Our Identification Rights
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The Technology of Facial Recognition
Our Identification Rights
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Virtopsy: Is It Feasible?
If only the world of television was closer to reality or even on the horizon of probability, examinations for evidence and especially the cause of death would be so much easier. Take for example, the autopsy. This is a grueling, back-breaking process calling for much determination, the correct tools, and years of knowledge. Breaking skin with cutting tools, using saws to split through cartilage and bone is a difficult, highly specialized and tedious task. If it could only be done in a high-tech manner such as what we see on television shows such as Bones and CSI—with detailed scans and video images of what lay inside—so, can it?
Virtopsy Up for Opinion
According to an article for Newswise from Johns Hopkins Hospital, high-tech “Virtopsies” are not total reality and the more traditional physical examination of autopsy is ‘still the gold standard for determining cause of death’ experts claim. “The latest virtual imaging technologies–including full-body computed tomography (CT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, X-ray and angiography are helpful, they say, but cannot yet replace a direct physical inspection of the body’s main organs.”
"Medical problems most commonly missed or not seen by autopsy included air pockets in collapsed lungs (which could have impeded breathing) and bone fractures, and the most common diagnoses missed by imaging were heart attack, pulmonary emboli and cancer,” says Burton. She believes that imaging results can also create question because most tissue examples need to be physically examined for analysis. Costs may also be prohibitive as imaging equipment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and full-body CT scans for example can run about $1,500 each, which, when added to device purchasing and maintenance fees, make vitropsy an awfully expensive option.
Source:
For some interesting real life cases on autopsy and the subsequent evidence, visit:
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Developing Fingerprints on Submerged Weapons Now a Reality
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Cell Phone Forensics
Reference & Resource
Monday, October 17, 2011
A Rape Case In Sweden
Monday, September 5, 2011
Junk Science Defined
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Coming Onto the Landscape: Veterinarians at Crime Scenes
Nicknamed “Animal CSI”
Other Assorted Animal Crimes
Training Ongoing
Dog-Fighting Ring Exposed
The Vick Case Details
Other New Animal Detectives

Tuesday, May 4, 2010
What are Prisons Really For?
It depends on the case. For those with life without parole, prisons are nothing more than a holding area, some more humane than others, where dangerous folks are segregated to keep society as a whole safer for the rest of us. For those who might someday get out, prison is primarily punishment, but it does offer, for those who reach out for it, a chance for rehabilitation.
The purpose of prison is to isolate offenders from society to protect the public and to punish offenders. Unfortunately, although prison may not be a preferred experience, the amenities offered to offenders sometimes strain the bounds of belief. Libraries more extensive than in a prosecutor's office, large screen TVs, and well-equipped work out areas are standard fare at most prisons. These privileges should be earned, not mandated. I am not at all for any kind of abusive treatment of prisoners, but the prison experience should not be a posh one. That's why I am such a fan of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom I have posted on before. Although he presides over a county jail rather than a prison, he makes sure that it is not a pleasant experience. His standard retort to complaining prisoners is "If you don't like it, don't come back.
Katherine Scardino:

