IAI resolution 2010-18 (The Detail #462, 26/07/10)

[Taggart]

Thanks 16_points,

I am still a little in the dark as to how the initial examiner who saw the print during the initial AFIS search was able to exclude the print if they were able to find 16 minutiae which agreed very well if there were no visible minutiae in disagreement between the two prints?

There had to be something which allowed them to conclude a non-match. If it wasn’t points in disagreement what was it?

Can I also assume by the time you viewed it you already knew it was a non-match? You said you ‘knew’ with 100% certainty it was an exclusion. How did you know with such certainty it was a non-identification if there were in fact no minutiae in disagreement?

Was your comparison merely an experiment in which you already knew the conclusion, or was your comparison completely independent and unbiased? How much of your analysis was influenced by the findings of your ‘distinguished colleague’ if any?

If not, how did you manage to conclude, as your colleague did, that these prints displaying 16 minutiae in close agreement, with no characteristics in disagreement visible was not an identification?

I suspect if you gave experts comparison prints which contained 16 points in apparent agreement with none in disagreement a high percentage would reach a positive conclusion?

You say these prints were part of an 'experiment'. How many experts took part in this exepriment? Did they all know the result before doing so? Did any individual ultimately 'identify' the two prints?

[16_Points]

I beg your pardon. I wasn't clear in my response. The questioned print was a "control". That means the experimenter knew who it belonged to because he collected the print (from a law enforcement colleague). The candidate returned from the AFIS search was someone else.

I don't know how many trials were conducted. I believe it was a beta test to see if such close non-matches were lurking in the AFIS database. Nonetheless, it's an interesting result.

[Taggart]

Thanks 16_points for clearing that up. If I understand you correctly a print was taken from a known source ( a known colleague) and this print was then searched on the AFIS computer to see if it could throw up a ‘close match’.

This match was then compared in the certain knowledge it could not possibly be an identification given the law enforcement officers prints could not possibly be on the AFIS system.

If I also understand you these two prints did in fact contain 16 minutiae in close agreement with none in visible disagreement.

I have seen this print

http://www.henrytempleman.com/chesapeak ... _non-match

which contains 15 minutiae in ‘agreement’ but also contains 15 points in ‘disagreement’.

Are the prints to which you refer available for all to see?

Sounds fascinating given there are no apparent points in disagreement.

Thanks

[16_Points]

I wish the prints were available for publication. If my recollection is correct, it was outside the scope of the AFIS search agreement. I mean that my colleague did not have permission to publish any images. It would be nice if someone had the opportunity to do this as a study for publication.

[Neville]

Good stuff Tagget
Only took a few seconds to see it was not his, and whats with the low resalution latent print photography is there something a bit manufactured about the photo. If there was a bit of photoshoping going on in it you would never know. Is this the one from Spain the FBI failed with?

[Neville]

and can someone explain the mathmatics?

[Iain McKie]

The following postings appeared on Monday 16 August.

Re: IAI resolution 2010-18 (The Detail #462, 26/07/10)
by 16_Points » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:29 pm
Taggart wrote:16_points,

I am fascinated by your latest posting where you stated:
I've seen non-matching prints with 14, 15, even 16 minutiae that agree very well with no visible disagreements. These are rare occurrences, but they do happen.

I wonder if I can ask what may be a stupid question? In the prints where you have seen up to 16 minutiae that 'agree very well' with no minutiae in ‘visible disagreement’ on what basis were you or the experts concerned able to positively exclude that individual as the donor? Was there any other evidence which excluded that individual perhaps? Or was it down to further examination of the fingerprints? If so what was it, given it is not further minutae in disagreement?

I could understand this if you were able to find visible disagreements, but am interested how an expert could exclude an individual if there were 'no visible disagreements'?

And for accuracy it was Peter Swann who stated he found 21 characteristics in agreement in print Y7 with none in disagreement.

Actually, you raise an excellent point! I suspect most examiners would have made the identification with as few as 14 points and moderate quality. I knew that it wasn't an identification because the questioned print was actually an experimental control of known origin. Hence we know with 100% certainty that it is an exclusion. The exemplar was obtained via an AFIS search optimized to produce a close non-matching candidate (the actual AFIS search was conducted by a distinguished colleague who showed me the results at an IAI lecture).

This is the difference between the knowledge gained via casework and the knowledge gained via controlled experimentation. Furthermore, it would be very interesting to see the likelihood ratio generated by a 14 point close non-match vis-a-vis other 14 point matches. Everyone would learn something useful.

As a non-expert I am intrigued at the dearth of responses to these postings because if '16 points’ is correct in his statements then this finding of
prints from two different donors sharing 16 points in agreement with none in disagreement undermines the science of fingerprinting completely.

This seems to me to be a claim that two different donors have been found to share the same fingerprint or at least enough of that print to ensure that every expert in the world would deem them the same.

While I am happy to accept that ‘16 points’ has got it wrong I would certainly appreciate the assurance of other experts that this is the correct conclusion to come to. Otherwise – ‘Where to from here'?

[16_Points]

Yes, it's possible I'm wrong or mistaken. But even if I'm not, a 16 point close non-match doesn't put fingerprint identification on its head. This is simply because such a case is not impossible. AND because the candidate print was found by searching a very large AFIS database. You must remember that random match probabilities don't apply to AFIS because AFIS candidates are NOT random matches. You are asking AFIS to search the bowels of the database for the candidates that most closely match the crime scene mark. You have to expect that you will occasionally find an unusually high degree of homology from non-matching prints. So you may think of the scenario I described as the exception that proves the rule.

[sandra wiese]

Well, if you know who the co-worker is, you can just take his/her prints again and run them through AFIS again and show us what you are talking about because I just don't get it. We all pinky swear not to tell where the images came from.

And here anyway, LE personnel ARE in the AFIS database (as are those who have prints taken for civil positions such as educators licensing and whatnot)

[16_Points]

It's not my show. I was just a spectator. You can accept or reject the premise as you like. I can only describe what I saw.

[Gerald Clough]

As a non-expert I am intrigued at the dearth of responses to these postings because if '16 points’ is correct in his statements then this finding of
prints from two different donors sharing 16 points in agreement with none in disagreement undermines the science of fingerprinting completely.

This is a common lay notion that finding two such individuals would somehow destroy the reliability of fingerprint evidence. It is also a notion that is suggested by experts themselves when they (as I often do) recount the lack of documented instances in which an identification that would be supported by the vast majority of experts was found to be erroneous. The problem is a misunderstanding of what an examiner means in stating a conclusion of identification. About the best I have been able to render it accurately is:

If the absolute true identity of the source of the impression could be known, following my examination, I believe the individual I have named would be that true known source.

That is exactly the kind of statement that almost any expert in any field is making. The misunderstanding is the false idea that the expert is declaring an absolutely established fact, what is sometimes called a "scientific certainty." Throughout the whole range of issues, civil and criminal, that can be litigated, it is most common, especially in civil litigation, for experts to render mutually incompatible conclusions. Obviously, if the truth could be known, one of them would be found to be wrong. But this does not cause their field of expertise to evaporate. You may wish for an expert who can conclude absolutely, but that is very, very rarely possible.

Whether you like it or not, it is indeed a "matter of opinion." There is no number of fellow experts who declare they agree can change it from opinion to fact. Even if every expert agreed, it would remain mere opinion. Really, it's a matter of who can convince a fact finder that their opinion is sufficiently likely to be correct, the degree to which the fact finder must be satisfied depending on the venue of the litigation and the required degree of proof. But the nature of the "expert witness." The thing that sets that witness apart from lay witnesses, is not some imagined infallibility but is rather the privilege of having their opinion admitted as evidence.

Some tricky semantics sneaks in here, because when a legal finder of fact pronounces, they are pronouncing as if they had discovered an actual "fact." They have not, of course. They have merely declared they are prepared to accept the degree of likelihood required in that kind of trial. That's what is going on in litigation. A sufficiently convincing guess is being developed, in order to settle a dispute that cannot be settled in any other acceptable way. Inability to establish fact to a certainty is NOT required, nor is it often possible.

[sandra wiese]

Mr. McKie, please forgive me that these posts have not been responded to in a more timely manner, it was a busy week last week. Though I must say that I, too, am surprised no one else has stepped up. My hope is merely that, in not keeping up with the site as often as I should, everyone but the two of us realizes how much bologna this all is and didn’t feel the need. Just in case…

Gerald, when I am testifying, there is no “misunderstanding” whatsoever in regard to my conclusion. The uncertainty inherent in your interpretation of what I mean when I say “it’s a match” is untenable in my world and it isn’t just a matter of semantics. There is no room for “a sufficiently convincing guess” when it comes to the liberty and sometimes the very life of another human being. Further, to pretend that uncertainty in a conclusion is the norm for other professions is irresponsible. Particularly when you don’t identify which professions you are speaking of. How about medicine? Sometimes, yes. But how would you like to hear this from your doctor: if the true identity of your disease can be known, following my examination, I believe that the disease named would be cancer, but then again, how can I know for sure? How about a radiologist saying the same about a broken bone? Would you like your pharmacist to have this level of doubt about the medicines they are mixing up for you? Even better, let’s delve into mathematics a teensy bit: if the absolute answer to the question of what is 2 plus 2 can be known, I believe the answer would be 4, if it could be known of course. Well, disease can be diagnosed, broken bones can be discerned, chemical formulas can be made to exacting specifications and every single time, 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Can two experts have mutually incompatible conclusions? Absolutely. Even in the fields I just gave examples of. But not for all things and not for everything. Some things ARE facts. Facts can be known. That is why you also frequently have two experts with completely compatible conclusions. More frequently, I’d venture, than less. Incompatible conclusions can only survive in the realm of uncertainty. They fade utterly in the light of certainty and facts. The truth can be known and, thankfully, frequently is.

In this case it does not matter if you like it, the phrase “matter of opinion” is a LEGAL one and has meaning for the purposes of our profession only in a court of law. The good news is that facts are also known to be presented in court and as such there is also hope for our profession. The whole idea of testifying to our findings as opinions is a legal construct and is not indicative in any way, shape or form of the true outcome (fact) of our examinations. The law even recognizes this in that, for us to render said expert opinion, there must be a factual basis for that opinion to be accepted.

In science, testing is done to reach conclusions (or determinations or deductions or whatever word you want to use for the same event) and this gives theories weight to allow them to eventually become law. In this case, of course, I mean natural law. Two plus two equals four is a fact. (One, I might add, that has just as much “empirical” proof behind it as the science of print ID does.) The sun rose in the east this morning. Saw it with my very own eyeballs. Yesterday, too. Tomorrow it will, too. That is also a non-empirically tested FACT. Just because within the legal world we only get to state certain facts as an “expert opinion” does not turn the facts into just an “opinion” any more than my calling the five bucks in my wallet a twenty means that I can go out for lunch today.

You are absolutely correct that there are some tricky semantics sneaking in here. Unfortunately they are coming from you and your ilk. Step outside the world of legal game-playing and into the bright light of the natural world where there are physical laws governing much, if not most of what we encounter and observe. That’s where the facts are no matter what they are called inside a courtroom. Facts get to be that way by being proven, something print ID has done over and over again and will continue to do despite the increasing levels of ridiculousness of the attacks against it.

As for the “non-matching print with sixteen points and NO non-matching details” that 16_points says exists…I find it “interesting” that such a unicorn sighting has zero backing even though this would have been and apparently would still be a super simple thing to do. We aren’t debating the properties of a black hole here, but rather something quite concrete and visible. Show it, the whole thing, not some conveniently cut up piece of a print, and we can go from there. Until then, it’s a hoax.

Please don’t give up on print identification, Mr. McKie, nor on the examiners. While I realize that the “squeaky wheel gets the grease”, not everyone has time to respond to all of the poppycock they see so sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the last word in. This one, though, well, I’m just tired of it and felt the need.

[Les Bush]

Well done sandra,

refreshing, colourfull, insightfull and honest, backed by experience and confidence in the fundamental principles of fingerprint science. I for one enjoyed your posting as I'm sure Iain would also. Your state of tiredness is felt here too, but we should not be weakened by the continuing agenda to shape fingerprints into something it doesnt fit. Research is needed and shouldnt be avoided as it brings new light such as the efforts by David Ashbaugh and others.

Cheers from oz. Les

[Iain McKie]

Thanks for taking the time Sandra and Les to outline your thoughts in such a clear and concise way.

While I can align myself with your comments and while I firmly believe that the ‘science ‘of fingerprinting can survive its critics, and improve on the way, I still remain surprised at the lack of comment on statements that if correct totally undermine the ‘science’.

Like Sandra I can also accept that some experts realise just what a load of ‘bologna’ this all is and don’t feel the need to respond. The problem is that many who access this site are not experts but their critics or others who feel let down by the ‘science’ and who wish to be reassured that the ‘science’ is keeping its house in order.

What other choice does the layperson have if, when faced with a potentially destructive finding, the profession appears to turn its back on it at every level from the IAI down? When your science is based on the ‘fact’ that no two people share the same fingerprint when faced with a finding that they do am I not being totally reasonable in demanding that some enquiry be made to establish the truth or otherwise of the finding?

As stated I am perfectly happy to accept that ‘16 points’ observations arise out of a ‘hoax’ or some other misunderstanding but as a scientist I would expect my peers and organisations like the IAI to follow the enquiry through to ensure that this is the case.

I believe that 100% certainty is not possible in any of life’s endeavours but in scientific fields like fingerprinting , as Sandra says, your ‘opinion’ has a legal standing and has been developed from procedures like ACE-V which should reassure your critics that such ‘opinions’ bring with them some degree of certainty.

I might say that this sitting on the hands approach which I am now criticising is very different from those earlier years when hundreds of experts were vociferous in their criticism of SCRO for their blatant deceit.

Is it fair to say that in some cases your profession is too keen and too quick to close debate and argument down? Content to marginalise its critics rather than face them?

In the UK in particular we are faced with police and other organisations whose idea of facing problems is to close them down or shoot the messenger.

I stand by the consistent comment I have made year after year on this and other related sites.

‘It is clear that standards and procedures vary dramatically country to country and even within countries. Fingerprint experts the world over must work together to standardise procedures and ensure that ongoing research is maintained and that the resultant findings are made available worldwide.’

There is little doubt that the research by Dr Dror and others opens up and illuminates the science and those who really care stand up and take notice. Unfortunately some in their arrogance believe the research does not apply to them.'

The past years have shown me that fingerprinting is a far from a coherent ‘science’. It is overly controlled in some cases by the police and sometimes does not enjoy the independence and objectivity required of scientific endeavour. In many cases the courts and defence lawyers have been ‘lazy’ (or overly political) in their assessment of such evidence and have all added to the myth of ‘infallibility’ that some experts still enjoy.

As we await the findings of the Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland it will be interesting to see just how the UK’s experts, their police controllers and the Fingerprint Society react to findings that might reveal that for many years incompetent and unethical experts have been routinely analysing fingerprints and giving evidence in our courts.

My money is on the ‘head in the sand’ approach. An approach that in many ways has allowed the majority of honest competent experts to be marginalised by the minority of virtually unsupervised arrogant ones who believe that if you live long enough you must be good expert.

I still however believe in your ‘science’, retain faith in experts and will forever be grateful for those who stood up to be counted for Shirley and their science. It is because I care that I engage in these debates believing as I do that it is only through challenge that we grow.

[Michele]

Iain,

What other choice does the layperson have if, when faced with a potentially destructive finding, the profession appears to turn its back on it at every level from the IAI down? When your science is based on the ‘fact’ that no two people share the same fingerprint when faced with a finding that they do am I not being totally reasonable in demanding that some enquiry be made to establish the truth or otherwise of the finding?

What are you referring to here? Are you referring to your case? In your case, the IAI has done an inquiry into the identification (even if it was a little late in the game). Or are you referring to 16-points claim that two image can have 16 points in common? If this is what you're referring to, many people have spent decades looking for the closest non-matches and as we saw earlier in this thread, the closest non-matches being found are posted on the internet.

Michele