中空性皮下出血宽度与致伤木棒直径的相关性

目的观察不同直径和不同打击力度的圆柱形木棒对垂直方向打击皮肤所形成的中空性皮下出血形态的相关性。方法采用生物力学击打装置,使用5种不同直径（2.0～4.0cm）木棒,从零递增击打力度（0～2300N）,对活体乳猪背部皮肤进行打击,观察乳猪背部皮肤中空性皮下出血分布范围、色泽及形态特征,并采用SPSS 13．0统计软件对所得数据进行分析。结果中空性皮下出血出现的最小打击力度阈值（230N）,随打击工具直径的增大而阈值增大（230～810N）;同一直径的木棒在不同击打力度下所形成的中空性皮下出血总宽度及中空宽度均没有统计学差异（P〉0.05）。中空性皮下出血的范围随木棒直径的增大而增大（R2=0．953,P〈0．01）;皮下出血总宽度及中空宽度与打击物直径,存在较好的正相关性（R2=0．797,P〈0．01）,符合一元线性回归方程模型。结论本研究可望用于推断垂直打击造成中空性皮下出血的木棒直径的大小,为钝器致伤工具的判断提供初步的理论依据。     

二次溅落状血迹形态的模拟实验观察

目的观察二次溅落状血迹的形态特征,探讨其形成机理及与行为方式的关系。方法建立室内现场环境,用10mL血液,以单滴连续滴落或一次性倾倒方式,从10～160 cm高度以10 cm为间隔,制作二次溅落状血迹模型;用棍棒打击及撞击方式制作低位打击及头部撞击溅落血迹模型。观察各种血迹分布,并分析比较其形态差异。结果二次溅落状血迹和头部撞击溅落状血迹在垂直面上均形成倒三角形空白区域的分布形态,但前者分布面积较后者小;低位打击溅落在垂直面上的血迹无此特征,且打击飞溅血滴的飞行角度大于二次溅落血迹。结论利用二次溅落状血迹的形态特征,对于鉴别低位溅血、分析行为方式、证实相关证词具有重要价值。     

骨砍创金属颗粒的检测

目的 应用扫描电镜/X射线能谱仪(SEM/EDX)对菜刀砍击骨质后遗留在创面上的金属微粒进行检测.方法 3种不同材质菜刀各取5把,对猪大腿骨进行砍击,使用SEM/EDX对骨创面上附着的金属颗粒元素以及菜刀自身所含元素进行定性及定量检验,并对结果进行比对分析.结果 菜刀样本同型号之间元素重量百分比相比较,结果无统计学差异(P＞0.05);创面附着金属颗粒与菜刀自身所含元素种类特征相同;其所占重量的百分比一致(P＞0.05);结论 骨骼创面遗留金属颗粒的元素种类及其百分比含量,可以作为区分菜刀类致伤工具的重要依据.     

圆形滴状血迹形态与血滴体积、撞击速度的相关性

目的观察不同体积的血滴以3种撞击速度垂直撞击3种不同介质形成的滴状血迹形态及大小,并探讨其相关性。方法将8种不同体积（14～115IxL）的抗凝猪m形成血滴,以3种不同的撞击速度（3．1～5．4m／s）分别垂直滴落于白纸、玻璃及釉面地砖上,观察形成血迹的形态特征,测量其直径,并采用SPSS13．0统计软件进行分析。结果在3种撞击速度条件下,在3种介质上形成的滴状血迹直径均随血滴体积的增加而增大,血迹直径与血滴体积存在较好的线性关系,可得出回归方程（回归模型R2〉0．85,P〈0．01）;介质表面越粗糙,血迹直径越小;仅在自纸上发现血迹边缘有突起形成,且其数目随血滴体积的增加而增多。撞击速度及血滴体积存在较好的多重线性关系,可得出多重回归方程（回归模型R2〉0．90,P〈0．01）。结论垂直撞击形成的血迹形态及大小与血滴体积、撞击速度具有显著的相关性,可望用于推测出血源位置、受伤体位及出血部位载体。     

血迹分析在现场血迹提取中的应用

对命案现场血迹的研究和分析历来是命案现场勘验及现场分析的重要组成部分。传统上,对现场血迹的研究分析侧重于对血迹形态及其形成过程的分析和研究,通过对现场血迹的分布规律及形态特征的观察和测量,判断血迹来源与形成机制,进而推断血迹与案件或犯罪事实之间的关系和过程[1]。     

不同高度滴落血在3种不同载体上的形态和平均直径

暴力犯罪现场一般都会留下各种血迹,如滴落状、喷溅状、流柱状、擦拭状、抛射状血迹等[1,2],能够反映出血迹形成的方式、受害人出血时的位置、出血后的活动情况以及案件发生过程中其它有价值的信息,据此可以重现犯罪现场所发生事件的过程,在甄别证人证言及犯罪嫌疑人供述等方面有非常重要的意义。本文作者将抗凝人血从不同高度垂直滴落在表面光滑程度不等的物体上,对物体上血迹的形态和大小进行测量和观察,旨在找出垂直滴落血迹的特点及形态变化规律,为分析鉴别刑事案件现场的血迹特征提供实验参考资料。1材料与方法将滴管吸满新鲜的抗凝人…     

3D 技术在犯罪现场重建中的应用

3D技术在现场血迹重建的应用当前国内对于现场血迹重建的研究重点主要在血迹形态、血迹检测及DNA测定上,由于相关工具的缺乏使对现场血迹的分析应用很难深入和普及。3D技术对现场血迹重建时血迹形态的深入分析提供了很好的工具。目前,3D技术主要应用于现场上因动脉血管破裂,打击、撞击等形成的喷溅状血迹的分析。众所周知,喷溅血迹其形状类似于惊叹号,如果除去其尾部就相当于一个椭圆形。通过实验可知,该椭圆形的形状与血迹投射方向和血迹附着平面的角度(α)有着对应关系,当α为0度时,该椭圆形变为直线;当α为90度时,则为圆形;当α为180度时,则又变为直线。而该椭圆形形状的变化则可以用椭圆形的短轴与长轴之比来表示。根据其变化规律,可推导出其函数关系是α与椭圆的短长轴的比值成正弦函数关系。由此,根据犯罪现场     

用热解离法检出匕首上3人混合血迹1例

在法医学实践中,经常遇到一种作案工具同时致伤一人或多人的案件,要求法医对作案工具上的混合血迹作出检验。现报道用热解离法检出混合血迹1例。 1992年9月1日,某县村民陶××被5人围打,陶即用匕首朝对方乱刺,逃出后到县公安局投案自首并交出匕首1把。当晚被刺者叶某死亡(右肺中叶贯通创,血气胸),伤者段某、贺某被送医院抢救,医院诊断:段某肠腔破裂,下腹被刀刺伤(创口为横形);贺某右大腿被刀刺伤,股动脉破裂,失血性休克早期。根据案情分析:叶某右肺中叶贯通创,为匕首直接刺入形成;段某下腹部创为匕首横扫时形成,刀刃大范围接触腹部;贺某是在跳起踢陶时被刺伤右大腿,匕面小范围接触创面。由于匕     

铁铬合金菜刀遗留金属颗粒的成分评价方法

目的检测铁铬合金菜刀遗留的金属颗粒成分,并建立可行的评价指标及方法。方法使用滤纸擦蹭菜刀制作金属遗留微小颗粒样本,应用扫描电镜-X射线能谱仪(scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer,SEM-EDX)的GSR颗粒分析功能检测遗留金属颗粒成分,计算遗留金属颗粒中铁、铬相对含量比。结果铁铬合金菜刀遗留金属颗粒内所含铁、铬相对含量比,在大部分菜刀间差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论使用GSR颗粒分析功能量化检测铁铬合金菜刀遗留金属颗粒内铁、铬相对含量比,为此类致伤工具的认定建立可行的评价方法。     

精神病人自砍颅部死亡1例

1案例资料某日中午,路人发现某出租屋内有血迹自门缝流出的,拉起卷闸门见宁某(女,24岁)正持菜刀猛砍自己头部,急上前制止,反遭其抗拒,后送医院抢救无效死亡。现场勘验现场地面有大面积血泊,向卷闸门外流淌,血泊周围有滴落状血迹,血泊中有1把菜刀,四周墙壁有大量甩溅状血迹。地面及床上见断发、碎骨片及脑组织。现场有某精神病院的药袋,内有舒必利、氯氮平片、盐酸苯海索片等药品。尸体检验尸斑淡,全身皮肤及粘膜苍白。额顶部15 cm×10 cm范围内有数十条密集的平行排列的砍痕,颅骨破碎,13 cm×6 cm范围内软组织及额顶骨缺损,相应处脑组织缺损…     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.