Pilot study on simultaneous (cluster) impressions

[John P. Black]

In December 2005, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts ruled, in Commonwealth v. Patterson, that applying the ACE-V methodology to simultaneous (cluster) impressions did not satisfy the requirements set forth in Daubert. After reading their decision, I felt impressed to begin research to address their concerns. Also, it didn't take long while reading the decision to realize that Mr. Ashbaugh had been grossly misquoted. All one has to do is read his book to make that determination. He clearly states that, although it is an advanced technique, ACE-V can be successfully applied to simultaneous impressions. As a result, Mr. Ashbaugh and I have been in close contact for the last month discussing and conducting research in this area.

I am looking for volunteers to participate in this pilot study. Specifically, anyone interested needs to have been trained in the quantitative-qualitative aspects of friction ridge analysis. Successful completion of Mr. Ashbaugh's Forensic Ridgeology Course is highly desirable. In short, you will receive a CD with images of latent impressions and be asked to apply ACE-V to determine whether or not each impression is simultaneous. Complete instructions will be on the CD.

My goal is to publish this research in the JFI. I'm also planning to present the results to date in Boston in July. I've submitted my request to the Educational Planner and have not yet received a notice of rejection, so I'm preparing accordingly. Therefore, I would appreciate a timely response.

The CDs are not yet ready for distribution but will hopefully be so by the end of February. If you are interested, please contact me at jblack@sled.sc.gov. Please include your mailing address and the dates of your attendance in Mr. Ashbaugh's course. If there are multiple persons interested within an agency, I would like to mail a single CD which could then be copied. I already know of one agency to which this applies. Please include the names of all volunteers within the same agency.

At this point I have no idea what type of response to expect, but I will make every effort to respond to each request as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration.

John

[L.J.Steele]

Also, it didn't take long while reading the decision to realize that Mr. Ashbaugh had been grossly misquoted. All one has to do is read his book to make that determination.

Those 1-2 page from his book were in front of the Court. I personally put them in the appendix to the NACDL amicus brief. The Court's problem was that he'd made conflicting statements in live testimony in U.S. v. Mitchell, the transcript of had been made an exhibit at trial. Nobody apparently asked him to reconcile the book with the testimony in Mitchell and he wasn't a live witness in Patterson, so that's where the record stood for the SJC.

As a result, Mr. Ashbaugh and I have been in close contact for the last month discussing and conducting research in this area.

What does he say about his Mitchell testimony? (I probably have it on CD from Patterson if he doesn't recall the context.)

In short, you will receive a CD with images of latent impressions and be asked to apply ACE-V to determine whether or not each impression is simultaneous. Complete instructions will be on the CD.

Forgive me if my assumptions are wrong, but wouldn't one need to see the actual object to make a couple of the determinations that Ashbaugh suggests in his book for simultaneousness? As I recall, it seemed like something that needed the 3D object.

If you are including sample case facts, you might want to trade an email or two with someone like Dr. Itel Dror (the one who did the confirmation bias studies and was at NEDIAI in VT last fall) to make sure you aren't inadventently giving information that may tip the examiner beyond the images themselves.

[g.]

If you are including sample case facts, you might want to trade an email or two with someone like Dr. Itel Dror (the one who did the confirmation bias studies and was at NEDIAI in VT last fall) to make sure you aren't inadventently giving information that may tip the examiner beyond the images themselves.

Lisa, (and all) I have had a chance to talk to John about his study and approach, and think it is an excellent design. Also he has a very concise and testable hypothesis.

He may choose to divulge aspects of the design or not, but the way his design is set up, seeing the original object may not be relevant. In fact part of the design may determine IF IT IS RELEVANT or not to see the original object.

However, as you point out, he may wish to approach other researchers to get their opinions on study design, but I for one liked it and would encourage examiners to participate. I think the scope is achievable and will have value...where one goes from there...be it an ACE-V (Q&Q) approach or probabilistic approach is a matter of interesting study, but this preliminary pilot study should shed some light on the ability to merely determine simultaneity or at least a single donor depositor.

g.

[John P. Black]

Ms. Steele,

Forgive me if my assumptions are wrong, but wouldn't one need to see the actual object to make a couple of the determinations that Ashbaugh suggests in his book for simultaneousness? As I recall, it seemed like something that needed the 3D object.

Granted, this would be the ideal situation, but in reality it often does not happen. In fact, as Glenn stated, this may not even be relevant. Fingerprint examiners routinely receive latent lifts without the corresponding item from which they were obtained. Also, it's not uncommon for the sketch and other information on the back of the lift to be absent. However, it is still possible after applying the methodology to determine that sequence has been maintained. Hopefully the study will address this and other issues.

If you are including sample case facts, you might want to trade an email or two with someone like Dr. Itel Dror (the one who did the confirmation bias studies and was at NEDIAI in VT last fall) to make sure you aren't inadventently giving information that may tip the examiner beyond the images themselves.

Your comment is worthy of consideration, and if fact I have discussed this with other researchers already. We feel the information we disclose to all participants will not adversely affect the results.


As an aside, I would like to thank everyone who has volunteered thus far. I truly appreciate it.

John

[Steve Skowron]

I see in the news that Mr. Patterson has now plead guilty to a reduced charge in the case.

On Tuesday, Patterson acknowledged his guilt on the reduced charges and answered "Yes," when asked by Judge Margaret Hinkle if he was a "knowing and willing participant" in the plan to steal Mulligan's gun.

The above is from the Boston Globe.

[John P. Black]

Steve,

Thanks for the information. Can you please post a link to the article?

John

[Steve Skowron]

Here is one I was able to link. Steve.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/local ... eid=121413

[L.J.Steele]

Thanks for the information. Can you please post a link to the article?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... _be_freed/

(Note that Globe links are only free for 24 hours, fee after that.)

According to the story, with the SJC's decision about the print evidence, the DA's office decided it wasn't likely to get a murder conviction and thus was more amendable to a plea.

By the terms of the deal, Patterson will likely go home this summer, with probation and a suspended sentence. One can read this as an admission of guilt, or as Patterson deciding he didn't want to spend another few years dealing with another trial and appeals instead of just going home. Only Patterson himself knows for sure.

[John P. Black]

The CDs for this study are now ready for distribution. For those who have already volunteered, I placed the CDs in the mailroom earlier today and they should go out tomorrow. In an attempt to make this project as user-friendly as possible, I have included a worksheet on the CD. It is designed so that the fields can be populated electronically. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

In my initial post I mentioned that completion of David Ashbaugh's Forensic Ridgeology Course is highly desirable. However, if you have completed any other 2QA course, or if you've been trained in these concepts as part of your training program, please feel free to participate.

Thank you.

John P. Black
jblack@sled.sc.gov
803-896-7278

[John P. Black]

Results have begun to trickle in for this study. It may take longer to analyze the data than I had originally anticipated. Therefore, if possible, I respectfully request that results be submitted by May 5. Please contact me offline if you will be unable to meet this request. I would still like you to participate, but I may not be able to include the results in the Boston lecture. However, they would still be used in the JFI article.

For those attending Ashbaugh's course next week in California, I believe he will have copies of the CD if you wish to participate.

Thank you.

John