text:
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
DNA transfer in Strangulation
Update 1, 22 August 2010
I communicated with an anonymous forensic nurse about their domestic violence program. If an alleged victim complained of an attempted strangulation, complained of a partner's grabbing their arm, or showed bruising or redness, they have been swabbing that area for DNA, for two years. Positive results in at least one case helped to convict someone. This information confirms the reasonableness of swabbing Meredith's body in appropriate places, although the bruise on the nape of Meredith's neck may have been the result of her being thrown against the wall (as some have theorized). We do not know whether swabbing the bruised areas was done or not.
PM Guiliano Mignini's reconstruction of the murder of Meredith Kercher was shown to the jury in the form of an animated video. In his speculation Amanda Knox grabbed Meredith Kercher by the throat and slammed her against a wall. The video superimposed actual shots of Meredith's bruises with Amanda's animated hand to imply that Amanda's action produced the bruises. Later, Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito held Meredith's arms back, and Amanda stabs her (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, p. 160). In forensics professor Carlo Torre's reconstruction of the crime, the single assailant grabbed Meredith by the throat and stabbed her. The area under Meredith's chin and her nape were bruised; the former bruising was the result of the knife and the latter when the assailant put Meredith down.
Although Mignini's theory of the crime suggests a much longer amount of contact between the assailants and victim than does Torre's, both imply contact. None of Amanda Knox's DNA was found in Meredith's bedroom or on her body. Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on a bra clasp (although the defense contests this piece of evidence) but not the bra itself. Rudy Guede's DNA was found in several places, including on the sleeve of Meredith's sweatshirt. Let us examine some forensic DNA studies to see if they shed any light on this tragedy.
The study by Wiegand and Kleiber gives a case study in which DNA evidence was collected 48 hours after a strangulation. They wrote, "Strangulation marks were clearly visible on the neck of the victim. Epithelial cells could be removed from the neck of the victim using separate cotton swabs for the left and the right side of the neck. Only the swab from the right side could be typed and included the pattern of the suspect (Fig. 3), a result which corresponded to the autopsy findings (the right neck side showed a higher intensity of bleeding in the muscles than the left side indicating a more intensive pressure against the right side). Altogether clear results could be obtained using four STRs (TH01, VWA, FGA, CD4) demonstrating the high utility and sensitivity of the method described." These authors also conducted simulated strangulations, and they reported a success rate of better than 70%.
The simulated strangulation study in 2002 by Rutty used both SGMplus and LCN amplification. The simulated strangulation experiment was done with periods between the force and the sampling were 1, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 min, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24, and 48 h and 3, 4, 5 and 10 days. When the author used SGMplus, he observed a full profile of the offender 7 out of 29 times, and always in the presence of the victim's profile. When the author used LCN all 17 experiments yielded offender profiles, with the majority being partial profiles. Dr. Rutty wrote, "Of the test neck swabs, 19 yielded positive amplification results using SGMplus, 12 showed a victim-only profile and 7 a victim and offender profile with a full offender profile detectable up to 6 h after contact. When LCN was used (17 tests) all showed the offender to be present for all time periods i.e. up to 10 days. In the majority of cases it was a partial offender profile with the majority of the amplification result being a full victim profile."
Dr. Rutty stated that "When considering the apparent time periods of DNA survival, passive transfer of the offender's DNA onto the victim's neck could also explain the presence of offender DNA several days after contact." This study did not break down the results by time periods between simulated strangulation and DNA collection; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions based solely on the data presented.
A 2008 study by Graham and Rutty reexamined the question of DNA transfer to and from strangulation victims with an emphasis on innocent DNA transfers that might deposit DNA on the neck of a victim. In 24% of samples collected showed nonself DNA on the simulated victim from third party sources. The authors believe that such DNA transfers might confuse an investigation.
Finally, it might be helpful to return to the subject of primary and secondary DNA deposition. The study by Lowe and coworkers in 2002 looked at DNA transfer from a good DNA shedder to a poor DNA shedder to an object. By definition transfer was secondary from the good shedder, and transfer was primary from the poor shedder. When mixtures were observed, secondary transfer from the good shedder provided the major component, not primary transfer from the poor shedder. This study illustrates the dictum that one generally cannot infer the mechanism of how the DNA was deposited from the DNA itself. Along with the study by Graham and Rutty, this work suggests caution in the interpretation of nonself DNA on the body of the victim of strangulation. A similar caution should also be applied in the interpretation of DNA on the bra clasp.
In addition to the case study discussed by Wiegand and Kleiber, there are a small number of news reports of strangulations that mention DNA. One is from greater Detroit, and another is from Chicago. However, these articles do not specify the place on the body that was tested for DNA. In addition to the possibility that DNA was collected from the neck, it is possible that the victim's fingernails contained the perpetrator's skin cells or vice versa.
There are no reports that ILE found anyone's DNA on Meredith's bare wrists or her neck, and it is unclear whether or not the forensic police swabbed for DNA in these areas. It is also unclear whether some areas on the neck would have been free enough of Meredith's blood to allow swabbing for the assailant's DNA. Nevertheless it is difficult to see why the forensic police should not have swabbed the nape of Meredith's neck or her wrists. If they did and found nothing, it would be strongly exculpatory, although it might fall short of proof of innocence due to uncertainties over collecting enough DNA or collecting it quickly enough after the murder. If the forensic police failed to swab these areas, it would suggest that they did not do as thorough a job as one would wish.
P. Wiegand and M. Kleiber, "DNA typing of epithelial cells after strangulation," International Journal of Legal Medicine (1997) 110 :181–183. abstract
G. N. Rutty, "An investigation into the transference and survivability
of human DNA following simulated manual strangulation
with consideration of the problem of third party contamination," International Journal of Legal Medicine (2002) 116 :170–173.
A. Lowe, C. Murray, J. Whitaker, G. Tully, P. Gill, "The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces." Forensic Science International (2002) 129(1):25-34. abstract
E. A. M. Graham and G.N. Rutty, "Investigation into 'normal' background DNA on adult necks: implications for DNA profiling of manual strangulation victims." Journal of Forensic Science, (2008) 53(5):1074-82. abstract
46 comments:
- Rose Montague said...
Wow! All seventeen yielded a profile using the LCN DNA method. I guess it would be a good bet that if Meredith's neck and arms were tested using this method, it might show who was holding her in those places.
Of course, Stefanoni's new and unimproved LCN DNA testing procedure was limited to just one piece of evidence. Interesting. - July 14, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Thank you, Chris, for your diligence in bringing to light all the many ways this case falls short. It's stupefying. What possible reason can there be for not having swabbed the bruises on this poor child in the search for the murderer? Yet another unturned stone.
Observer - July 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM
My hot links key is missing, but cut and paste this link for more problems with the prosecution's case to be raised on appeal, including the argument that the DNA on the bra clasp was not Raffaele Sollecito's after all...this is definitely a question for you, Chris.
Observer - July 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM
- Randy said...
"If they did and found nothing, it would be strongly exculpatory, although it might fall short of proof of innocence due to uncertainties over collecting enough DNA or collecting it quickly enough after the murder. If the forensic police failed to swab these areas, it would suggest that they did not do as thorough a job as one would wish."
I can't say I wouldn't be surprised the forensic police did not swab Meredith's neck and arms. - July 15, 2010 at 1:35 AM
Both news articles you linked do not state that the DNA found was from neck wounds.
You left out that the Wieglund 1997 study that PCR cyles were increased to 30-31, beyond the standard 28 cycles, which makes it LCN, something you have been critical of regarding the knife evidence, and Solecito's DNA found on the bra clasp was above LCN levels.
The Rutty/Graham paper 2008 concludes that more studies needed to be made before such evidence could be included in case work.
Also in the 2008 study, IIRC, there were only partial profiles matched on the neck swabs from unknown sources, and this is something you have also been critical of in this blog.
It seems to me that you and your "students of the case" have are less critical of any scientific evidence that you think may exonerate Knox and Sollecito,than the actual evidence which convicted them.
odeed. - July 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
I respectfully disagree with many of your comments. I was careful to note the lack of information in the news reports that I cited; it is not as if I were trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The 2008 article coauthored by Dr. Rutty was mainly concerned about the problems of third-party DNA innocently being mistaken for the perpetrator's DNA. In my reading they were not saying that one would not detect the perpetrator as much as they were saying that one might detect someone else unrelated to the crime. Their work does not suggest that an investigator should not swab these areas, only that one should interpret the results cautiously. I am not certain why it is significant whether the unknown profiles are full or partial in the case of these studies. However, I believe that partial profiles present problems of interpretation not encountered in full profiles.
31 cycles of PCR is in between what is typically done in normal work (28 cycles) and what is often done in low copy number (LCN) work (34 cycles).
I am glad you mentioned the bra clasp. An anonymous commenter
at a JREF forum said this, "Copious amounts of DNA that resulted in a full profile that could only come about via direct and vigorous contact 'is' evidence." There are a couple of problems with this assertion. One is that the amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was not especially large. Raffaele Sollecito's appeal goes through the calculations and shows that the amount of his DNA is less than 200 picograms, which is one definition of LCN. Two is that trying to deduce whether any DNA sample arose from primary or secondary transfer on the basis of intensity of peaks or completeness of profile is contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the field of forensic DNA. See the article coauthored by Lowe for an example.
However, let us ignore those problems for a moment. It is known from other studies that a one-minute handshake is enough to transfer DNA from one person to another. The force involved in strangulation or in restraint is probably much greater; therefore, there is no reason not to expect DNA transfer in these events. The time and force in strangulation or restraint are surely equal to (and probably much greater than) the time and force Mr. Sollecito is alleged to have applied to the bra clasp. If one accepts the argument of the anonymous commenter above, would he or she not expect DNA transfer to occur to Meredith's neck or arms? - July 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM
Interesting articles, even in the abstract.
Would the blood from the wound on Meredith's neck affect the recovery of DNA from the murderer(s)?
The jacket Meredith was wearing was swabbed and tested with the result of Rudy's Y haplotype being on the sleeve (not sure where on the sleeve). I believe the only other piece of clothing where Rudy's DNA was recovered was on her bra (I am not sure of that).
Whether Rudy did the murder alone or had accomplices wouldn't one expect there to be large amounts of DNA left on Meredith's clothing and body due to the severity of the attack, removal of clothing, etc.?
Christiana - July 15, 2010 at 3:58 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
I make the assumption that blood would either wash away DNA from the assailant or that its removal from the neck would also remove DNA from the assailant, but I have no citations from the literature. Dr. Carlo Torre's reconstruction of the attack was that it was fast and occurred with contact only between the assailant's non-knife hand and Meredith's neck. Your question about how much DNA to expect is an interesting one. It would be helpful to have a list of where the forensic scientists swabbed for DNA and did not find it. The other unknown (at least to me) is whether Meredith removed any of her own clothes. I have been proceeding under the assumption that she did not, but I have no evidence, one way or the other. - July 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM
In the Weigand 1997 study, the cycles were increased to 30-31 because of low DNA levels. This study also only matched 4 STR loci (compared with 10 (+1 XY) for SGM+), and the hands and neck were cleaned beforehand.
As for Graham 2008, when you quote 24%, the full quote for that figure I can find:
"between 1 and 9 allele(s) of an unknown source were observed on five of 30 neck areas and seven of 20 finger pads sampled, accounting for 24% of all samples collected."
Now I need to go back and find how the 24% was arrived at, but a quick look at the tables show that full profile of the "victims" partner DNA was found in 2 out of 30 tests on the neck (there was one additional high level but partial partner profile), unknown/offender DNA was low and were all partial profiles (1-4 alleles) which was found on 3 of 10 victim necks.
And just to get the time frame correct, the 2008 paper was published after the murder, so I have no idea how you would expect the forensics team to know the conclusions in deciding whether they would swab for DNA.
As for Solecito DNA found on the the bra clasp, I have not seen definite source for the amount (I have seen 200pg, 1.4 ng and 200 cells), but the allele levels found were above 150 RFU threshold (closer to 200 RFU), which is acceptable in scientific studies and law enforcement labs in many countries including the USA.
LCN technique was developed/proposed for DNA amounts less than 100pg (look for Peter Gill 2000 Forensic Science International IIRC).
As for the one minute handshake, are you using the Oorshot study or the Ladd study, from memory both these studies cleaned the hands before testing (so not a real world test). The Ladd paper also contradicted the Oorschot study in it's conclusion, and Ladd found the peak level of DNA by transfer was about 50-75 RFU (Solecito was above 150 RFU), and no full profiles were found.
"..would he or she not expect DNA transfer to occur to Meredith's neck or arms?"
The answer is no, there have been no other cases I know of where such evidence has been used to convict, and the papers you cite do not suggest that any DNA above LCN levels would be found, and probably consist of partial profiles IMHO.
And are you seriously equating skin on skin contact with the rough handling of a metal clasp in asking that?
odeed. - July 15, 2010 at 8:19 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
As van Oorshot (Nature, 1997) points out, washing one's hands will lower the amount of DNA transferred, so in a real world setting there is likely to be more DNA than in a study which employs recent handwashing.
The total amount of DNA on the bra clasp was 1.14 ng. Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was between 1/6th and 1/10th of the total, which puts it between 100 and 200 pg. This is discussed in Mr. Sollecito's appeal.
The question of which definition of LCN to use is a complex one. Dan Krane, "Some of the problems associated with LCN (Low Copy Number) testing," defined LCN as being less than approximately 500 pg of DNA. The Caddy report defines LCN using 200 pg as the threshold. Bruce Budowle and coworkers do not use a single numerical cutoff to define the LCN region: "However, because of variation in estimates of DNA quantity within and between methods of quantitation, LCN typing is better defined as the analysis of any results below the stochastic threshold for normal interpretation." My point, however, is not to debate whether or not the bra clasp falls above or below the stochastic threshold at this time, but instead to point out that the amount of Mr. Sollecito's DNA might be less than some commenters assumed. - July 15, 2010 at 11:04 PM
As I said Van Oorshot was contradicted by the paper by Ladd 1999, and any lawyer would bring this up in court.
From memory, Caddy and the 2009 Court of Appeal, agreed that a grey area of between 100pg-200pg exists because of stochastic effects, however they go on to say that even within this range, reliable DNA profiles can be produced. As far as I am aware Sollecito's DNA produced levels above the accepted 150 RFU stochastic threshold from standard 28 PCR cycle amplification, calling it LCN using some definition, does not make it unreliable evidence.
All the studies you cite include investigation of low level partial DNA profiles, which required extra amplification cycles a day or two after transfer, and the lab methods chosen were to increase the probability of offender/victim transfer, it does not point to incompetence or a failure by the Italian forensic team that they did not perform such tests, as you want your "students of the case" to believe, especially as this is a subject matter still being studied with more recent articles as you should know.
odeed. - July 16, 2010 at 6:48 AM
My understanding reading the report is that Stephanoni only used 28 cycles on the knife. That would indicate to me that she felt she had enough material to get a DNA reading without doing a test for LCN DNA, which she proceeded to do using a method that is not supported by research. One conclusion that could be made is that the material did not contain DNA. She took 20% of that material and tested it for blood which was negative. One possible conclusion is that the material was not the type of material that would normally contain DNA (not flesh or skin for example).
Reading the appeals it would seen that other than the questionable collection methods documented by video, the main problem is getting an accurate Time Of Death. It seems that no body temperature was taken at the murder scene and the body was not weighed prior to autopsy. Common sense would tell me that this should be common practice and normal procedure. It would also seem to me that reference samples for luminol footprints should have included the other flat-mates, when you are dealing with some of these blurry blobs, I think it would be appropriate to have those handy. Not to mention no DNA samples taken from the other flat-mates.
I am no expert in this area but looking at numerous videos of the forensic team, including the one of the bra clasp collection I posted on the previous topic, it appears that this team did not act in a very professional manner. - July 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM
I am no expert in this area but looking at numerous videos of the forensic team, including the one of the bra clasp collection I posted on the previous topic, it appears that this team did not act in a very professional manner.
I have looked at those same videos and cannot make the same conclusions as you. There is not enough information.
An expert opinion(s) (other than those of posters on message boards - myself included) on the videos, including what are proper collection methods and what the Perugian forensic team did wrong, would hold more weight, in my opinion, than videos that have many breaks in time.
Also, transcripts of Stefanoni's questioning in court by both the defense and prosecution as to her collection and testing methods would be helpful as to whether any impropriety was done during the collection and testing of evidence at the crime scene.
Christiana - July 16, 2010 at 8:55 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
I respectfully disagree with you about one aspect of Dr. Stefanoni's testimony. I have previously documented instances where forensic professionals testified to something that was shown to be factually incorrect (see "Tarnish on the Gold Standards," by W. Thompson for one example). In other words, there is only so much stock I am willing to put into their testimony. On the other hand, one of the videos of the clasp shows the workers passing the clasp around and putting it on the ground. I have previously given citations that indicate that disposable tools should be used and handling should be minimal. The dirty gloves were also captured on video.
However, someone should ask Dr. Stefanoni whether or not her lab kept a written record of contamination events, as some recommend. What ILE ought to do is to see that the log files and electronic data files are finally released. At least that way the defense's expert witnesses could see whether or not the lab followed its own protocols, as noted by Professor Hampikian. - July 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Are you claiming that van Oorshot is incorrect with respect to the effect washing one's hands has on DNA transfer? - July 16, 2010 at 9:23 AM
I have previously documented instances where forensic professionals testified to something that was shown to be factually incorrect (see "Tarnish on the Gold Standards," by W. Thompson for one example). In other words, there is only so much stock I am willing to put into their testimony.
I do put much stock in testimony in a courtroom. A witness can be questioned vigorously by the defense or prosecution and from that testimony both sides can bring in experts which dispute or agree with the forensic witness.
Documentation of other cases is helpful but is not the testimony of forensic witnesses in this case. I am interested in their testimony and how the defense and prosecution dealt with their testimony.
I will look at the reference you cite (Gold Standards). I am always interested in reading and learning.
Christiana - July 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Italian police receive awards for their handling of the Kercher murder.
- July 16, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Perhaps they should also receive an Academy Award for acting, a parade with sirens and horns blaring and plenty of confetti, and the keys to the Kingdom. Each can have a "framed" replica of that picture of Amanda that was hung up even before her verdict in the first trial.
Sometimes police criticism is fair and sometimes it is not. I don't think this is the appropriate way to handle that criticism in this case, even if some of the criticism has not been fair. - July 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
The first paper about DNA transfer during strangulation came out in 1997, and the second appeared in 2002. The fact that another paper came out in 2008 is not really germane to the question of what the investigators should have known.
It is worth bearing in mind that a simulated study of strangulation cannot match the combination of intensity and duration of an actual strangulation. I previously quoted the following passage from the study by Wiegand, "Only the swab from the right side could be typed and included the pattern of the suspect (Fig. 3), a result which corresponded to the autopsy findings (the right neck side showed a higher intensity of bleeding in the muscles than the left side indicating a more intensive pressure against the right side)." The above passage implies that if one encounters bruising on the victim (especially if one has reason to believe it arose from person-to-person contact), one should swab for DNA. Whether one will always find it is another matter. That is why my criticism of ILE was worded in hypothetical terms.
I will have to deal with the rest of your comments at a later time. Please note that I expect all commenters to maintain a civil tone in their remarks. - July 16, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Italian police receive awards for their handling of the Kercher murder.
I wonder if the carabinieri were awarded for their meticulous handling of the computer equipment/hard drives. - July 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM
- Randy said...
"Swabs taken from Irene's neck showed the presence of amylase, which indicates the presence of saliva. A forensic analysis of one of the swabs showed DNA consistent with two contributors—appellant and Irene."
if they do swab, the police may find something they can use...if they do not swab- they have nothing. - July 17, 2010 at 12:21 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Let's examine handwashing and its effect on completeness of recovery. Figure 1 in the 2002 study by Lowe et al. shows that the percentage of a full profile of DNA rises over the course of minutes to hours after handwashing. Good shedders show the most differentiation from poor shedders at 15 minutes. Therefore if a study of DNA deposition incorporates a handwashing step a few minutes before the DNA is deposited, it will probably result in less complete profiles than if no handwashing were done. This observation, coupled with the fact that the studies cannot match the combination of time and pressure of an actual strangulation, contradict your claim that "the lab methods chosen were to increase the probability of offender/victim transfer."
The 1997 paper by Wiegand and Kleiber only looked at the CD4, FGA, TH01, and VWA loci. The relatively long period of time, 48 hours, between the strangulation and the finding of the body, might have decreased recovery in this actual case study. The 2002 study by Rutty used either 28 cycles of amplification or 34 cycles. The 2008 study by Graham and Rutty used 28 cycles, except when assessing shedder status.
With respect to LCN, I have some reservations with respect to the standard LCN technique. However, my main issues with LCN in the Knox/Sollecito case is that the knife profile was generated with an inferior version of LCN. Dr. Tagliabracci's argument to the effect that Raffaele's profile on the clasp was below at least one threshold for LCN raises the question of why it was not run at least twice, as is typical for LCN forensic typing. - July 17, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Van Oorschot 1997 found that the DNA recovered from surfaces touched was relatively high (upto 150 ng) and profiles were recovered using standard STR, Ladd 1999 repeated the study with the similar techniques but discovered that the DNA was low (upto 15ng) and that the profiles recovered were close to background noise and therefore uninterpretable. - July 18, 2010 at 5:16 AM
Lowe 2002 found that full DNA profiles were recoverable one hour after washing, as far as I am aware non of the studies were immediately carried out after washing.
Further more, washing hands decreases the chance of mixed DNA profiles, and mixed profiles, as you should be aware, is a defense lawyers wet dream, with regards to DNA evidence.
Take Weigand 1997 study, 4 STR loci would be a probability of 1:60000 of an individual match (in the Italian population), Graham/Rutty 2008 found 1-4 alleles of offender DNA which would be a significantly less chance of a match than Weigand.
Include the problems LCN and stochastic effects when interpreting mixed profiles, then you have very weak evidence, which is why I am not surprised that you have yet to find any legal cases which would confirm your theory. - July 18, 2010 at 6:11 AM
I note the hand waving away of the fact that this area still be studied. You even include Lowe 2002 which even states in the abstract "...further investigations are underway in order to further add to understanding of the issues of DNA transfer and persistence.", I have no idea how you expect the police to see into the future.
@Randy, it is well known that DNA can be obtained from saliva (it's actually common to find saliva around the face and neck area), but it isn't something which Halkides was suggesting, maybe he will in part XX of his classes, along with explanation of how the assailants licked Kercher's wrists to restrain her. - July 18, 2010 at 6:44 AM
Is it true that mixed profiles are difficult to reference especially if they are of a male/female mixture?
It seems I have read (not sure where) that the female DNA masks the male DNA and more sensitive testing needs to be done to extract the male DNA from the mixture (and even that testing is not always successful in extracting a male profile). I do not know how difficult it is to separate mixtures when both are female DNA.
I'm beginning to think DNA of a crime scene is much more complicated and fragile than what I previously thought. While it is advantageous to have much DNA from the crime scene to point to a suspect does there exist the possibility you will have very little, even from a particularly brutal crime?
Christiana - July 18, 2010 at 8:06 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
In situations where the alleged victim is female and the alleged perpetrator is male, forensic scientists sometimes use YSTR
testing. YSTR testing specifically examines the DNA from the Y chromosome, to circumvent having to look for a small amount of DNA from the alleged perpetrator in a sea of DNA from the alleged victim.
Forensic DNA typing has a stronger scientific foundation that most subdisciplines of forensic science. However, there are many complexities that I have only begun to appreciate. It is interesting that about half of all forensic DNA profiles are either a mixture or are a partial profile. Experts do not always come to identical conclusions when analyzing mixtures, as I mentioned in a recent post. The analysis of mixtures is the subject of a number of scholarly articles. A good place to start might be the resources (pdf files and powerpoints) at www.bioforensics.com.
My impression is that the amount of DNA to be expected varies with the specifics of crime, among other variables.
Chris - July 18, 2010 at 12:23 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
If you examine the electropherogram of the knife, you will see that within any given locus, the two alleles differ in peak height by as much as 3-fold, when ideally they should be equal. The inequality of peak height is due to stochastic effects from the low number of DNA templates. Moreover, the peak heights are as small as about 21 RFU. Therefore, the argument that the forensic police did not swab Meredith's wrist or neck because they did not want to deal with weak samples and/or stochastic effects does not cut much ice with me.
I was intrigued by your comment, "and mixed profiles, as you should be aware, is a defense lawyers wet dream, with regards to DNA evidence." The bra clasp has DNA from several unknown individuals, yet the jury apparently still accepted it as good evidence. Does this not go against your claim? - July 18, 2010 at 4:00 PM
The DNA sample in the sink was also a mixture it appears: From Amanda's appeal:
"4. Finally, we must bring an additional scientific data that contradicts the
From reading the electropherograms for tracks mixed Knox - since Kercher
analyzed here can not exclude the presence of an additional track
Biological attributable to third female subject.
Dr. Stefanoni said:
Ø could not exclude a third person because it profiles
very balanced (May 22, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 222).
Ø In that case there may be a third person
always female but the same features in
this mixture(May 22, 2009 hearing transcript, p.. 229).
Ø And she mixed in genetic profiles that relate to the Knox preclude us
was a third person? R - This is what I was trying to
say. I can not just exclude (hearing transcripts
hearing May 22, 2009, p.. 222).
Ø These couplings are different so that I can include other
people than those already present. This bit is u n 'and the say ...
Here of course we talk about compatibility because there are
certainly alleles of the victim and Knox, precisely with
this combination can not be excluded that there are
more ... (transcripts holding a hearing May 22, 2009, p..
The presence of a third person was also represented by undetectable
consultant to plaintiff, Dr. Torricelli.
Ø here is a track mixed with the presence surely
at least two profiles, there are small peaks that can assume
possibly other appearances (June 6, 2009 hearing transcript, p..
The possibility of a third female person might have
lead to Laura Mezzetti and Filomena Romanelli, the other two tenants
The Scientific Police, however, was not available to the genetic profiles of
two other young people.
The Stefanoni confirmed at the hearing:
Ø D and also had the DNA of other girls who lived in
house could also detect the DNA of a third or a fourth
girl who lived all saw in the house and used all the
same sink? A - If you could see the genetic profiles could
compare, that's me in advance I can not say, I can not suppose
(Hearing Transcript May 22, 2009, p.. 226)." - July 19, 2010 at 8:05 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
You are new here, and it is understandable that you might assume that this discussion forum is similar to PMF. It is quite different. I ask everyone here to treat each other and their arguments with civility and cordiality. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else here, but sarcasm indicates disrespect. I have often referred to myself as a student of the Duke lacrosse case; the same term holds for the Cameron Todd Willingham case and the Kercher murder case. In my mind, all of us here are students of this case; no one here is the teacher. Yet as one of the finest scientists I ever met said, "All of us are smarter than any of us." All of us can learn from one another; no one has the right to use vulgar or belittling language toward anyone else. As long as you act in accordance with these principles, your comments will be welcome here. I don't ask people to leave because they disagree with me, but I reserve the right to ask that they leave if they are disagreeable.
The prosecution's theory predicts that DNA might be deposited in specific locations on Ms. Kercher's body, and I have suggested that they should have tested their hypothesis. Your argument boils down to the notion that ILE is not at fault if they did not swab: If they had, they might have generated a partial profile, LCN DNA, or a mixed profile. This position assumes the result before doing the experiment. You ignore the fact that some of the profiles in one study were complete, and you give no reason why a partial profile should be considered an uninterpretable result. Moreover, you continue to ignore the reasons why one might expect more DNA to be transferred in a real-world strangulation than in a simulation. In addition, as Randy correctly pointed out, if you don't do an experiment, you have no data at all. I would prefer to have some data than no data.
You have misunderstood my concerns with respect to the LCN knife profile, many of which are based on the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. One problem with the knife profile is the intensity of the peaks; most are below 50 RFU, and some are as low as about 20 RFU. This is the lowest peak threshold I have ever seen. What would happen if all of the DNA profiles from this case used such a low threshold? A second problem is that LCN is typically performed in dedicated laboratory spaces with features designed to minimize contamination. Stefanoni gave no indication of taking special precautions in her work on the knife. As I have said before, LCN is typically performed twice or even three times to account for alleles dropping in or out. All of these are problems specific to the knife, not general problems of LCN profiling. - July 19, 2010 at 6:24 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
This New York corrections site
discusses the initial investigation of strangulation, partly from the point of view of the 911 dispatcher in cases of possible domestic violence. Under the section "medical documentation" it lists "DNA typing of epithelial cells." It is difficult for me to believe that this refers to obtaining a profile of the alleged victim; therefore, it is more likely to refer to a profile of the alleged assailant. However, greater detail would be helpful, and I will pass it along if I learn something more. - July 20, 2010 at 6:18 PM
In regards to the five profile found on the bra clasp, from what I have read the profiles on consisted of the full DNA profiles of Kercher, and the full profile of Sollecito, and I don't think that the defense disputed that.
There were also 3 other profiles, and these remained unidentified, I believe that the defense expert testified that one may have been from Knox, which suggests they were partial profiles.
There are plenty of science and legal articles covering interpretation of mixed and partial profiles, and the probabilities involved. Unfortunatley I did not save them for future reference, but one case study I remember was of the Arizona DNA offender database, where 9 loci produced 144 matches in a 65000 person database. - July 22, 2010 at 5:04 AM
In regards to the double DNA knife, I don't think I have made any claims to the accuracy/reliability of the profiles found, if anything I am raising the point that you have previously opposed the LCN methods used to test the knife, which does not seem to be any different to the Wiegand 1997 study did in amplifying the DNA profiles.
I did not ignore your assertion that in the real world strangulation would leave more DNA than in the studies, you have not proven it. In fact the Wiegand study you cite simulated strangulation on the upper arm so more force could be applied, studies using inanimate objects found low DNA, other studies into assault found little or no DNA http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120716418/abstract, and the studies methods were to maximise DNA transfer but real world cases have more variables to be concerned with, which is why I am not surprised to see that there is legal cases you can find. - July 22, 2010 at 6:17 AM
Finally, regarding the posts here and elsewhere, I actually joined PMF after posting my first few comments here, and I am aware of others (from either side of the debate) style and substance, but it has not influenced the way I post.
In one of my two posts (to date) on PMF forums, I described your blog being authoritative, and yourself as taking a teacher role and the readers as "students" (paraphrase), I should include that I have found your posts to lack any objectivity and on occasion hyperbole when criticizing prosecution.
As for my sarcastic reply to Randy, I realised after posting that maybe I should of rephrased it better, but I cannot apologise for it when you make comments such as
"The prosecution's theory predicts that DNA might be deposited in specific locations on Ms. Kercher's body, and I have suggested that they should have tested their hypothesis."
No where has the prosecution made this claim, and this is the first time you have suggested that they did. In your article you correctly summarize the prosecution theory that Kercher was held, and this is because of the nature of the wounds and lack of DNA under her fingernails.
This is blatant shifting the goalposts, blaming the prosecution for your theory, and was probably in the back of my mind that you would this when I posted the sarcastic comment. - July 22, 2010 at 7:04 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
No, the goalposts have not moved at all, but you may not be putting the pieces together correctly. The prosecution's theory is what they showed in their animation: Amanda grabbing Meredith by the neck and Rudy and Raffaele later holding her by the arms, as described in the first paragraph of the blog entry. This version of the events indicates that DNA might transfer from the three individuals onto Meredith, as I said in my comment at 6:24 PM on 18 July. There is no getting around the fact that sufficient DNA for forensics might be transferred, especially when one considers the prosecution's theory of an escalating assault. If DNA can be recovered from certain parts of Meredith's body, why not other parts?
Many of your comments assume that ILE chose not to swab the nape or wrist area because of their knowledge that the profiles might be weak or mixed. In other words, you are assuming that ILE did know of the strangulation studies available at that time, a point that you have previously contested. If they did know, then their pessimism with respect to strangulation and restraint contrasts sharply with their optimism about the knife, when Stefanoni went ahead with the experiment when her DNA quantification test read that it was too low. But a further problem is your implicit assumption that these areas of Meredith's body were not tested. What if they were tested and came back negative?
With respect to the bra clasp you leave out the important fact that Sollecito's profile was between 5- and 10-fold weaker than Meredith's. You also ignore the fact that Sollecito's appeal (approximately on pages 144-145) is questioning whether all of the alleles are his. See the portion of the appeal document beginning with the sentence, "Finally, with regard to the interpretation of DNA profiles extracted from track 165B, the sentence has fallen into a serious and irreparable mistake."
With respect to the analysis of mixtures, you did not comment upon the quotes I provided in a different blog entry. DNA forensic expert Peter Gill said, "If you show 10 colleagues a mixture, you will probably end up with 10 different answers." With reference to [the Puckett case] case Dan Krane made an important point, "There is a public perception that DNA profiles are black and white. The reality is that easily in half of all cases—namely, those where the samples are mixed or degraded—there is the potential for subjectivity."
Specifically with respect to the bra clasp, the exact identities of the other three contributors is important but so is the fact that their DNA is even there. If we accept that their DNA was deposited innocently, how can we be sure that Sollecito's was not also deposited innocently? The same question should be asked in regards to the mixed profiles found in the sink, as Rose Montague noted above.
To be continued. - July 22, 2010 at 11:28 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
With respect to strangulation or restraint, holding someone so tightly that they cannot escape being stabbed with a knife is not the same thing as striking a child, which is the subject of the study in the abstract you cite.
With respect to LCN and the kitchen knife, most of the problems originated with the fact that Stefanoni did not know that the sample from the knife had so few copies of DNA. Therefore, she concentrated the sample and dropped the peak threshold from at least 50 RFU to 20 or fewer RFU, to compensate for doing only 28 cycles of PCR, not the typical 34 cycles. It is bad science to change your criterion in the middle of an experiment, and Rrudin and Inman's "Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis" (p. 121) specifically cautions, "It is important to have some predetermined limit to distinguish what is signal and what is noise." In addition, one would have to perform negative controls at the same threshold for the experiment to have any validity, and there is no evidence that Stefanoni did this in the material given to the defense.
LCN tests are generally performed twice, and only those alleles showing up in both are scored. There was not enough material for this critical retest. LCN testing is typically done is special facilities equipped with positive air pressure, lighting that destroys DNA and other safeguards against contamination. Such facilities do not appear to have used in this case.
For the reasons given above, what Stefanoni did was not standard LCN, and another problem is that her technique has never been judged in a peer-reviewed publication. If she did attempt to publish a paper on this technique, other scientists would be able to critique her work. Thus there is no contradiction between accepting standard LCN while rejecting or criticizing Stefanoni's homemade version of it. Dr. Mark Waterbury does a good job of summarizing these problems.
Finally, referring to this ordinary kitchen knife the "double DNA knife" is misleading. DNA cannot be interrogated as to when it was deposited. The presence of Amanda's DNA on the handle means nothing, because there is an innocent and logical explanation for its being there: she cooked with it.
You did not understand why I brought up the Perugia Murder File discussion board. They have a good comment policy, but the site administrators don't enforce it evenhandedly. I would not tolerate coarse language or rudeness directed toward you and more than I would tolerate it from you. Your attempt to rationalize your earlier sarcastic comments rests on a misinterpretation of what I said in regards to strangulation, as I discussed above. Even in cases where you are (or at least may be) correct, you could learn a thing or two from Rose Montague. When she disagrees, she takes care to do it in a manner that does not demean the other person. Finally, sarcasm is even less justified when a commenter has been wrong. A better course of action would be to concede certain points and move on to others where one has made a better case. - July 22, 2010 at 11:30 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
Naturally I am glad to have someone with whom to discuss the DNA forensics, even if it is someone with whom I disagree. I welcome different opinions as long as all remains civil. - July 22, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Specifically with respect to the bra clasp, the exact identities of the other three contributors is important but so is the fact that their DNA is even there. If we accept that their DNA was deposited innocently, how can we be sure that Sollecito's was not also deposited innocently? The same question should be asked in regards to the mixed profiles found in the sink, as Rose Montague noted above.
What is known of the other three profiles on the bra clasp? How partial are they? I believe one has been somewhat attributed to Amanda but even that is in dispute. If it is possible that the profiles are very partial would not the fact that Sollecito's DNA was a full profile be important?
Christiana - July 22, 2010 at 6:47 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
The electropherogram that I saw was hard to interpret because the peaks were small. So I do not know how partial or complete they were. I do not think that one can tell much about the how the DNA was deposited by whether the profile is partial or complete. The studies I cited would seem to bear this out. Raffaele's profile is stronger than the partial profiles, IIRC, but it is also weaker than Meredith's; therefore, it is difficult to see why the intensity difference is important in one case but unimportant in another. - July 22, 2010 at 6:58 PM
What is known of the other three profiles on the bra clasp? How partial are they? I believe one has been somewhat attributed to Amanda but even that is in dispute. If it is possible that the profiles are very partial would not the fact that Sollecito's DNA was a full profile be important?
What if one of those partial profiles could be attributed to Stefanoni's DNA profile or the DNA profile of one of the Lab Techs? That would certainly be a significant developement. Of course, if you only look for a match with the four reference samples you have (Amanda, Meredith, Rudy, Raffaele) it limits you as to the result. It is either one of theirs or unknown.
This is why I think the argument I hear stating that if contamination is not proven then it does not exist is a complete pile of rubbish. My point is you can't find contamination if you don't look for it, so avoiding contamination reports is fairly easy if you overlook the obvious things that may show contamination. - July 23, 2010 at 9:34 AM
What if one of those partial profiles could be attributed to Stefanoni's DNA profile or the DNA profile of one of the Lab Techs? That would certainly be a significant developement. Of course, if you only look for a match with the four reference samples you have (Amanda, Meredith, Rudy, Raffaele) it limits you as to the result. It is either one of theirs or unknown.
What is known about the partial profiles? Were they degraded profiles (perhaps from being washed with other clothes)? If the partial profiles were from one of the forensic lab technicians would they not be more than partial profiles? And do we know that they were not compared against the profiles of the lab technicians?
This is why I think the argument I hear stating that if contamination is not proven then it does not exist is a complete pile of rubbish. My point is you can't find contamination if you don't look for it, so avoiding contamination reports is fairly easy if you overlook the obvious things that may show contamination.
That is why it would have been important for a representative of the defense to have been at the lab during the testing to see that proper procedures were followed. So we rely on what was testified to in court. I have no reason to believe Stefanoni lied in her testimony concerning procedures that were followed.
Christiana - July 24, 2010 at 1:59 PM
I posted a quote regarding this in the next thread regarding the only two female reference samples she had (Amanda and Meredith). You can take that as may be, I have seen this elsewhere just unable to pin it down at present.
Sefanoni has testified and I think it is clear from her testimony that standards and protocols were not followed for testing LCN DNA. The procedures she followed were completely contrary to protocol and her testimony only confirms this.
The knife as the murder weapon only works if there is another knife or two involved which has not been proven. The prosecution theory that Amanda carried this around in her bag for protection has not been proven or even shown that it is somewhat likely. The idea that they would get rid of all the other evidence and yet put the knife back in the drawer to use the next time they cooked is a bit whacked.
As far as the bra clasp goes the video I posted is convincing to me that they "expected" big things from it. That is purely subjective but the way it was left for weeks, moved around somehow, and handled during this video showing the return for this evidence does not inspire me with much confidence in the veracity of the result obtained. - July 24, 2010 at 4:53 PM
- Chris Halkides said...
I think it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to predict when a partial profile shows up and when a full profile shows up. The trouble with relying on testimony is that you are relying on someone's memory, which may be faulty. I would rather see laboratory notebooks and various types of files. - July 27, 2010 at 9:14 AM
I think it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to predict when a partial profile shows up and when a full profile shows up. The trouble with relying on testimony is that you are relying on someone's memory, which may be faulty. I would rather see laboratory notebooks and various types of files.
Chris, you and I are both in agreement here. I would definitely like to see laboratory notebooks and various types of files.
I would assume that when Stefanoni testified in court she had access to that information via her laptop or notebooks so hopefully she didn't have to rely on memory.
Christiana - July 27, 2010 at 12:43 PM
"The problem in discussion was indeed that according to Tagliabracci the DNA on the bra clasp was not enough to have a reliable test. And Stefanoni suggested Comodi to say that instead it was the perfect quantity, being 1.4 nanograms. An ideal quantity. But that revealed a problem: why nobody else knew that measure?"
Stefanoni has info the defense did not get
It makes me wonder what other, possibly exculpatory information she is still holding back. - August 2, 2010 at 6:49 AM
- Chris Halkides said...
To all,
I updated this post after discussing these issues with a forensic nurse. Her comments strengthen the case that swabbing for DNA is justified in cases of attempted strangulation. - August 22, 2010 at 2:04 PM


text:
Blockchain, quantum computing, augmented analytics and artificial intelligence will drive disruption and new business models.
Although science fiction may depict AI robots as the bad guys, some tech giants now employ them for security. Companies like Microsoft and Uber use Knightscope K5 robots to patrol parking lots and large outdoor areas to predict and prevent crime. The robots can read license plates, report suspicious activity and collect data to report to their owners.
These AI-driven robots are just one example of "autonomous things," one of the Gartner Top 10 strategic technologies for 2019 with the potential to drive significant disruption and deliver opportunity over the next five years.
Read more: Gartner Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for 2020
"The future will be characterized by smart devices delivering increasingly insightful digital services everywhere," said David Cearley, Gartner Distinguished Vice President Analyst, at Gartner 2018 Symposium/ITxpo in Orlando, Florida. "We call this the intelligent digital mesh."
- Intelligent: How AI is in virtually every existing technology, and creating entirely new categories.
- Digital: Blending the digital and physical worlds to create an immersive world.
- Mesh: Exploiting connections between expanding sets of people, businesses, devices, content and services.
"Trends under each of these three themes are a key ingredient in driving a continuous innovation process as part of the continuous next strategy," Cearley said.
The Gartner Top 10 Strategic Technology trends highlight changing or not yet widely recognized trends that will impact and transform industries through 2023.
Trend No. 1: Autonomous things
Whether it's cars, robots or agriculture, autonomous things use AI to perform tasks traditionally done by humans. The sophistication of the intelligence varies, but all autonomous things use AI to interact more naturally with their environments.
Autonomous things exist across five types:
- Robotics
- Vehicles
- Drones
- Appliances
- Agents
Those five types occupy four environments: Sea, land, air and digital. They all operate with varying degrees of capability, coordination and intelligence. For example, they can span a drone operated in the air with human-assistance to a farming robot operating completely autonomously in a field. This paints a broad picture of potential applications, and virtually every application, service and IoT object will incorporate some form of AI to automate or augment processes or human actions. Collaborative autonomous things such as drone swarms will increasingly drive the future of AI systems
Explore the possibilities of AI-driven autonomous capabilities in any physical object in your organization or customer environment, but keep in mind these devices are best used for narrowly defined purposes. They do not have the same capability as a human brain for decision making, intelligence or general-purpose learning.
The Real Business of Blockchain
How leaders can create value in a new digital age.
Trend No. 2: Augmented analytics
Data scientists now have increasing amounts of data to prepare, analyze and group — and from which to draw conclusions. Given the amount of data, exploring all possibilities becomes impossible. This means businesses can miss key insights from hypotheses the data scientists don't have the capacity to explore.
Augmented analytics represents a third major wave for data and analytics capabilities as data scientists use automated algorithms to explore more hypotheses. Data science and machine learning platforms have transformed how businesses generate analytics insight.
By 2020, more than 40% of data science tasks will be automated
Augmented analytics identify hidden patterns while removing the personal bias. Although businesses run the risk of unintentionally inserting bias into the algorithms, augmented analytics and automated insights will eventually be embedded into enterprise applications.
Through 2020, the number of citizen data scientists will grow five times faster than professional data scientists. Citizen data scientists use AI powered augmented analytics tools that automate the data science function automatically identifying data sets, developing hypothesis and identifying patterns in the data. Businesses will look to citizen data scientists as a way to enable and scale data science capabilities. Gartner predicts by 2020, more than 40% of data science tasks will be automated, resulting in increased productivity and broader use by citizen data scientists. Between citizen data scientists and augmented analytics, data insights will be more broadly available across the business, including analysts, decision makers and operational workers.
The Real Business of Blockchain
How leaders can create value in a new digital age.
Trend No. 3: AI-driven development
AI-driven development looks at tools, technologies and best practices for embedding AI into applications and using AI to create AI-powered tools for the development process. This trend is evolving along three dimensions:
- The tools used to build AI-powered solutions are expanding from tools targeting data scientists (AI infrastructure, AI frameworks and AI platforms) to tools targeting the professional developer community (AI platforms, AI services). With these tools the professional developer can infuse AI powered capabilities and models into an application without involvement of a professional data scientist.
- The tools used to build AI-powered solutions are being empowered with AI-driven capabilities that assist professional developers and automate tasks related to the development of AI-enhanced solutions. Augmented analytics, automated testing, automated code generation and automated solution development will speed the development process and empower a wider range of users to develop applications.
- AI-enabled tools are evolving from assisting and automating functions related to application development (AD) to being enhanced with business domain expertise and automating activities higher on the AD process stack (from general development to business solution design).
The market will shift from a focus on data scientists partnered with developers to developers operating independently using predefined models delivered as a service. This enables more developers to utilize the services, and increases efficiency. These trends are also leading to more mainstream usage of virtual software developers and nonprofessional "citizen application developers."
Read more: How to Build a Business Case for Artificial Intelligence
Trend No. 4: Digital twins
A digital twin is a digital representation that mirrors a real-life object, process or system. Digital twins can also be linked to create twins of larger systems, such as a power plant or city. The idea of a digital twin is not new. It goes back to computer-aided design representations of things or online profiles of customers, but today's digital twins are different in four ways:
- The robustness of the models, with a focus on how they support specific business outcomes
- The link to the real world, potentially in real time for monitoring and control
- The application of advanced big data analytics and AI to drive new business opportunities
- The ability to interact with them and evaluate "what if" scenarios
The focus today is on digital twins in the IoT, which could improve enterprise decision making by providing information on maintenance and reliability, insight into how a product could perform more effectively, data about new products and increased efficiency. Digital twins of an organization are emerging to create models of organizational process to enable real time monitoring and drive improved process efficiencies.
The CIO Executive Communication Guide
Speak the language of the C-suite to communicate the business value of IT
Trend No. 5: Empowered edge
Edge computing is a topology where information processing and content collection and delivery are placed closer to the sources of the information, with the idea that keeping traffic local will reduce latency. Currently, much of the focus of this technology is a result of the need for IoT systems to deliver disconnected or distributed capabilities into the embedded IoT world. This type of topology will address challenges ranging from high WAN costs and unacceptable levels of latency. Further, it will enable the specifics of digital business and IT solutions.
Technology and thinking will shift to a point where the experience will connect people with hundreds of edge devices
Through 2028, Gartner expects a steady increase in the embedding of sensor, storage, compute and advanced AI capabilities in edge devices. In general, intelligence will move toward the edge in a variety of endpoint devices, from industrial devices to screens to smartphones to automobile power generators.
The CIO Executive Communication Guide
Speak the language of the C-suite to communicate the business value of IT
Trend No. 6: Immersive technologies
Through 2028, conversational platforms, which change how users interact with the world, and technologies such as augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR) and virtual reality (VR), which change how users perceive the world, will lead to a new immersive experience. AR, MR and VR show potential for increased productivity, with the next generation of VR able to sense shapes and track a user's position and MR enabling people to view and interact with their world.
By 2022, 70% of enterprises will be experimenting with immersive technologies for consumer and enterprise use, and 25% will have deployed to production. The future of conversational platforms, which range from virtual personal assistants to chatbots, will incorporate expanded sensory channels that will allow the platform to detect emotions based on facial expressions, and they will become more conversational in interactions.
Eventually, the technology and thinking will shift to a point where the experience will connect people with hundreds of edge devices ranging from computers to cars.
Trend No. 7: Blockchain
Blockchain is a type of distributed ledger, an expanding chronologically ordered list of cryptographically signed, irrevocable transactional records shared by all participants in a network. Blockchain allows companies to trace a transaction and work with untrusted parties without the need for a centralized party (i.e., a bank). This greatly reduces business friction and has applications that began in finance, but have expanded to government, healthcare, manufacturing, supply chain and others. Blockchain could potentially lower costs, reduce transaction settlement times and improve cash flow. The technology has also given way to a host of blockchain-inspired solutions that utilize some of the benefits and parts of blockchain.
Pure blockchain models are immature and can bedifficult to scale. . However, businesses should begin evaluating the technology, as blockchain will create $3.1T in business value by 2030. Blockchain inspired approaches that do not implement all the tenets of blockchain deliver near term value but do not provide the promised highly distributed decentralized consensus models of a pure blockchain.
Read more: The CIO's Guide to Blockchain
Trend No. 8: Smart spaces
A smart space is a physical or digital environment in which humans and technology-enabled systems interact in increasingly open, connected, coordinated and intelligent ecosystems. As technology becomes a more integrated part of daily life, smart spaces will enter a period of accelerated delivery. Further, other trends such as AI-driven technology, edge computing, blockchain and digital twins are driving toward this trend as individual solutions become smart spaces.
Smart spaces are evolving alone five key dimensions: Openness, connectedness, coordination, intelligence and scope. Essentially, smart spaces are developing as individual technologies emerge from silos to work together to create a collaborative and interaction environment. The most extensive example of smart spaces is smart cities, where areas that combine business, residential and industrial communities are being designed using intelligent urban ecosystem frameworks, with all sectors linking to social and community collaboration.
Gartner Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends
Trend No. 9: Digital ethics and privacy
Consumers have an growing awareness of the value of their personal information, and they are increasingly concerned with how it's being used by public and private entities. Enterprises that don't pay attention are at risk of consumer backlash.
Conversations regarding privacy must be grounded in ethics and trust. The conversation should move from "Are we compliant?" toward "Are we doing the right thing?"
Governments are increasingly planning or passing regulations with which companies must be compliant, and consumers are carefully guarding or removing information about themselves. Companies must gain and maintain trust with the customer to succeed, and they must also follow internal values to ensure customers view them as trustworthy.
Trend No. 10: Quantum computing
Quantum computing is a type of nonclassical computing that is based on the quantum state of subatomic particles that represent information as elements denoted as quantum bits or "qubits."
Quantum computers are an exponentially scalable and highly parallel computing model. A way to imagine the difference between traditional and quantum computers is to imagine a giant library of books.
While a classic computer would read every book in a library in a linear fashion, a quantum computer would read all the books simultaneously. Quantum computers are able to theoretically work on millions of computations at once. Quantum computing in the form of a commercially available, affordable and reliable service would transform some industries.
Read more: The CIO's Guide to Quantum Computing
Real-world applications range from personalized medicine to optimization of pattern recognition. This technology is still in an emerging state, which means it is a good time for businesses to increase their understanding of potential applications and consider any security implications. Aside from a select group of businesses where specific quantum algorithms would provide a major advantage, most enterprises could remain in exploration phase through 2022 and begin exploiting the technology later.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
prenatal development
Our editors will review what you've submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Also called:
- antenatal development
- Key People:
- Bernard Siegfried Albinus
- Related Topics:
- gestation
- embryo
- fetus
- altricial state
- precocial young
prenatal development, in humans, the process encompassing the period from the formation of an embryo, through the development of a fetus, to birth (or parturition).
The human body, like that of most animals, develops from a single cell produced by the union of a male and a female gamete (or sex cell). This union marks the beginning of the prenatal period, which in humans encompasses three distinct stages: (1) the pre-embryonic stage, the first two weeks of development, which is a period of cell division and initial differentiation (cell maturation), (2) the embryonic period, or period of organogenesis, which lasts from the third to the eighth week of development, and (3) the fetal period, which is characterized by the maturation of tissues and organs and rapid growth of the body. The prenatal period ends with parturition and is followed by a long postnatal period. Only at about age 25 years are the last progressive changes completed.
Pre-embryonic and embryonic development
Much of the embryonic developmental machinery (the cellular apparatus) used in human development is similar to that used by other vertebrates as well as some invertebrates. The machinery is essential for four processes: cell proliferation, cell specialization, cell interaction, and cell movement. During these processes, the approximately 20,000–25,000 genes in the human genome give rise to as many as 100,000 different proteins, which give the conceptus form and substance.
The development and liberation of the male and female gametes are steps preparatory to their union through the process of fertilization. Active movements first bring some spermatozoa into contact with follicle cells adhering to the secondary oocyte (immature egg), which still lies high in the uterine tube. The sperm then propel themselves past the follicle cells and attach to the surface of the gelatinous zona pellucida enclosing the oocyte. Some sperm heads successfully penetrate this capsule by means of an enzyme they secrete, hyaluronidase, but only one sperm makes contact with the cell membrane and cytoplasm of the oocyte and proceeds farther. This is because the invading sperm head releases a substance that initiates surface changes in the oocyte that render its membrane impermeable to other spermatozoa.
The successful sperm is engulfed by a conical protrusion of the oocyte cytoplasm and is drawn inward. Once within the periphery of the oocyte, the sperm advances toward the centre of the cytoplasm; the head swells and converts into a typical nucleus, now called the male pronucleus, and the tail detaches. It is during the progress of these events that the oocyte initiates its final maturation division. Following the separation of the second polar body (one or two polar bodies are produced during division), the oocyte nucleus typically reconstitutes and is then called the female pronucleus of the ripe egg. It is now ready to unite with its male counterpart and thereby consummate the total events of fertilization.
The two pronuclei next approach, meet midway in the egg cytoplasm, and lose their nuclear membranes. Each resolves its diffuse chromatin material into a complete single set of 23 chromosomes. Each chromosome is composed of two chromatids held together by a centromere. During mitosis (ordinary cell proliferation by division), the centromeres attach to a bundle of microtubules known as the mitotic spindle, which is formed by centrioles (cylindrical cell structures). This climax in the events of fertilization creates a joint product known as the zygote, which contains all the factors essential for the development of a new individual.
The fundamental results of fertilization are the following: (1) reassociation of a male and female set of chromosomes, thus restoring the full number and providing the basis for biparental inheritance and for variation), (2) establishment of the mechanism of sex determination for the new individual (this depending on whether the male set of chromosomes included the X or the Y chromosome), and (3) activation of the zygote, initiating further development.
Cleavage and blastulation
Through the process of mitosis, the relatively enormous zygote directly subdivides into many smaller cells of conventional size, suitable as early building units for the future organism. This process is called cleavage and the resulting cells are blastomeres. The tendency for the progressive increase in cell numbers to follow a doubling sequence is soon disturbed and then lost. Each blastomere receives the full complement of paternal and maternal chromosomes.
Subdivision of the zygote into blastomeres begins while it is still high in the uterine tube. The cohering blastomeres are transported downward chiefly, at least, by muscular contractions of the tubal wall. Such transport is relatively rapid until the lower end of the tube is reached, and here cleavage continues for about two days before the multicellular cluster is expelled into the uterus. The full reason for this delay is not clear, but it serves to retain the cleaving blastomeres until the uterine lining is suitably prepared to receive its prospective guest.
Since the human egg contains little inert yolk material and since this is distributed rather evenly throughout the cytoplasm, the daughter cells of each mitosis are practically equal in size and composition. This type of cleavage is known as total, equal cleavage. The sticky blastomeres adhere, and the cluster is still retained for a time within the gelatinous capsule—the zona pellucida—that had enclosed the growing and ovulated oocyte. There is no growth in the rapidly dividing blastomeres, so that the total mass of living substance does not increase during the cleavage period.
By the fourth day after fertilization, a cluster of about 12 blastomeres passes from the uterine tube into the uterus. At this stage the cluster is called a morula. By the time some 30 blastomeres have been produced, pools of clear fluid accumulate between some of the internal cells, and these spaces soon coalesce into a common subcentral cavity. The resulting hollow cellular ball is a blastula of a particular type that occurs in mammals and is called a blastocyst; its cavity is the blastocoel.
An internal cellular cluster, eccentric in position and now named the inner cell mass, will develop into the embryo. The external capsule of smaller cells, enveloping the segregated internal cluster, constitutes the trophoblast. It will contribute to the formation of a placenta and fetal membranes. During its stay within the uterine cavity, the blastocyst loses its gelatinous capsule, imbibes fluid, and expands to a diameter of 0.2 mm (0.008 inch); this is nearly twice the diameter of the zygote at the start of cleavage. Probably several hundred blastomeres have formed before the blastocyst attaches to the uterine lining.


text:
Posts Tagged 'commercial project'
Google's Indoor Sport Court Remodel
Time for a Refresh Over a decade ago, the Pacific Shores Club entrusted AllSport America and Sport Court to provide a high performance, multi-use athletic floor in their gymnasium. After years of companies moving in and out, Google now occupies the surrounding business park around the Pacific Shores Club. With a total of ten buildings…
Read More


text:
What is the legal limit for window tint in Delaware DE?
The Delaware tint law saids for car, truck, SUV, or Mini Van, front doors 70% VLT, rest anything. A sun visor strip up to the AS-1 line any VLT is allow on the front windshield.
VLT = Visible Light Transmission
The above information is not a legal document. It is the result of independent research, using several sources of public state documents. Window tinting laws vary from state to state and province to province. Before applying any window tinting materials, installers should thoroughly review the appropriate state regulations as well as local enforcement policies to insure compliance with all applicable standards.


text:
We think of negotiation as a game for experienced professionals, but in reality, it's not very hard to do. From getting a salary increase to haggling a better deal on a car, even the shyest amongst us can get what we want out of a negotiation. Here's how.
Whether you realize it or not, you probably negotiate all day long. It's not always about getting $2000 off a used car. It might be as simple as getting the lunch time you want, or convincing your significant other to go to a party with you. That means you have practice, and even if you don't consider yourself an expert negotiator you can still get what you want without being confrontational. Let's start with the basics of preparing yourself for a negotiation (when it's possible) before digging into some tips anyone can use.
Prepare Yourself for a Negotiation
Negotiation is as much about preparation as it is about making a deal. Whether it's negotiating your salary or getting a better deal on something you're buying, the more prepared you are the better you'll do. Here's the basics of how to prepare:
Research as much as you can: Knowledge is power in a negotiation, and the more you know the better. For salaries, sites like Glassdoor and Salary.com can give you the average price people make in your position. Likewise, a quick search on Google can reveal the average cost of most things you'd buy on Craigslist, Trulia shows you the average price on homes in an area, and Kelley Blue Book is an excellent resource for used car pricing. Regardless of what you're negotiating, the more you know, the more comfortable you'll feel negotiating.
Practice beforehand: It might sound silly, but if you're really nervous about negotiating, then it's worthwhile to practice. Run through the reasons you think you deserve the price you want in front of a mirror, or with another person to get feedback.
Stay calm and don't argue: While it may seem like it, a negotiation is not a debate, so don't treat it like one. Arguing in a negotiation gets you nowhere, and if you let emotions get in the way you're bound to lose the other party's attention. Keep it simple and stay calm. A negotiation isn't about "winning," it's about making a deal where everyone walks away with something of value.
A little preparation goes a long way, but the heart of your negotiation is the tactic you use. Here are some good examples. Photo by Julie Vazquez.
Expand the Pie, aka "Find Something Negotiable"
Expanding the pie is a negotiation technique that's perfect for people who aren't interested in negotiations for one simple reason: it's win-win. The term comes from the idea that negotiators are often negotiating about a single pie, where one person gets more than the other. However, if both parties work to make the pie bigger, everyone walks away happy.
The best example of this is a salary negotiation where your employer isn't able to give you more money. If you can't get more money, you need to "expand the pie" by offering up alternatives to a raise.
For example, let's say you walk into your bosses office because you feel you're underpaid. Your boss agrees with you, but says that they just don't have the money to give a raise. Instead of walking out despondant, think of other perks you can ask for that don't require money. This might include working from home for a few days, extra vacation time, shorter hours, or any other "free" perks you might want.
The main idea is simple: When something isn't negotiable, you need to find something else that is. So, if you find yourself stuck in a negotiation that isn't going anywhere, ask the other person, "why?" In the case of a salary negotiation, it might be the fact the company doesn't have the money. In other negotiations, the answer might reveal another way to solve the problem. Photo by Beth Punches.
Use the 15-20 Percent Rule
For many of us, the very thought of negotiating a deal on Craigslist or for a used car is cause for anxiety. However, the 15-to-20 percent rule is one that all of us can do.
Let's assume you're buying a used iMac off Craigslist. The seller has it listed for $1200. That seems like a lot to you, so you offer them $950 (about 20 percent less than they're asking). From there, you might haggle up to a $1,000, but chances are they'll take the $950. Why? Because in the case of Craigslist, many sellers list their items for around 15-20 percent more than they'd take for them.
The same rule of thumb can also be applied in reverse when you need to throw out the first number (if your limit for spending is $6,000, offer $5,100). This takes care of the nervous negotiators biggest fear: throwing out a number. Photo by Broad Bean Media.
Keep Quiet and Listen for Clues
If you're not an expert negotiator, one of the best things you can do is let the other person talk, and listen for clues of where they might bend. Inc. suggests that silence is one of your best tools:
If you make an offer and the seller says, "That is way too low," don't respond right away. Sit tight. The seller will start talking in order to fill the silence. Maybe he'll list reasons why your offer is too low. Maybe he'll share why he needs to make a deal so quickly. Most of the time the seller will fill the silence with useful information—information you would never have learned if you were speaking.
This is probably the easiest tactic to use when you're learning how to negotiate. The more you know about a situation, the better you understand it. This can work great for something like a used car, where if you're silent they'll start listing off everything that's great with the car. When they run out of stuff to say, they might reveal what's wrong with it, like, "That offer is too low, this car only has 100,000 miles on it, but it's a Subaru, and it's in great shape. Sure, it needs a little work on the engine, and the rear window doesn't work, but it starts every time." That's all the information you need to make a counteroffer, "Well, how about you drop the price since I'll have to get the engine looked at and the rear window fixed, because my dog will freak out if I can't roll down the windows?"
If you're lucky, the person will talk enough to give you the information you need to swoop in and make an offer you're both comfortable with. Photo by Jennifer Moo.
The Nibble, aka "One More Thing"
The nibble technique is a tried-and-true method of negotiation. Essentially, it's all about pushing for tiny, little improvements to a deal. In a recent episode of Planet Money, Columbia Business Professor, Adam Galinsky describes a negotiation with an airline looking to bump some people off an overbooked flight:
It started out at about $300 [voucher], and I didn't want to do that.... Eventually they're offering a voucher for $1000 for a flight I paid $180 for. So, I went up there I said, "If I get bumped off this flight will you put me in first class tomorrow?" [they say yes] Then he adds, "I need to stay somewhere tonight, will you put me in a hotel?" [they say yes] Then, "A boys got to eat, will you pay for my dinner tonight?" [they'll buy him dinner] and finally, someone's supposed to pick me up in a car tonight, can you have someone pick me up tomorrow?" [they get him a car service]
Galinsky was able to get a $1000 voucher for a future flight, a first-class ticket, a free hotel, a free meal, and a free ride from the airport by simply asking for them using the "one more thing" technique. The lesson here? If you don't ask for something, you can't get it. When you're negotiating with a someone, especially a big company, see how much they're willing to give you for free. Photo by Quinn Dombrowski.
Avoid Meeting Face-to-Face with a Well-Written Letter or Phone Call
Without a doubt, the best way to negotiate is face-to-face. However, if you're simply not comfortable with that, a letter or phone call is effective in certain situations.
For example, if you want to negotiate a new price on your rent, a letter is more than enough to get you there. Likewise, a formal salary request letter is a great jumping off point to start the negotiations for a higher salary. Even a simple email to your new employer can get you an extra month of pay. Sure, you'll still likely need to meet face-to-face with your boss to discuss the raise, but at least you'll have the time to present your argument without feeling flustered.
Negotiation isn't just about the big ticket items either. Even negotiating your monthly bills like cable or internet over the phone can save you a lot of money and works on the same basic premise. Negotiating something like your cable bill is also great practice for larger negotiations like a salary or a car. Photo by Scott Raymond.
In the end, negotiation is all about deciding what you want, and figuring out a way to get there. It's not nearly as hard as it seems, and a lot of the time you'll walk away with what you want because most people don't like negotiating. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg, we've highlighted plenty of advanced tips over the years. Once you're comfortable and get through your first few deals, you'll be able to negotiate just about anything.


text:
The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) announces that 711 out of 1,886 passed the Agricultural and Biosystems Engineer Licensure Examination given by the Board of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in the cities of Manila, Baguio, Cagayan De Oro, Cebu, Davao, Legazpi and Tuguegarao this October 2019.
The members of the Board for Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering who gave the licensure examination are Engr. Ariodear C. Rico, Chairman and Engr. Juana T. Tapel, Member.
The results were released in three (3) working days from the last day of examination.
From December 9 to December 10, 2019, registration for the issuance of Professional Identification Card (ID) and Certificate of Registration will be done on-line. Please go to www.prc.gov.ph and follow instructions for initial registration. Those who will register are required to bring the following: downloaded duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal, notice of admission (for identification only), 2 pieces passport sized pictures (colored with white background and complete name tag), 2 sets of documentary stamps and 1 piece short brown envelope. Successful examinees should personally register and sign in the Roster of Registered Professionals.
The date and venue for the oathtaking ceremony of the new successful examinees in the said examination WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER.
- Full text of the Official Result
- Performance of Schools
- List of successful Examinees who garnered the eight (8) highest places
- List of Successful Examinees


text:
For computer security reasons you have to retype this number: in this box: . Your submission will not be accepted without it. Please fill in all the fields below. Note: if you are sending a message to CCL Subscribers you will be asked for confirmation. After you click on [SUBMIT] you will get an e-mail message requesting confirmation. Click on the URL in the confirmation e-mail or cut/paste the URL into your browser. This is the only way to verify that you entered your e-mail address correctly. This is also for your own protection. Without this check the "Bad People" would be able to enter your e-mail address in the message, and impresonate you. Click on the button when finished.
Important message to participants with Yahoo email addresses. [ Please click here ]
Please enter the body (i.e., no To: or From: lines) of your message here. Remember to provide your name/email/address at the end of the message. You cannot send binary files or special characters via this interface. They are discouraged anyhow. Only ASCII text will appear in the message sent to CCL and all other characters will be removed before sending. Your message will undergo regular screening for spam and exploits.
Click on the button when finished.
For computer security reason we do not include the message above in the confirmation request but rather send a short e-mail asking you to confirm your submission.
Check if your e-mail is correct before you click on [Submit] button.


text:
Online Store
Linen Calendar Towels
Byers' Choice Collection
Department 56 Collections
Jim Shore Heartwood Creek
more →
News and Events
About Us
Glimpse Our Store
Directions and Map
About Historic Deerfield
Contact Us
View Cart
View Cart
Ecologie Swedish Dish Cloths #2000101 "Handsome Hound" (Blue)
Popular in Scandinavia, these compostable cloths offer a sustainable alternative to cleaning with dishcloths, paper towels, and sponges. Ideal for washing dishes, wiping counters, cleaning appliances, mopping up spills and more!
Swedish dish cloths are
8 in. x 6.5 in.
70% cellulose / 30% cotton. Use sponge-cloths for 6+ months and then add to your home compost for easy disposal.
Care Instructions:
Place in the laundry or top rack of the dishwasher to be used continually. Lay flat to dry.


text:
New Hyde Park, NY: Happy Smiles Dental, under the esteemed leadership of Dr. Diana Gerov, is proud to announce a significant upgrade within its current location at 1300 Union Turnpike, Suite 106, New Hyde Park, NY 11040. Despite retaining its suite number, the office has undergone a comprehensive renovation, transforming it into a more spacious and technologically advanced space. This enhancement introduces the latest dental technologies and more comfortable patient spaces and incorporates the innovative iTero Element 5D imaging system by Invisalign. These upgrades reaffirm Happy Smiles Dental's dedication to providing exceptional dental care, further establishing the practice as a leading dentist in New Hyde Park and solidifying Dr. Diana Gerov's reputation as a forefront dentist.
Revolutionizing Dental Care in New Hyde Park: This strategic enhancement of the suite at 1300 Union Turnpike represents a critical juncture for Happy Smiles Dental and the New Hyde Park community it serves. The updated office offers a broader spectrum of dental services by integrating cutting-edge dental technology. From routine check-ups to complex procedures and dental implants, the newly optimized facilities have been designed to meet patient needs, offering unparalleled efficiency and comfort. This commitment is at the heart of Happy Smiles Dental's mission to advance dental care standards in New Hyde Park, ensuring premier treatment in a state-of-the-art setting.
Elevating Patient Experience: The renovation of Happy Smiles Dental's suite has been thoughtfully executed, focusing on enhancing patient comfort and the overall experience. The meticulous redesign, including the strategic layout of treatment rooms and the adoption of advanced technologies such as the iTero Element 5D imaging system, aims to make each visit more comfortable and efficient. The inviting atmosphere and careful attention to a stress-free environment mirror Dr. Gerov's philosophy of patient-centered care, emphasizing her dedication as a compassionate and skilled dentist in New Hyde Park.
Invitation to Explore the New Facility: Happy Smiles Dental extends a warm invitation to the New Hyde Park community and beyond to discover the newly improved office. The update marks a physical transformation and a significant advancement in the practice's commitment to top-tier dental care. Located at 1300 Union Turnpike, Suite 106, the practice is set to welcome patients to a new era of dental excellence. For appointments or more information about the upgraded services, contact Happy Smiles Dental at 516-354-7551. Dr. Gerov and her team eagerly anticipate sharing these improvements with the community, reinforcing their pledge to outstanding dental health and patient satisfaction.
These comprehensive improvements signal a new chapter for Happy Smiles Dental, pushing the boundaries of dental care in New Hyde Park. The meticulous planning and investment in the latest dental technologies underscore an unwavering commitment to maintaining the cutting edge of dental services, positioning Happy Smiles Dental as the go-to destination for those seeking a distinguished dentist in New Hyde Park.
Company Name: Happy Smiles Dental
Contact Person: Dr. Diana Gerov
Phone: 516-354-7551
Address: 1300 Union Turnpike, Suite 106
City: New Hyde Park
State: NY
Postal Code: 11040
Country: US
Website: https://drdianagerov.com/
Disclaimer: The views, suggestions, and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Dive Digest journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.


text:
Fruitful Giving
The most powerful way to make a difference in the world is through giving back. As a mission-minded organisation, we not only want to inspire healthy living, but also contribute to life-changing, not-for-profit programmes and initiatives that help support a well-balanced lifestyle.
This is why the Juice Plus+ Foundation is committed to charitable giving that impacts the lives of children and families across the globe. With this in mind, our philanthropic efforts rest on three pillars that focus on cultivating the mind, body and spirit:
Feeding Minds
We believe in educating and encouraging nutritional wellness in our youth.
Fueling Bodies
We believe nourishment, fitness and overall physical health make lives better.
Fostering Communities
We believe in making a lasting social impact through sustainability and community development.
Juice Plus+ Partners
We are proud to partner with these organisations, which share our goal of inspiring healthy living around the world.


text:
10 rules4peace
peacecamp 2018 in Lackenhof and Vienna: July 3rd - 13th, 2018
1. DO always communicate in English, which is the language common to all on peacecamp. It does not matter if you make mistakes. You can always ask a friend or an adult to help you translate or express yourself in English.
2. DO always address people directly: talk TO – not ABOUT somebody.
3. DO respect the structure and time-table of the peacecamp: DO arrive on time and attend ALL meals and workshops. All meals have to be taken in the youth hostel.
4. DO share and express your opinions and feelings openly, frankly. DO stand up for your convictions. DO tell us if something bothers you, but do this respectfully in a way that won't hurt others.
5. DO respect rest- and sleeping-hours of the people in and around the youth hostel. In Austria resting hour starts at 10 pm – please no loud voices and music in the street after this hour. If you play music after this hour, please close the windows, so that the neighbours can sleep undisturbed.
6. DO treat the space and environment with respect and care. DO observe waste separation. We have separate bins for plastic, paper, metal, organic and "general" waste as well as for bottles. Our Austrian friends will show you how to do this.
7. DO NOT hurt, offend or attack others – neither verbally nor in action. Fight for your views and convictions, but do this respectfully and try to listen to the other person's viewpoint.
8. DO NOT damage or waste things: Handle equipment with respect and care. DO leave rooms and equipment as you would like to find them. Try to keep the in- and outdoor space clean and beautiful.
9. DO keep the peacecamp area free of cigarettes, alcohol and drugs of any kind.
10. DO give your best and DO take home as much as you can. Remember that in order to receive, you must be ready to give.
Please remember: We are coming from different countries, cultures and religions. We may be eating different food, wearing different clothes, have different life styles. Let us find ways to experiment with the new while respecting each other's social norms.
Have a wonderful time – Your peacecamp 2018 team
0 comments | Comment