Week 38 Forensic Science Geek of the Week announced!

The Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Forensic Science Geek of the Week

The week 38 “www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week” honors goes to:

PAM KING, ESQUIRE

Pam King, Esquire-Forensic Science Geek of the Week
Pam King, Esquire-Forensic Science Geek of the Week

Pam King has been a lawyer with the Minnesota State Public Defender Trial Team since 2007. In that role, she is an active participant in the DNA Institute, a program designed to educated defense lawyers and improve DNA litigation. Recently, she acted a lead counsel representing Public Defender clients in the Minnesota Statewide Source Code Hearing. She has also created the Petri Dish, an e-newsletter focusing on forensic science and distributed to Minnesota Public Defenders. She lives in Rochester, MN with her husband, Gerry who is also her best friend and her three dogs, Mr. Peabody, Sadie and Poe.

PAM KING is Week 38’s www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week!

All hail the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week!!!

The Week 38 Forensic Science Geek of the Week: Pam King, Esquire

Congratulations to our Week 38 winner!

All hail the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week!!!

See the challenge question that our winner correctly answered.

OFFICIAL QUESTION:

Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge
Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge
Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge
Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge
Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge
Forensic Science Geek of the Week Challenge

1. What is this device?

2. What are its limitations?

Please visit the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com FaceBook fan page.

Our Geek of the Week answered:

This is a SCRAM unit (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor).  It is used for alcohol monitoring.  Using fuel cell technology it claims to measure the vapor from skin to determine alcohol in blood.  A technology called Transdermal Alcohol Content (TAC).  The limitations are that is cannot accurately measure the amount of blood alcohol present.  It can only detect the presence of alcohol.  Although the company uses a slope to compare the TAC readings taken over time to attempt to correlate to blood like is used in BrAC measurement, this technology has not been properly researched or validated.  The second limitation is it is measuring the vapor space above skin so interferents such as skin products with alcohol can register.  Third, it is non-specific so it cannot distinguish between ethanol, methyl, or isopropanol.

[BLOGGER’S NOTE: Lots of answers. Thank you all for contributing. Here are the Honorable Mentions (Remember it is the most complete correct answer first that wins:

1. Brian Manchester, Esquire wrote “The device is a SCRAMx bracelet. It is used to monitor defendants to see if they have consumed alcohol through their perspiration. It is non-specific for ethyl alcohol and is prone to false positives. I recently had a client who was a logger and the chemicals he used to clean off machinery would set the thing off.”

2. Ron Moore, Esquire wrote “This is a [secured continuous] remote alcohol monitor (SCRAM) device. It is subject to environmental interference and cannot tell ingested alcohol from alcohol from other sources.

3. Kim Frye, Esquire wrote “Picture appears to be a scram device or a device to measure alcohol transdermally.  Normally reserved for persons on bond or sentenced in criminal cases. Limitations of this device include:-difficulty of distinguishing in types of alcohol resulting in false positives, -device can give inaccurate readings based on physical barriers, -transdermal alcohol content research is not well developed and lacks sufficient data and analysis to be confident in results across differentiated statistical pool of subjects.]

The Hall of Fame for the www.TheTruthAboutForensicScience.com Forensic Science Geek of the Week:
Week 1: Chuck Ramsay, Esquire

Week 2: Rick McIndoe, PhD

Week 3: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 4: Stephen Daniels

Week 5: Stephen Daniels

Week 6: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

Week 7: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 8: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 9: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 10: Kelly Case, Esquire and Michael Dye, Esquire

Week 11: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 12: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 13: Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 14: Josh Lee, Esquire

Week 15: Joshua Dale, Esquire and Steven W. Hernandez, Esquire

Week 16: Christine Funk, Esquire

Week 17: Joshua Dale, Esquire

Week 18: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 19: Amanda Bynum, Esquire

Week 20: Josh Lee, Esquire

Week 21: Glen Neeley, Esquire

Week 22:  Stephen Daniels

Week 23:  Ron Moore, B.S., J.D.

Week 24: Bobby Spinks

Week 25:  Jon Woolsey, Esquire

Week 26: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 27: Richard Middlebrook, Esquire

WEEK 28: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 29: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 30: C. Jeffrey Sifers, Esquire

Week 31: Ron Moore, Esquire

Week 32: Mehul B. Anjaria

Week 33: Andy Johnston

Week 34: Ralph R. Ristenbatt, III

Week 35: Brian Manchester, Esquire

Week 36: Ron Moore, Esquire

WEEK 37: UNCLAIMED, IT COULD BE YOU!

WEEK 38: PAM KING, ESQUIRE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *