Analytical methods used for the discrimination of substances suspected to be bar soap: a preliminary study

The submission to forensic laboratories of unknown specimens suspected of being biological or chemical warfare agents has increased tremendously with the threat of terrorism. Oftentimes, a threatening correspondence that contains hoax materials is intended to make the recipient(s) believe they have been exposed to a toxin. In some cases, the perpetrator can use standard household products, such as detergents and soaps. Once these materials are received, they become forensic evidence and may be analyzed for identification and/or comparison with known seized material from a suspect(s). Two separate studies were conducted using different analytical protocols for bar soaps. In the first set, the forensic laboratory at the United States Secret Service conducted tests on 68 bars of soap using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. The 68 different soaps displayed unique total ion chromatogram profiles. Energy-dispersive X-ray analysis in conjunction with scanning electron microscopy was also used to characterize 46 of the 68 soaps as a preliminary study. In a second set of studies, as part of a homicide investigation, the laboratory at the California Department of Justice, Riverside, conducted examinations on 13 bars of soap by utilizing Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy. The case study demonstrated that it is possible to distinguish some bar soaps using infrared analysis. Furthermore, the bar soaps could be distinguished from typical laundry detergents using this technique.     

Recall from informed consent counselling for cataract surgery

The authors investigated the effect of giving written material on information recall from informed consent counselling for cataract surgery. Fifty English-speaking patients who underwent non-urgent cataract extraction at Flinders Medical Centre, South Australia, were prospectively enrolled. Systematic counselling for cataract surgery was provided, with a written copy of the content given to a randomly selected group of patients (n = 24). All subjects completed a questionnaire after counselling and again at two weeks after surgery to test their satisfaction with, and recall of, information provided. Patients were found to be satisfied with the amount of information they received and most were able to recall details about the cataract surgery procedure. However, many could not recall success rates or complication rates and only a minority could list any complication. The provision of written information did not significantly alter recall (p>0.05). Recall was significantly better immediately after counselling than two weeks after surgery (p<0.05). Younger patients also had significantly better recall (p<0.05). Patients were happy with the information they had been given but did not remember enough from the informed consent process to satisfy legal requirements.     

Forensic implications of biting behavior: a conceptually underdeveloped area of investigation

Within the context of a criminal investigation the human bitemark traditionally provides the forensic dentist with both physical and biological evidence. In recent years, however, examples exist where in addition to discussing physical and biological evidence, expert witnesses have also testified in court regarding the behavioral aspects of biting behavior. Interested in this additional source of evidence, the authors reviewed the research literature from which biting behavior could be explained. The review found a hiatus of empirical knowledge in this respect, with only two papers seemingly related to the topic. With this dearth of knowledge in mind, the authors present a framework for further analysis and tentatively suggest reasons for biting behaviors, using a range of psychological models. The article ends with a cautionary note that vague and often misleading behavioral assumptions must not be applied to bitemark testimony until further data are available.     

The relevance of the concept of action to the criminal law

B.A., Denison University 1970; Ph.D., Ohio State University 1976; J.D., Ohio State University 1976.