Speaking of the V in ACE-V, I would like to hear some comments on how many of you require a verification on ALL comparisons, not just individualizations? I believe that many, if not most, agencies only have a requirement for verification on individualizations but if someone is following ACE-V 100% of the time, would this not require to have all comparisons (including non-individualizations) verified by another examiner? If not, then for non-individualizations the methodology really stops at ACE, does it not? SWGFAST's explanation for verification in the methodology is the following:
Verification is the independent examination by another qualified examiner resulting in the same conclusion.
3.4.1 All individualizations (identifications) must be verified.
3.4.2 Exclusion or inconclusive results may be verified.
Based on this, I know that it allows for the option of verification on exclusions and I know this more than likely boils down to a resource issue, but I was just curious how many have a 100% verification policy for ALL comparisons? I was reluctant at first, but I have instituted 100% verification in my lab for all comparisons. Feel free to respond privately if you wish. Thanks.
Mark
millsma@yahoo.com
The V in ACE-V?
-
Michele
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:40 am
Mark,
I tried to email you but it came back as undeliverable. Can you check the email address.
Thanks,
I tried to email you but it came back as undeliverable. Can you check the email address.
Thanks,
Michele
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
-
Mark Mills
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:35 am
-
Terry A. Smith
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:38 am
- Location: Niagara, CANADA
"To V or not to V"
My personal preference would be to proceed to the Verification step on any comparison involving a 'named suspect'...where the investigator has specifically requested that print(s) from the scene/item be compared versus 'person X' - regardless of the result - and I report my conclusion(s).
For cases where prints may be compared with a 'hot list' of active local subjects and the results are negative (exclusions or inconclusives) , my tendency would be to not refer this to a verifier. Neither would I specifically report on what comparisons were performed in this scenario - I'd simply add a remark to the latent file envelope indicating generally what was done to prevent repetition.
Also, to suggest the "V" be done in every comparison situation would effectively mean an almost doubling of personnel on the AFIS side of things as well. I'm thinking management might not go for this.
For cases where prints may be compared with a 'hot list' of active local subjects and the results are negative (exclusions or inconclusives) , my tendency would be to not refer this to a verifier. Neither would I specifically report on what comparisons were performed in this scenario - I'd simply add a remark to the latent file envelope indicating generally what was done to prevent repetition.
Also, to suggest the "V" be done in every comparison situation would effectively mean an almost doubling of personnel on the AFIS side of things as well. I'm thinking management might not go for this.
-
John P. Black
Mark,
My department has required 100% verification for many years now - individualizations, non-individualizations, and latents deemed to be of no value for individualization. We have fluctuated between 10 and 17 examiners during my eleven year tenure, so I realize we may not have the resource concern that many express, although we conduct crime scene, footwear, tire track, and bloodstain pattern examinations as well. However, I simply see anything less than 100% as inadequate. Two recent cases that I was asked to review support my position.
The first case involved the comparison of scores of latents against many sets of major case prints. During my analysis of the latents, I came across several that were deemed of no value which I was able to individualize. I also discovered one that was listed as a non-individualization, when in fact I was able to individualize it. Yet another latent, while correctly listed as a non-individualization, was of AFIS quality but was not entered. The examiner ran it through and we got a hit, and were later able to individualize it.
The second case involved a single latent and one named suspect. The examiner (different from the first case) indicated the latent was of no value for individualization. After my analysis, I determined it was at least of value for elimination (very good clarity of the core of a whorl), and in fact was most likely of value for individualization. I pulled the card for the listed suspect and could immediately exclude nine of the fingers. As for the remaining digit, I was able to go right to the core and isolate the target group I had seen during my analysis of the latent. After I had completed the comparison, I was able to individualize the latent.
Both cases involved examiners with less experience than myself, and there have been others similar to this over the years. I can also recall making the same mistakes myself in the past. I would speculate that most practitioners within this discipline have as well. I would further speculate that it is still possible for us to make these mistakes. After all, we're human. If anyone believes otherwise, I respectfully suggest you embark upon a different career where lives and liberties are not at stake.
I concur with your assessment in your initial post Mark, and I commend you for taking your section to the 100% level. If we're not performing the "V" in ACE-V, how do we know that ACE is being applied correctly? The answer is we simply don't. I believe that our science, our communities, and our courts deserve more.
John
My department has required 100% verification for many years now - individualizations, non-individualizations, and latents deemed to be of no value for individualization. We have fluctuated between 10 and 17 examiners during my eleven year tenure, so I realize we may not have the resource concern that many express, although we conduct crime scene, footwear, tire track, and bloodstain pattern examinations as well. However, I simply see anything less than 100% as inadequate. Two recent cases that I was asked to review support my position.
The first case involved the comparison of scores of latents against many sets of major case prints. During my analysis of the latents, I came across several that were deemed of no value which I was able to individualize. I also discovered one that was listed as a non-individualization, when in fact I was able to individualize it. Yet another latent, while correctly listed as a non-individualization, was of AFIS quality but was not entered. The examiner ran it through and we got a hit, and were later able to individualize it.
The second case involved a single latent and one named suspect. The examiner (different from the first case) indicated the latent was of no value for individualization. After my analysis, I determined it was at least of value for elimination (very good clarity of the core of a whorl), and in fact was most likely of value for individualization. I pulled the card for the listed suspect and could immediately exclude nine of the fingers. As for the remaining digit, I was able to go right to the core and isolate the target group I had seen during my analysis of the latent. After I had completed the comparison, I was able to individualize the latent.
Both cases involved examiners with less experience than myself, and there have been others similar to this over the years. I can also recall making the same mistakes myself in the past. I would speculate that most practitioners within this discipline have as well. I would further speculate that it is still possible for us to make these mistakes. After all, we're human. If anyone believes otherwise, I respectfully suggest you embark upon a different career where lives and liberties are not at stake.
I concur with your assessment in your initial post Mark, and I commend you for taking your section to the 100% level. If we're not performing the "V" in ACE-V, how do we know that ACE is being applied correctly? The answer is we simply don't. I believe that our science, our communities, and our courts deserve more.
John
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Conflict Resolution
Hello John, I hope everything is going fine where you are at. Your post has generated some good discussion in the section here.
I hope you can answer one topic that we have been discussing and that is “Conflict Resolution”. How does your agency handle conflict resolution?
For example in your first scenario there would not be much conflict if after your review you conferred (some say conference) with the primary examiner and they agreed with your review. However let us say that on one of the individualizations that you made and when you confer back to the examiner and they look at it they respond with “John, I just cannot see it and in good conscience cannot go with the individualization”. Does your resolution call for you to take on the whole case or would a second report be generated by you to cover just the match (shorter word)? Or (I shudder at this) is the primary examiner made to go along with the individualization and write it in their report even though they have stated they did not feel comfortable with it.
Now the last one sounds terrible, but I have been told by a few examiners over the years that very thing has happened to them, and on one occasion it has happened to me. I would think that the resolution would have the complete case reassigned to the reviewer as you really do not want two reports out there that conflict on individualization.
Now if the resolution is that the complete case is reassigned, does that go as well with those that you determine are suitable for individualization when the primary examiner has called them non-suitable and does not agree with your review? Do you now take the case on or is the examiner forced to change their notes and report?
I know that this does not happen very often, but it does occur. It may be that the primary examiner is less experienced as you say, or sometimes it is just a personality conflict and someone has dug their heels in. The bottom line is that it does happen from time to time and I am interested in your agencies response to conflict resolution (or anyone else’s).
To close this post I would like to say that I was taught and have passed it on over the years of what I call the Prime Directive. Any examiner does not sign or report anything unless they are 100% sure of it. To force an examiner (at any level) to document and report a finding not in their full agreement is a violation of the Prime Directive. I was shocked when I was told to write something that I did not fully agree with.
Take care in beautiful South Carolina (my grandfather’s home).
I hope you can answer one topic that we have been discussing and that is “Conflict Resolution”. How does your agency handle conflict resolution?
For example in your first scenario there would not be much conflict if after your review you conferred (some say conference) with the primary examiner and they agreed with your review. However let us say that on one of the individualizations that you made and when you confer back to the examiner and they look at it they respond with “John, I just cannot see it and in good conscience cannot go with the individualization”. Does your resolution call for you to take on the whole case or would a second report be generated by you to cover just the match (shorter word)? Or (I shudder at this) is the primary examiner made to go along with the individualization and write it in their report even though they have stated they did not feel comfortable with it.
Now the last one sounds terrible, but I have been told by a few examiners over the years that very thing has happened to them, and on one occasion it has happened to me. I would think that the resolution would have the complete case reassigned to the reviewer as you really do not want two reports out there that conflict on individualization.
Now if the resolution is that the complete case is reassigned, does that go as well with those that you determine are suitable for individualization when the primary examiner has called them non-suitable and does not agree with your review? Do you now take the case on or is the examiner forced to change their notes and report?
I know that this does not happen very often, but it does occur. It may be that the primary examiner is less experienced as you say, or sometimes it is just a personality conflict and someone has dug their heels in. The bottom line is that it does happen from time to time and I am interested in your agencies response to conflict resolution (or anyone else’s).
To close this post I would like to say that I was taught and have passed it on over the years of what I call the Prime Directive. Any examiner does not sign or report anything unless they are 100% sure of it. To force an examiner (at any level) to document and report a finding not in their full agreement is a violation of the Prime Directive. I was shocked when I was told to write something that I did not fully agree with.
Take care in beautiful South Carolina (my grandfather’s home).
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
John P. Black
Hi Charlie,
Conflict resolution is an important issue. Let me begin by stating what the "practice" was in my section years ago among several examiners. Unfortunately, when the reviewer did not concur with the examiner's results, the examiner would shop around for the reviewer who would concur - just to get the case out the door. This was, and still is, totally unacceptable.
Currently, any disagreement between examiner and reviewer automatically goes to the departmental supervisor for review. After this review, discussion takes place and the correct result is reported. I'm not aware of, nor would I condone, any instance where an examiner was made to report a result outside of their comfort zone. I'm also not aware of any instance where the reviewer has generated a separate report from the examiner. I can't recall an instance where the reviewer was reassigned the case either.
As an aside, I recall disagreeing with a more senior examiner early in my career. We went to the supervisor who, after review of the issue, agreed with me. The examiner later uttered a very derogatory comment to me, but the correct result was reported.
My co-workers have disagreed with some of my results in the past, and after discussion, I saw where they were in fact correct. We need to be open to healthy discussion when someone may disagree with our results. Egos and attitudes need to be set aside, and our focus should be directed toward producing the best work product.
John
Conflict resolution is an important issue. Let me begin by stating what the "practice" was in my section years ago among several examiners. Unfortunately, when the reviewer did not concur with the examiner's results, the examiner would shop around for the reviewer who would concur - just to get the case out the door. This was, and still is, totally unacceptable.
Currently, any disagreement between examiner and reviewer automatically goes to the departmental supervisor for review. After this review, discussion takes place and the correct result is reported. I'm not aware of, nor would I condone, any instance where an examiner was made to report a result outside of their comfort zone. I'm also not aware of any instance where the reviewer has generated a separate report from the examiner. I can't recall an instance where the reviewer was reassigned the case either.
As an aside, I recall disagreeing with a more senior examiner early in my career. We went to the supervisor who, after review of the issue, agreed with me. The examiner later uttered a very derogatory comment to me, but the correct result was reported.
My co-workers have disagreed with some of my results in the past, and after discussion, I saw where they were in fact correct. We need to be open to healthy discussion when someone may disagree with our results. Egos and attitudes need to be set aside, and our focus should be directed toward producing the best work product.
John
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Hi John,
Shopping around is not an option for us. Review is assigned to an examiner and is rotated each month. Unless you want to hold on to the case until the examiner you want has the assignment. Plus it is just not done here. I agree that shopping around is not acceptable.
Our conflict resolution currently will go to the supervisor, but our problem is the supervisor is also the assistant manager and does not work with latent prints on a daily, weekly or even a monthly basis. We are trying to come up with a way that will move him to a third level and have a level to work it out before it goes to him. I am toying with the following idea.
1st level---When there is a conflict in what the reviewer has seen then there is a conference with the examiner to resolve the conflict.
If that fails to resolve the conflict then
2nd level—The conflict in question is enlarged with no case information or markings and five copies are made. A copy is then provided to each examiner in the office. No information is given on the case or what the conflict is about. Each examiner is then asked their input. The results of this section review of the conflict are discussed between the examiner and the reviewer.
If that fails to resolve the conflict then
3rd level---The conflict in question is brought to the section supervisor.
I am still at odds if at the second level or third level the examiner still believes that the individualization is too weak (out of their comfort zone) how to proceed. I do not want the examiner made to write the report, but if you cannot convince the examiner, what is your next step?
It did not seem like that situation has happened in your section where it went to the supervisor and the supervisor agreed with the reviewer, but the examiner was still not convinced. If the examiner was not convinced what would your supervisor do next? Here you have a reviewer and supervisor concurring with individualization but the examiner is still not persuaded. Does the supervisor just let the individualization go, since the case will not be reassigned?
I agree that discussion is a must and egos and attitude need to go.
What we have been talking about is conflict resolution on individualizations or exclusions, but the conflict resolution on suitable vs. non-suitable when no original individualization or exclusion has taken place is even trickier.
Thanks for the input, but I am interested in what your supervisor would do, if the conflict was not resolved in their office. Let it go! Force a report! Reassign the case! Multiple conflicting reports!
Shopping around is not an option for us. Review is assigned to an examiner and is rotated each month. Unless you want to hold on to the case until the examiner you want has the assignment. Plus it is just not done here. I agree that shopping around is not acceptable.
Our conflict resolution currently will go to the supervisor, but our problem is the supervisor is also the assistant manager and does not work with latent prints on a daily, weekly or even a monthly basis. We are trying to come up with a way that will move him to a third level and have a level to work it out before it goes to him. I am toying with the following idea.
1st level---When there is a conflict in what the reviewer has seen then there is a conference with the examiner to resolve the conflict.
If that fails to resolve the conflict then
2nd level—The conflict in question is enlarged with no case information or markings and five copies are made. A copy is then provided to each examiner in the office. No information is given on the case or what the conflict is about. Each examiner is then asked their input. The results of this section review of the conflict are discussed between the examiner and the reviewer.
If that fails to resolve the conflict then
3rd level---The conflict in question is brought to the section supervisor.
I am still at odds if at the second level or third level the examiner still believes that the individualization is too weak (out of their comfort zone) how to proceed. I do not want the examiner made to write the report, but if you cannot convince the examiner, what is your next step?
It did not seem like that situation has happened in your section where it went to the supervisor and the supervisor agreed with the reviewer, but the examiner was still not convinced. If the examiner was not convinced what would your supervisor do next? Here you have a reviewer and supervisor concurring with individualization but the examiner is still not persuaded. Does the supervisor just let the individualization go, since the case will not be reassigned?
I agree that discussion is a must and egos and attitude need to go.
What we have been talking about is conflict resolution on individualizations or exclusions, but the conflict resolution on suitable vs. non-suitable when no original individualization or exclusion has taken place is even trickier.
Thanks for the input, but I am interested in what your supervisor would do, if the conflict was not resolved in their office. Let it go! Force a report! Reassign the case! Multiple conflicting reports!
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Steve Everist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:27 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
Charles,Charles Parker wrote:Hi John,
I am still at odds if at the second level or third level the examiner still believes that the individualization is too weak (out of their comfort zone) how to proceed. I do not want the examiner made to write the report, but if you cannot convince the examiner, what is your next step?
This statement really jumped out at me when I read it. “If you cannot convince the examiner” seems to work both ways to me. If you cannot convince him it’s an ident, why shouldn’t he feel equally as frustrated that he cannot convince you that there isn’t enough?
By this I mean, what makes you right and him wrong?
Or in other words, assuming this isn’t a positive/negative disagreement, why can’t the other examiner be right in his assessment that there isn’t enough? Yet you can also be correct in your conclusion of individualization?
Now, if you were to answer my question above that your experience, training, natural talent, etc… when compared to his, makes you right and him wrong. To me this further supports you both being right! I would give him a lot of credit for standing up for what he feels comfortable with, even under any kind of pressure or need for “convincing.” Or maybe "convince" isn't the right word for this situation...
Regarding what I interpreted from John’s post and his departmental supervisor’s review; a good supervisor should applaud an examiner that knows his level and stands by his conclusion (assuming it’s “not enough for me” and not positive vs. negative), even when another examiner and that supervisor come to a conclusion of ident.It did not seem like that situation has happened in your section where it went to the supervisor and the supervisor agreed with the reviewer, but the examiner was still not convinced. If the examiner was not convinced what would your supervisor do next? Here you have a reviewer and supervisor concurring with individualization but the examiner is still not persuaded. Does the supervisor just let the individualization go, since the case will not be reassigned?
But like you Charles, I wonder what happens in this situation???
Steve E.
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
The period of transition
The questions raised in the last posts are those of sufficiency and personal comfort levels. Within any fingerprint office there will be inequality in the abilities of examiners both to conduct examinations and to articulate/demonstrate their conclusions. We now rely upon the qualitative and quantitative principles for identifications and this approach will divide the capabilities of examiners. This is a good thing because there will be a progression toward a higher ability and a consolidation of capability. Managers of fingerprint sections need to apply a sorting technique to evaluate the ability of examiners. A proven method of doing this are the latent tests which have variations on the degrees of difficulty. The current annual proficiency tests for accreditation are not designed for this purpose. When a situation arises where two examiners cannot agree on an identification this then becomes a 'difficult' latent out of respect for both examiners. The manager should refer the examination to an expert who has been 'tested' as having a higher ability based on the results of the latent tests. This approach will disturb some examiners but encourage others who wish to progress their scientific ability. Cheers from oz. Les
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Staged Ability
Les, I appreciate what you are saying, and yes, there is merit in what you propose. But there is a fine line to be drawn between aspiring to develop skill levels and ability, and nurturing the ego culture that is all too apparent in our profession. For example, in a non numeric working environment as we have in the UK. Suppose your 'better' examiners are on a higher pay scale. Suppose they register with accreditation bodies and peformance appraisal is important to staying in post. The ego in all of us will want to 'name that tune in one!' That is to say, I am elite, I am better than my colleagues, but I need to stay at the top of the tree so I better not show weakness. Before you know it you have all the classic mindsets that lead to mistakes. I am not saying you are wrong at all in what you say Les, but the method for measuring ability, and the design of robust technical accreditation is paramount. On balance, so long as training is consistent and recruitment fair and diligent, then you must assume a base level from which you must apply the notion of the lowest common denominator. I know it sounds like a cop out, but it is safe!
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Conflict Resolution
Steve thanks for the post:
You are absolutely correct. Who is right and who is wrong at that initial stage? I really like what you said about both not being able to convince the other.
But imagine for a minute that you have an examiner who may not have a strong personality and the reviewer believes that one latent can be individualized while the examiner believes it is not suitable for individualization, and then both go to the supervisor. How intimidating is that for the examiner who is not strong in personality to resist a senior examiner and supervisor and just cave in and go along with it. I applaud John in his earlier career standing up to what he believed was correct and the supervisor for agreeing with him. I do not know if that happens in all situations of that type.
As I said earlier I am a strong believer in the Prime Directive: No examiner will be forced to offer an opinion (statement, fact, report, etc) that they are not 100% agree with.
I agree that experience and seniority should not just be the correct answer. Both are correct in their assessment. That will go well with the prime directive, but does not help me find a way out of the quagmire in what do we do next. Reassign the case! Issue a 2nd report! Or just let it go and do nothing!
Les, I agree with some of what you say and I have seen where cases were pulled from one examiner and assigned to a second examiner based upon a conflict. However it surely did not help the morale of the examiner that got the case pulled from them, just because the reviewer says one latent that was marked non-suitable is now identifiable. I have seen that happen and if not done properly with some deep consideration it can divide a section real quick and morale will suffer. That is why I am considering more deeply the panel review or section review that I spoke of earlier. If the entire section is part of the resolution of the conflict then I think morale and ego thing are not such terrible dragons to deal with. We are all tested here on a yearly basis and I must say that we all pretty much make the same score year after year. But like you said, those test are not made to separate the really sharp examiners from the close to sharp examiners. I do not think (at this point) that conflict resolution should be tied to ability.
But now for my edification, let us say we do what you suggest and reassign the case to the more experienced examiner. Do we destroy the work notes of the 1st examiner? Do we take all the little item numbers and initials off the latent lifts or photographs? Do we mention that an examiner in the office does not concur with one of the individualizations? Do we kind of wipe the slate clean and start over? Those are the biggest problems that I have with reassignment. I believe the conflict should be made part of the record, because it did occur. But I think most out there would not agree with that.
Mr. Charlton, thanks for responding. I have to agree with you sir in saying that Ego = Mindset (some of the time). It is something that we need to fight each and every day. You have given me something to ponder and think about for a while.
You are absolutely correct. Who is right and who is wrong at that initial stage? I really like what you said about both not being able to convince the other.
But imagine for a minute that you have an examiner who may not have a strong personality and the reviewer believes that one latent can be individualized while the examiner believes it is not suitable for individualization, and then both go to the supervisor. How intimidating is that for the examiner who is not strong in personality to resist a senior examiner and supervisor and just cave in and go along with it. I applaud John in his earlier career standing up to what he believed was correct and the supervisor for agreeing with him. I do not know if that happens in all situations of that type.
As I said earlier I am a strong believer in the Prime Directive: No examiner will be forced to offer an opinion (statement, fact, report, etc) that they are not 100% agree with.
I agree that experience and seniority should not just be the correct answer. Both are correct in their assessment. That will go well with the prime directive, but does not help me find a way out of the quagmire in what do we do next. Reassign the case! Issue a 2nd report! Or just let it go and do nothing!
Les, I agree with some of what you say and I have seen where cases were pulled from one examiner and assigned to a second examiner based upon a conflict. However it surely did not help the morale of the examiner that got the case pulled from them, just because the reviewer says one latent that was marked non-suitable is now identifiable. I have seen that happen and if not done properly with some deep consideration it can divide a section real quick and morale will suffer. That is why I am considering more deeply the panel review or section review that I spoke of earlier. If the entire section is part of the resolution of the conflict then I think morale and ego thing are not such terrible dragons to deal with. We are all tested here on a yearly basis and I must say that we all pretty much make the same score year after year. But like you said, those test are not made to separate the really sharp examiners from the close to sharp examiners. I do not think (at this point) that conflict resolution should be tied to ability.
But now for my edification, let us say we do what you suggest and reassign the case to the more experienced examiner. Do we destroy the work notes of the 1st examiner? Do we take all the little item numbers and initials off the latent lifts or photographs? Do we mention that an examiner in the office does not concur with one of the individualizations? Do we kind of wipe the slate clean and start over? Those are the biggest problems that I have with reassignment. I believe the conflict should be made part of the record, because it did occur. But I think most out there would not agree with that.
Mr. Charlton, thanks for responding. I have to agree with you sir in saying that Ego = Mindset (some of the time). It is something that we need to fight each and every day. You have given me something to ponder and think about for a while.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Gerald Clough
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:27 am
- Location: Lockhart, Texas
- Contact:
Re: Conflict Resolution
This gets into what critics are really talking about. The "identifiableness" of a latent may really reflect a combination of latent image and examiner. I think your concern about a conflict being made part of the record is well taken.Charles Parker wrote: But now for my edification, let us say we do what you suggest and reassign the case to the more experienced examiner. Do we destroy the work notes of the 1st examiner? Do we take all the little item numbers and initials off the latent lifts or photographs? Do we mention that an examiner in the office does not concur with one of the individualizations? Do we kind of wipe the slate clean and start over? Those are the biggest problems that I have with reassignment. I believe the conflict should be made part of the record, because it did occur. But I think most out there would not agree with that.
Let me talk from the investigative side for some perspective. If I have, for instance, a robbery with two witness-victims, I may separately show them each the same line-up. One may positively identify one of them as the actor. The other witness may say that they cannot identify any of them. I absolutely cannot treat the second witness as useless and leave their response out of my case. If the identification was a substantial fact leading to conviction, discovery of the fact that I concealed the second response, post-trial, likely would be grounds for reversal.
People obviously differ in their abilities to remember and recognize faces and in their natures, some being more readily willing to make absolute identifications than other would have stopped at a "looks like" response. And, of course, the situation is far from being a perfect analogy to latent print comparison. But it illustrates the same point about discoverable facts. The latent print conflict situation may be even more significant, being a conflict between experts, whether of significantly different abilities and experience or not, kind of like if my two witnesses had both stated that they had made real efforts to study the actor's face during the robbery.
Now, what I speak of is an initial conflict that is not resolved by the doubting examiner becoming 100% convinced that the latent is indeed identifiable. It is quite easy to imagine that I might find a latent to be not identifiable and that you would find it identifiable. And I could easily imagine that you could demonstrate your finding from your far greater experience and that I would understand and agree. That's not really a conflict. And, since science worship is in vogue, I would say that's exactly the sort of collaborative work that is often productive and instructive. I also know that you would have to convince me 100%.
Now, let's look at this angle. The same latent as above. You find it identifiable. I don't. You make your argument and demonstration. I respond that I see what you're showing me, and I understand your argument and logic. But I don't agree that it's certain. I do not believe that it can rightly be used to make an identification.
Because we're taking about what generally ought to be the response to such a situation, it matters not whether I'm too dense to grasp what you're getting at, or I'm too pig-headed to change an opinion, or you're too pig-headed for me to convince that the issue in is doubt. The fact of the disagreement is clear. I would be interested in hearing any argument that the conflict should not be reported, that the dissenting examiner's report should not become an equal part of the case.
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Safeguards in our science
Following the last couple of posts it appears there are concerns as to the personality of experts who become very competent in identifications or who are limited by self confidence. The physchology of the ego centred expert and the timid are beyond the science of fingerprints they are character traits that define the person. The problem with 'difficult' latents is the accurate application of the principles of fingerprint science. The safeguards that are currently available and should protect the science are the extent of recorded observations with the visual demonstration of what was included/excluded in the examination. I've commented before that this generation of experts will need to be armed with technical aids that can present their findings so that 'repeatability' of conclusions can be verified (positive/negative). The technical tools have been developed and I'm surprised the review of the Mayfiled case found so many variations of errors in the FBI examination. With accurate recording and visual presentations any errors should be obvious at an early stage.
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Gerald, it is nice to hear from you. I do like your analogy with line-ups. It does make the good point about discoverable facts, and the point that it is between experts is even more significant.
In the two examples that you gave you wrote about the one latent being called not identifiable by the examiner and the reviewer determining that it is identifiable. The issue of identifiable or non-identifiable, value or no value, or suitable or non-suitable is so subjective that I have a whole SET of different rules in dealing with those when I am reviewing. (I think SWGFAST prefers suitable or non-suitable as the whole issue of suitability is not part of their opinions offered after analysis only the following: 1) Individualizations 2) Exclusion or 3) Inconclusive)
What I should have made clear before and I did not is that the examiner has reached a conclusion that the latent print is non-suitable. The reviewer determines that not only is the latent print suitable but has individualized it to a subject (suspect, victim, elimination, officer, etc.) and when the reviewer returns it to the examiner, the examiner in good conscience cannot agree with the individualization. Then we have a conflict.
The disagreement between examiners (examiner or reviewer) on the issue of suitability or non-suitability for me is not a conflict (I say that with tongue in cheek as somebody is fixin to slap me silly).
Your statement that “science worship is in vogue” got a nice smile out of me. You know me and my feelings on that word. But never the less just for the sake of argument that we are all scientists and my scenario up above happens and the conflict cannot be resolved so the case is pulled and presented to a new examiner, are we not bound by our scientific endeavor to present the truth as scientist, should not that first examiners notes, and conclusions also be presented to both prosecution and defense OR do we revert back to the middle ages and give that old adage, “Better not, as it will only confuse the jury and give fingerprints a black eye”.
For once I agree with the scientific approach. Tell the truth and let the trier of facts be the judge.
Oh well enough on Conflict Resolution and I still have not been able to get out of my quagmire without breaking the prime directive. More to think on.
Thanks for the issue of discoverable facts. I had clean forgotten that one.
For those of you not in latent prints but some other endeavor in life, the scenario that I presented above is a VERY RARE OCCURANCE in latent print work.
Les, I saw your post late and this is an add on. So what does your agency do when they reassign a case because of conflict. Do they include the other examiners notes and make mention of the conflict or do they start from scratch. Just curious.
In the two examples that you gave you wrote about the one latent being called not identifiable by the examiner and the reviewer determining that it is identifiable. The issue of identifiable or non-identifiable, value or no value, or suitable or non-suitable is so subjective that I have a whole SET of different rules in dealing with those when I am reviewing. (I think SWGFAST prefers suitable or non-suitable as the whole issue of suitability is not part of their opinions offered after analysis only the following: 1) Individualizations 2) Exclusion or 3) Inconclusive)
What I should have made clear before and I did not is that the examiner has reached a conclusion that the latent print is non-suitable. The reviewer determines that not only is the latent print suitable but has individualized it to a subject (suspect, victim, elimination, officer, etc.) and when the reviewer returns it to the examiner, the examiner in good conscience cannot agree with the individualization. Then we have a conflict.
The disagreement between examiners (examiner or reviewer) on the issue of suitability or non-suitability for me is not a conflict (I say that with tongue in cheek as somebody is fixin to slap me silly).
Your statement that “science worship is in vogue” got a nice smile out of me. You know me and my feelings on that word. But never the less just for the sake of argument that we are all scientists and my scenario up above happens and the conflict cannot be resolved so the case is pulled and presented to a new examiner, are we not bound by our scientific endeavor to present the truth as scientist, should not that first examiners notes, and conclusions also be presented to both prosecution and defense OR do we revert back to the middle ages and give that old adage, “Better not, as it will only confuse the jury and give fingerprints a black eye”.
For once I agree with the scientific approach. Tell the truth and let the trier of facts be the judge.
Oh well enough on Conflict Resolution and I still have not been able to get out of my quagmire without breaking the prime directive. More to think on.
Thanks for the issue of discoverable facts. I had clean forgotten that one.
For those of you not in latent prints but some other endeavor in life, the scenario that I presented above is a VERY RARE OCCURANCE in latent print work.
Les, I saw your post late and this is an add on. So what does your agency do when they reassign a case because of conflict. Do they include the other examiners notes and make mention of the conflict or do they start from scratch. Just curious.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX