Detail #422 Haber Response

[Charles Parker]

Having read the testimony twice of Drs. Lyn and Ralph Haber as presented in the weekly detail I am aghast at where to begin. I thought about going over each issue, but there are so many of them that it would take me a month of my own time to do that. Then I thought about just some key points but that would not get the job done either. Then I thought about breaking it down into segments, but that would take a long time.

But then I realized that I have never seen anything so over generalized with sweeping inaccurate statements as this document. I did start to write some responses but then came to the conclusion of why even try bothering to do that as there is nothing I could ever say or write that would change their minds that what they have written is not 100% accurate. I do not believe it is even 5% accurate.

But a few pointer to the uninitiated that might try to read it. First you need to look at the differences between a Crime Laboratory, Identification Section, Crime Scene Section, Crime Records Section, CJIS Unit and the different job titles and descriptions that go with each. Then learn the difference in function and operation of the International Association for Identification (IAI), Scientific Working Groups (SWG’s), American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) and the ASCLD-Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB), and the other professional organizations that they kindly mix up.

Also keep in mind between a Law Mandated Regulatory Force and a Non-Profit Professional Organization. Two very different structures. It would also be good to read the standards and definitions by SWGFAST so as to get a better understanding of the fingerprint discipline. Learning more about Police Department and Sheriffs Department hiring practices would be good. Each one I have known has a human resources and the HR of any organization is not going to allow most if not all the situations that the Haber’s testify about.

Study each statement carefully looking for those parts that might be slanted, or blending claims into assertions. Keep an open mind and do the research if necessary. Do not accept as is.

As to what Kasey wrote in response I second most of it except the part where we need a National Institute of Forensic Science. It needs to go to each state to create its own Forensic Science Commission.

[mgirard]

Honestly I could not even make it through the first paragraph of the Haber's preamble to their testimony without cringing. I find it ironic and at the same time appalling that Ralph and Lyn Haber make the claim that they are trained Fingerprint Examiners. Maybe it is a cruel joke and their way of throwing our disciplines apparent lack of standardized training back at us. Obviously they make the statement in the first place to make it look as if they have more knowledge of the inner workings of our discipline than they really do. Isn't that the only reason one would exaggerate something like this? As Kasey argues in his respone they appear to exaggerate and overstate many of the criticisms they have. Aren't exaggerating and overstating two of the worst characteristics a expert witness could possess?

Even when the Haber's have valid criticisms it is hard as an analyst to give much weight to their opinions because of the way in which they seem to enjoy pretending that they know all about our discipline.

I'm sorry taking 3 courses in a period of 3 years does not make you trained as a Fingerprint Examiner. The following is directly from their resumes..............

I have taken three courses in fingerprint comparison.
24 hr Basic Course taught by Richard Whalley, CLPE, Richard Whalley Associates, San
Diego, CA, December, 2002, San Diego, CA.
40 hr. Ridgeology Sciences Workshop (Fingerprint Comparison) Course taught by
Kasey Wertheim, CLPE, under auspices of the International Association for Identification.
December 1-5, 2003, Santa Ana, CA
40 hr. Basic Forensic Ridgeology (Fingerprint Comparison) Course taught by David
Ashbaugh, CLPE, under auspices of the International Association for Identification, January 17-
21, 2005, Los Angeles, CA.

If there are more courses and training opportunities that they have actively participated in then I would advise them to add it to their resumes.

[mgirard]

Where is the Haber's data coming from? Is it a statistical number based on surveys taken by IAI members?

"Fewer than 10% of the evidence technicians listed in the International Association for Identification (IAI) membership have a BA or BS degree, and fewer than 1% have an advanced degree. No data are available about the working examiners who are not members of the IAI."

As far as I know the IAI would have no knowledge of who does or does not have a degree because it is not a requirement for membership and there is no place on the application in which someone would specifically list if they have a degree.

[Darrell Klasey]

May I suggest that we, the forensic identification community, give this matter the attention it deserves, no more but no less?

What we have are two associate members of the IAI testifying, under oath, before a Congressional committee. I would agree with others that the comments presented are distortions of the truth. If one takes the IAI membership directory and counts the number of members listed with a college degree after the name, it would appear that the IAI is, by and large, an uneducated group of folks. I don't recall listing my degree (for the record: California State University Long Beach, Bachelor of Science cum laude, Criminal Justice) on my IAI application, although I listed it on my certification application. But my certification application is not widely available for study, unlike the directory.

If I, as a forensic practitioner, exaggerate my testimony in a court of law, should I not be looked at for conduct unbecoming an IAI member and possibly a violation of a code of conduct? What if I testify before Congress under oath and provide misleading testimony? You bet I should be looked at. It's one thing to play with facts over a beer in a conference hospitality room, and another thing to say it under oath.

Darrell Klasey

[sharon cook]

[mdavis]

Wow, am I going to leave that last sentence alone, lest we start a war.

I would make one minor comment, however, regarding the claim of training within the latent print community. Historically, latent print examiners were first trained over a period of at least one year doing classifications. Indeed, the FBI training classes for new latent print examiners began with one week of classification training, and new FBI employees were put on the classification bench to start.

There was a good reason for this that is being lost today with our automated AFIS and livescan systems and the elimination by the FBI of that segment of training for latent print examiners. When I began, I spent many months classifying tenprint cards before I began conducting comparisons. That exposure to literally tens of thousands of fingerprint patterns, Galton details and Level 3 builds a mental database of familiarity with both typical and atypical friction ridge events. One gains an appreciation for the relative frequency of bifurcations vs. trifurcations, spurs, islands, short ridges and each of these in relation to various basic pattern types. In truth, I have learned less from a number of formal classes than I have from simply doing the work, something the Habers have never done. Most of these classes involve less hands-on than theory because they are aimed at experienced examiners. Most of the value I've found from formal classes has been the opportunity to compare notes with other practicing examiners, something I suspect the Habers found exceedingly difficult to do.

[16_Points]

Obviously the Habers have minimal training and experience in latent print identification. Fine, that's an obvious and easy point to attack. To some extent, these boards serve as an out for members to vent their collective frustrations.

As for that, Kasey hits the mark. The Habers' testimony as published paints the latent print community with a single brush. Accreditation and structured training seems to be much more common, especially in larger agencies. To date I have not seen a comprehensive survey of US forensic practitioners. I mean how many are practicing (may be difficult to accurately determine), how many are certified, how many are not certified but work in accredited labs, how many are in states with licensure requirements or government oversight, etc. Yes, certainly, SWG & IAI standards are not compulsory and not all labs are ASCLD-LAB accredited. But why is this so surprising? The same is true in the scientific community as well . . . and the Habers know this.

We don't need coercive federal legislation to set and enforce scientific standards. The federal government has a long history of coaxing state and local governments into standardization by making it a condition for federal funding. For example the national DUI standard of .08%. Many states had limits up to (and possibly exceeding) .10%. Now all states use the .08% standard. Why? Because they won't receive federal funds for highway construction and maintenance if they don't. Coincidentally, I was recently informed that the Federal Coverdell grant for forensic science improvement will soon be available only to ASCLD-LAB accredited laboratories (or for labs to attain accreditation). Funny how that works out sometimes.

Finally, accreditation, certification, standardization, should not be mandated by law but by writ. Attorneys in criminal cases can ask an examiner about his/her training program, credentials, and quality assurance measures (or the absence of them). If the judge and jury decide to accept testimony from an examiner who is not certified, has not completed a structured training program, is not proficiency tested, and working outside an accredited laboratory, then what do you want me to do about it? The court decides for itself who is suitable to testify.

[mdavis]

I concur, good post. If you take a look at the "bad" idents and legitimate court challenges that have caused so much frustration, paranoia and corresponding knee-jerk response, you will find them being made primarily by certified examiners at accredited labs. The problem of bad work stems from the ethical practices of the individual examiner(s). No amount of legislation, certification, or accreditation will solve that. It's all about honest, unbiased comparison and verification practices. You can write all the accreditation boilerplate you want, but if an individual seeks to skip through a loophole or 'dry lab' a needed procedure, you will have the inevitable error associated with human activity on a bell curve. The objections of the Habers and others have nothing to do with certification and accreditation, which is inherently counter-productive.

The latent print community used to be very efficient at self-policing its own, and examiners usually lost their jobs on a bad ident.

[kevin]

The court decides for itself who is suitable to testify.

Speak of which-have the Habers been admitted as fingerprint experts in the past? Or 'general scientific theory' ala Simon Cole?

[mdavis]

So much for vetting done by the congressional committee. This is also a good example of why mere membership in an "industry related" organization should carry so little weight. As I mentioned above, accreditation and certification has little to do with personal ethics and is certainly no guarantee of competence. The IAI code of conduct is fine, but signing the form doesn't guarantee compliance by the individual. Those of us on the bench may have membership suspended for breaching that code, but what do the Habers have to lose other than a bill for annual dues?