Upcoming Webinar: Presumptive Screening

A webinar event, hosted by Gateway Analytical, will focus on "The Value of Presumptive Screening of Physical Evidence." The April 30, 2013 event is presented by Antonio Scatena, laboratory manager, and Cara Plese, M.S., scientist at Gateway Analytical.

Topics covered will include:

  • The advantages of microscopic and presumptive screenings of physical evidence prior to expensive DNA analysis
  • How these screening methods can save time, money and resources by potentially eliminating unnecessary further analysis
  • The importance of proper packaging of evidence collected at the scene to ensure it is not compromised prior to analysis
Presumptive tests for blood, seminal fluid, urine, and saliva are fast, relatively inexpensive, and can quickly eliminate a stain from further analysis if the results show the sample is not the fluid originally suspected. Likewise, microscopic analysis of hair is a nondestructive test involving minimal preparation and can confirm if hair is human in origin and determine if a particular hair is suitable for nuclear DNA analysis. Both time and money can be saved by efficiently eliminating samples from further analysis when it is deemed unnecessary by a presumptive method.
This webinar is designed for police and attorneys involved in cases with physical evidence. During this webinar, our presenters will discuss the advantages of microscopic and presumptive screenings of physical evidence, especially suspected bodily fluid stains and hair prior to advancing to more expensive DNA analysis. They will provide examples of such screenings and discuss how these screening methods can save valuable time, money and resources by eliminating samples from being forwarded onto unnecessary further analysis. They will also discuss proper packaging of evidence collected at the scene, especially stains, and why this is important to ensure that evidence is not lost or compromised prior to analysis in the laboratory.
Next >

Forensic Podiatry (Part Two of Two)

THE DISCIPLINE of forensic podiatry—or, in other words, the examination of pedal evidence—has progressed significantly over the past ten years. It is no longer a question of “What can you do with a footprint?” but rather, “Who can we use to evaluate the footprint?” Cases involving pedal evidence, especially bloody footprints and issues of determining shoe sizing or fit issues compared to questioned footwear, have become more common over the past two or three years.