonite control she could just barely see it. This wasn't good. The standard was at 5ppb. Although a low environmental level, it was the highest level of Kryptonite Superman could function with. Recovery was supposed to be at least 80% so that they could be sure if there was Kryptonite there, they would see it and thus be able to warn Superman. Not seeing the control was just not going to cut it.

Perhaps the standard was old? So the analyst opened a new bottle and ran it again. Nope, no good. Perhaps the calibration standards needed to be re-prepped? So the analyst re-prepped the standards. Nope, still couldn't see the low Kryptonite standard properly.

The analyst had worked at Gotham Laboratories Inc. for a long time so she knew the Standard Operating Procedure and she had done the first two steps for correcting a low control. The next two instructions in the SOP were to troubleshoot the instrument as needed, and then if that didn't work to contact the manufacturer. No problem, troubleshoot as needed. The instructions weren't anymore direct than that because, well... how do you document every possible thing that could go wrong and it's fix? I mean, that's why you have highly trained individuals in those positions.

But alas, Gotham hadn't quite embraced the GLP standards yet and where in another laboratory only the senior level analysts would do the troubleshooting, that wasn't a consideration here. I mean, that's what the checks were for on the instrument. If they didn't pass then you knew it wasn't working right and if it did, then it was. The outcome was simple.

The analyst knew there were things she could probably do like changing the lines or cleaning the cones or giving the Hal 9000 a good pep talk but the water was rising, her boss was being a jerk, the finals of American Idol were on TV and well, the way the Hal 9000 kept calling her "Dave" was creeping her out.

The control just wasn't visible so the answer was simple. She'd just add more. So taking her same low level Kryptonite standard she simply doubled the amount of her aliquot. Restarting her run and ignoring the question of "What are you doing Dave?" she watched for the control's results. It was beautiful! 90% recovery. Now all she had to do was run the water samples, Superman could save the orphans and she could go home.

I mean, after all, she fixed it right? The control passed. Well, not exactly.  She did indeed get her run to pass, but she didn't fix the problem. Whatever was making the Hal 9000 unable to see the low level of Kryptonite was still there but the run passed. Now of course the problem was that the point of the test was not to get the control to pass. The point of the test was to get accurate and reliable results in those unknown water samples. Running the control was just a way to be sure the instrument was working properly.

Those water samples that had been taken so carefully across the gradient of water Superman would have to pass were analyzed and things looked good. They were all below the low level control. Superman would be safe! Hurray!

Her boss was happy, the people of Gotham were happy and Superman went into the dangerous passage to get those poor orphans off that cursed island. Now the roof above the treacherous water was spiked and dangerous so Superman would have to swim, but he knew he could do it safely because the run passed and the Hal 9000 didn't see any Kryptonite in the water.

As Superman swum, he started feeling a little ill and half way there he went under. The crowd was stunned! What could do this to Superman? Only Kryptonite surely and they had tested for that. The run had passed!

Oh, but alas, double spiking the standard hadn't fixed the instrument, it only masked the problem and while it wasn't written anywhere that she couldn't do that; if the analyst had been familiar with GLP she would have known that changing the procedure to make a test pass was wrong and that forcing QC to pass can lead to erroneous results.

But alas, Gotham had no GLP and Superman was dead. Those poor orphans.

And thus the importance of Good Laboratory Practice; because the point is not to get the controls to pass, the point is to get accurate results on those unknown samples.

Lindsay Lohan and Kombucha

Not the most popular of drinks when you think of hitting the bar, but it's making the press now that a celebrity is involved. Sometimes that fame factor really does help to bring things to attention.

I first encountered Kombucha, a fermented tea, when it was sent for analysis to the laboratory I was working at. We all hovered around the bottle, grimacing at the "floaties" and nearly gagging at the smell. But supposedly some people actually like to drink it...for some reason.

Kombucha is a tea made with bacteria that has a host of claimed health benefits and also a host of health hazards associated with it. I won't bore you with the details, mostly because I find the details disturbing. Here's the important stuff. It's fermenting. When you have fermentation you have alcohol.

You'll note that the tea is not pasteurized to preserve any apparent health benefit from the bacteria but because of that fact, the alcohol in the beverage continues to be produced. Although the tag lists less than 0.5% alcohol that is not always the case over time. It's been a difficult subject to deal with for liquor control authorities because of this changing alcohol concentration. If it's less than 0.5% at one point is that good enough even if it goes over later?

It's a difficult thing to decide, but I'm willing to cut Lindsay some slack on this one. Maybe anyone who can actually swallow the stuff deserves the alcohol that goes with it.

At Home Forensic Fun

In honor of a beautiful Friday I'm sharing this link of Forensic Fun you can do at home or in the classroom. I have to admit it's pretty creative.

Have a beautiful weekend!

Artificial Sweeteners and Alcohol Absorption

Thank you to Christine Seivers with Radiology Technician Schools.net who reminded me of this topic. Check out their recent article on diet soda here.

I consider myself to be pretty casual with calorie counting, living by the theory of everything in moderation, but even I have to hesitate at times when it comes to calories, especially with Vermont's latest effort of posting the calorie counts on their menus. (Yikes!) So what better way to deal with the extra calories in alcohol then by mixing it with a diet soda?

Well, you may want to wait a minute there. Turn out that combining alcohol with an artificial sweetener increases the speed of gastric emptying and thus the speed of absorption in the blood stream. The faster the absorption, the higher the blood alcohol concentration reached since there is less time for the alcohol to undergo first pass metabolism.

In a study performed by Christopher Raynor et al at the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, observed that drinks containing an artificial sweetener had faster gastric emptying times than those that were regularly sweetened. The speed difference was significant with the diet versions emptying 42% faster resulting in quicker times to peak and higher peak blood alcohol concentrations (BAC).

Not only is it important to note the higher peak alcohol concentration obtained, but also to note that the speed of absorption can affect the level of impairment. This is best described as the Mellanby affect where there is more impairment observed at a given BAC as concentration increases than at the same BAC as it decreases. This is acute tolerance. With concentration rising more rapidly, a higher level of impairment can be observed because there is less time for this acute tolerance to develop.

One way to counter this is to add food while consuming your diet cocktails. The presence of food in the stomach, especially fatty food slows alcohol absorption because it slows gastric emptying resulting in a longer time for absorption and lower blood alcohol peak.

Of course then you've just negated the whole point of drinking the diet cocktail in the first place...

Why is Marijuana Illegal when Alcohol is Not?

It almost seems cyclical when the proposals come up for legalizing marijuana and it isn't just in this country, the world itself seems to question why it's not legal when alcohol is typically legal. You never see the same argument arise for cocaine or methamphetamine, with good reason! Legalizing an addictive drug just leads to trouble. I mean imagine if nicotine was legal? Oh wait...

Marijuana and alcohol have every similar effects. Both are impairing. Both can be harmful to your health, marijuana has similar effects on the lungs as tobacco and alcohol is known to damage the liver. So why is alcohol legal and marijuana is not?

Well, if you remember your history, the government did try to ban alcohol during prohibition. And we all know how successful that was. Alcohol was too fully enmeshed in our culture to be eradicated. Speakeasies were popular and people continued to drink though the health risks from homemade alcohol is always a bit higher than when it's made in nice clean regulated facilities. The interesting thing is what ultimately pushed the repeal was economic factors. The stock market fell, the Great depression started and people needed jobs. Prohibition was repealed and alcohol was once again legal to manufacture and tax.

Is it any wonder that economic downturns always lead to talks of legalizing marijuana?

At this time, marijuana was still legal. It's use and sale was allowed. So why didn't the government follow suit and develop the industry? Well in 1937 taxation began on marijuana with the Marihuana Act of 1937 which did nothing to criminalize it, but rather taxed those who dealt commercially with marijuana. In fact, the American Medical Association argued against the bill, not because they wanted to see harsher penalties, but because the bill did not exempt doctors who were prescribing marijuana for treatment purposes.

Eventually of course marijuana did become illegal, but there is more evidence that this was due to societal prejudice and competition with the paper industry who had more powerful lobbyists than it was to any scientific or health information.

I'm not saying whether or not it should be legal as that really is the point here. Besides which the argument is out there and repeated constantly. It's just an interesting thing to really examine why our laws are the way they are.

Accuracy and Precision

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." 

Mark Twain

I so often use statistics in my work that I forget that other do not. Not only is unfamiliarity a problem, but so often statistics are manipulated by those that use them to support one argument or another. When in doubt, ask for the raw data and do it yourself. One of the things that my father always reminded me when I was young was to look at my source. That is a very valuable thing in the day of the internet where anything and everything is out there.

To aid in some understanding I thought I would describe certain statistical terms that arise in journal articles in my field.

Accuracy: Accuracy is how close a measurement is to the "true" value. In a laboratory setting this is often how far a measured value is from a standard with a known value that was measured by different technology or on a different instrument.

Precision: Precision is how close repeated measurements are to each other. Precision has no bearing on a target value, it is simply how close multiple measurements are together. Reproducibility is key to scientific research and precision is important in this aspect.

Now obviously the goal is to have a measurement that is both accurate and precise, but being one doesn't mean that the other is as well. For example, if we had a bow and arrow and target, accurate shots would be ones in which hit the bulls eye. If we landed a shot in the bulls eye and others around the target we would be accurate, but not precise. If all of our shots landed close together, but not near the target than we would be precise but not accurate. To be accurate and precise we would need our shots to be together and in the bullseye.

The images above are a good reason to look further than just an average. If the average is based on a wide range of values than that average may indeed be meaningless. For example, if I have the values of 1 and 100, the average is 50.5. I could have that same average of 50.5 if my two values were 50 and 51. Both pairs of numbers result in the same average, but in the first example, the average is meaningless because the two numbers are so far apart.

This is where standard deviation comes in.

Standard Deviation: Standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion of numbers around a population average. So if you envision a bell curve of data, the standard deviation would be how far apart the numbers are from the average. Our first example above would have a very large standard deviation where as our second one would be small.Depending on how many standard deviations are used will tell you how many of the values are covered. One standard deviation will include 68% of all values whereas three standard deviations will include 99% of all values.

It's always important to look at how the data is being represented and to keep those three aspects in mind. If you are looking at a set of numbers or a conclusion drawn from repeated testing you want to be aware of the terms I mentioned above to know how much credibility to give the data.

Marijuana Soda

Now that Four Loko is being banned so frequently it was only a matter of time before another controversial drink would hit the news. This time it's not alcohol we're talking about, but marijuana.

In California, where the sale of medical marijuana is already legal, cannabis containing drinks are already sold in dispensaries. What makes this item newsworthy is more to do with it's packaging and marketing. Sold in fruity flavors and carbonated like soda these drinks from Canna Catering are marketed for their enjoyment factor and not for their medicinal purpose. Indeed for half the price of the medical beverages already sold it only contains a third of the marijuana as the medical beverages, so who really is this drink being made for?

Although Proposition 19 failed in November of this past year, which would have made personal recreational use of marijuana legal for those over 21 years, marijuana has been decriminalized so that possession of less than an ounce is only subjected to a $100 fine.

Is Canna Catering gambling that it's only a matter of time before it's legal? A company in Colorado, Dixie Elixers, is marketing their own line of drinks much like the soda from Canna Catering. It certainly seems like these companies are getting into line to be first in supermarkets should it become legal.

Oh Miley. Salvia in the News

Oh Miley, Miley. Hannah Montana is in the news again, but not for racy pictures. This time it's a video that was leaked with Miley Cyrus smoking something that looks suspiciously like marijuana. That could be a problem since marijuana is illegal but then she is a celebrity and that tends not to matter much, but wait! What is this? Miley says it's not marijuana but Salvia. Oh well, than that's ok.

So what is Salvia? Salvia divinorum is a plant native to Oaxaca Mexico and used by Mezatac Shamans to facilitate shamanic visions. Traditionally the fresh leaves are chewed or used in a tincture and produce effects that appear to be somewhat of a cross between LSD and marijuana though shorter lasting and more mild than either. Interestingly the Mezatac people view Salvia as the Virgin Mary incarnate and begin the ritual with an invocation to Mary, St Peter and the Holy Trinity.

Obviously Miley was not trying for shamanic visions and I'm pretty sure there was no invocation involved which brings us to use in the US. In the US Salvia is sold dried in packets and is typically smoked. It's legal in all 50 states and although the media has waged campaigns against the herb, emergency rooms and medical professionals have not reported cases that suggest any health concerns and police have not been reporting it as a factor in public order offenses.

I would hazard a guess and say that the reason there really hasn't been any problem with the herb is that the effects are very short lasting. The peak effect is within 1 minute of smoking with a high last 5 minutes, the subject's return to baseline occurs within 15-20 minutes. The two most commonly reported effects are "Increased insight" and "Improved Mood" which may also play a factor. When compared to something like LSD where effects last 8-12 hours that is a huge difference.

So back to Miley. Is the illegal potential the problem or the fact that she's a Disney star getting high the problem? If the former than Salvia saves the day, if the latter than I don't see Miley making the situation any better for herself. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Why is alcohol legal and marijuana not? Both are impairing yet one is legal and the other is not. Should Salvia be illegal just because it seems to have mood altering effects? I'm not convinced.

Fowl Forensics

In honor of the holidays that have just passed us by too quickly, here is an eye witness account of a suspicious death copied for the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.

 ***************************

While conducting fully uniformed patrol on Thursday, November 25^th, 2010, I was dispatched to a priority call for a suspicious death. I immediately activated my emergency lights and siren and proceeded to 123 Gobbler Lane.  Upon arrival at the scene, I swiftly and tactically made entry into the residence. I conducted a protective sweep of the entire premises, ensuring that no immediate threats were present. 

When I entered the final room to clear, the kitchen, my suspicion was immediately piqued when I observed that the door to the oven was left cracked open and heat was radiating from within.  When I opened the oven door, I could see the remains of the deceased victim, later identified as Tom T. Turkey. After visually inspecting the remains, I immediately suspected fowl play.

With the residence now a homicide crime scene, I immediately secured the perimeter and called in our forensic unit.  Forensic practitioners then began to arrive on scene to search, document, and analyze any existing evidence. Detective Mayflower, Registered Investigator® was among the first to arrive.  He began a slow and methodical search for evidence, utilizing other personnel in a grid search method, combing the exterior of the house (curtilage) for physical evidence.

On the anterior portion of the property, a housing structure constructed with "chicken wire" was located. Upon careful examination of this structure, not only was blood spatter found to be present, but a possible murder weapon was also located. The weapon was a standard kitchen cleaver, Oneida brand, serial number 54783. The weapon had blood visible on it with what appeared to be a feather stuck to the blade. After this evidence was marked by triangulation and photographed, it was collected and sealed to be sent to the laboratory for processing. 

With the exterior search concluded, the investigative team began a thorough search of the interior of the residence.  Culminating in the kitchen, we began to process the scene.  Although the apparent cause of death was decapitation, the body was also burned and appeared to be basted with a substance consistent with butter. The Medical Examiner and Certified Forensic Physician®, Dr. Bob Butterball, then arrived on scene. Due to the exigent circumstances present, he decided to conduct an immediate autopsy of the victim on scene.

After opening the body, Dr. Butterball concluded that the cavity seemed to be filled with a substance consistent with Stove Top stuffing and lacked the vital organs. After collecting samples of the white tissue and dark tissue, Dr. Butterball packaged the remains as evidence and sent them to the laboratory for processing. When the toxicology results returned, there were copious amounts of tryptophan present, along with traces of cranberry and sage. 

With no witnesses to be found and the scene lacking any latent fingerprints, this case remains open. If you have any information about the events of November 25^th on Gobbler lane, please contact me at the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute.