1. The ad appeared in the February 20, 2008 issue of People Magazine.
2. You are not supposed to lick the ad or the tamper evident pouch in which the flavor strip is encased. You are actually supposed to peel open the pouch, remove the strip, place it on your tongue, let it dissolve and enjoy!

The results from a study conducted by Startch Communications, a division of GFK, were outstanding! If you would like to find out more information, please visit our website, http://www.firstflavor.com

Tamar

A bouquet of youth- how nice!

[…] an interesting post was made today on this site […]……

It does appear that the “sniffer test” will be admissible. “Gas chromatography” is not a new science, this particular test is merely a new application of it. Gas chromatography is one of four technologies used in breathalyzer tests, which are, of course admissible in court (see here) and is considered one of the two most reliable (albeit most expensive) of the four (see here).

Other applications for the technology are constantly being developed and are admissible in court, according to this excellent piece on forensic toxicology, which states, in part: “Scientists and researchers continue to improve and discover new means of separating, analyzing, and identifying chemical substances. Techniques are becoming more specialized, and technologies are being combined to create ever more sensitive and sophisticated tests. Two increasingly important approaches to chemical detection and identification are gas chromatography, a method of separating substances, and mass spectrometry, a method of measuring the mass of molecules. These techniques allow investigators to identify with reasonable certainty—admissible in a court of law—minute amounts of toxic substances found in the bodies of victims or in trace evidence collected at crime scenes.”

As to the particular case of Caylee Anthony, the Orlando Sentinel states that “air samples from her car were sent to the University of Tenn. Body Farm and those results confirmed the investigator’s preliminary conclusions” (that the trunk had contained a decomposing body) and WESH, Orlando states that “a prosecutor said that these odor results are admissible in court as forensic evidence, but he cautioned that they are not nearly as strong as DNA evidence,” so it remains to be seen how much weight a jury will assign to the test.

As much as I hate to quote from Nancy Grace’s show due to her complete disregard for the presumption of innocence of the Duke lacrosse team, this CNN transcript does contain some passages very relevant to your question. Asked if the test is considered reliable, forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Arnall, said, “It`s a new technology. The scientists at the University of Tennessee have published the results in scientific journals. And they`ve collected the air over decomposing bodies and they`ve characterized the compounds that one finds in that air. They`ve taken that air and they`ve put it through a relatively well established technology. That`s gas chromatography. But the new technology that they`ve brought to bear is they`ve characterized the specific compounds that are found next to a decomposing dead human body.” Asked specifically about the admissibility of the test, attorney Doug Burns said, “I think it`s going to boil down to the use of experts. In other words, Jane, they`ll prepare an expert report, they`ll give it to the other side. The other side will have an opportunity to have their own expert look at it and analyze it. It`s hard to say definitively. It`ll be up to the judge. I mean, if it`s a brand-new technology, maybe not. But I think it probably would be admissible.”

Finally, although your question was specifically asking about the admissibility of the “artificial nose,” this article from Forensic Magazine contains some fascinating information, including a chromatogram of armpit samples showing the uniqueness of scent and the admissibility of scent-evidence obtained via sniffing-dogs: “U.S. courts have diverse views about the admissibility of scent lineup evidence. In Winston v. State (Tex. App. 2002), for example, an appellate court noted that 37 states and the District of Columbia admit scent trailing evidence to prove the identity of the accused. As a relatively new use of the canine’s olfactory skill, the scent lineup will require scientific proof of reliability before identification evidence can withstand judicial scrutiny in all U.S. courts. Until then, the scent lineup remains a valuable tool for law enforcement during an investigation.”

I hope this has been helpful, Pat and, again, thank you so much for the thought-provoking question!

Have sniffer test results been accepted as true forensic evidence in any cases?
If so, in what states has sniffer tests been allowed?

Thank you
Pat Nelson