History of Decisions

[ER]

Where did our current system of Identification, Exclusion, and Inconclusive come from?

Was there an original reference where these three categories are first described or set?

How is it evolved over time?

[Pat]

Hi Eric

Locard's "Tripartate Rule" makes it pretty clear that he readily accepted probability conclusions. See Dusty Clark's discussion at
http://www.latent-prints.com/Locard.htm

1. If more than 12 concurring points are present and the fingerprint is sharp, the certainty of identity is beyond debate.

2. If 8 to 12 concurring points are involved, then the case is borderline and the certainty of identity will depend on: the sharpness of the fingerprints;
the rarity of its type;
-- the presence of the center of the figure [core] and the triangle [delta] in the exploitable part of the print;
-- the presence of pores [poreoscopy];
-- the perfect and obvious identity regarding the width of the papillary ridges and valleys, the direction of the lines, and the angular value of the bifurcations [ridgeology / edgeoscopy].

3. If a limited number of characteristic points are present, the fingerprints cannot provide certainty for an identification, but only a presumption proportional to the number of points available and their clarity.

Rule #3 seems to have fallen by the wayside, if it was ever even accepted in the larger community. My earliest training (1976) stressed that a comparison is either an absolute identification, an absolute exclusion, or you can't tell anything about it and the print is deemed to be "no value."

The IAI stated that formally in their 1973 resolution, which was reiterated in the 1995 Neurim Resolution.

Cheers,
Pat

[Boyd Baumgartner]

I would ask if everyone is even using those three terms.

For instance, Pat's reference to the 1973 doc refers to a 'positive identification' which lines up with the conclusions we were using here when I first started which were positive, negative and incomplete.

the findings of the IAI Standardization Committee (1970-73) which concluded “…no valid basis exists at this time for requiring that a pre-determined minimum number of friction ridge characteristics must be present in two impressions in order to establish positive identification.”

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233980.pdf



Michele's dictionary has a bunch of other terms used as well under 'Conclusions for Comparison'
http://www.fprints.nwlean.net/c.htm

Conclusions for Comparisons
The formal observations seen or recorded during a comparison may indicate one
of the following conclusions:

Individualization (has consistency and sufficiency to establish individualization)
Match (could be consistent but not sufficient for establishing individualization)
Inconclusive-No identification or exclusion has been established.
-Incomplete. Exemplars don’t include the area the latent print was
left from (tips, palms, etc), different exemplars may change conclusion.
-Incomplete. Exemplars don’t include the detail in the latent print (level 3
detail), different exemplars may change conclusion.
-No identification effected. This may be due to time constraints, abilities, etc.
-Consistent but not sufficient. Features are consistent but not sufficient for
individualization. The latent print can not be individualized to the exemplars
and the exemplars cannot be excluded as the donor. Exclusionary value only.
-Generally consistent but not sufficient. The majority of the characteristics are
consistent or similar but an unexplained dissimilarity exists and the characteristics
that are consistent aren’t sufficient to establish an individualization.
No identification effected (may not indicate an exclusion)
Exclusion (not left by a subject)
No value for identification (may have exclusionary value)
No value for comparison (no value for identification or exclusion)
No value for determining simultaneity

[NRivera]

So what are you saying Boyd? If I verify it you'll call it?

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Noberto, I think the sign speaks for itself.

VFFood.jpg

[SThurman]

GuyOnStreet.jpg

[Steve Everist]

Problem solved.

[Tazman]

Hey, ER, I hate to be the one to tell you, but you've been hijacked. So much for history.

[ER]

Tazman,
Here's my attempt to rescue the thread. (And hopefully save Boyd from other poster's attempts at funny signs.)

Boyd,
You're right about other conclusion options being out there. My lab operated for a long time under the ID/NoID paradigm.
I should have been more specific in my question. I'm curious to find out more about the history of the three conclusions currently listed by SWGFAST as the possible conclusions after a comparison. It seems that in the 90's TWGFAST had ID, Non-ID, and inconclusive. Ashbaugh has elimination, ID, and inconclusive. Prior to that things get a little murky and are usually described as ID, not quite enough for an ID, and obviously not an ID.

Where did the introduction of exclusion into SWGFAST documents around 2000-2002 come from? Was it influenced by other disciplines? A paper? Court decision?

[Pat]

Okay, so we're only talking semantics here, not concepts? It's not the actual meaning of the conclusions, as I had inferred when I posted a few days ago, but the specific terms we used to state those conclusions?

[ER]

Well, to a certain extent, I am curious about how the wording has changed over time. However, the semantics do play a role in the meaning of the conclusion. It seems that there may have been some sort of conceptual or philosophical change between the TWGFAST document that describes a 'non-identification' and the SWGFAST document that describes an 'exclusion'. Also, it seems like it was more than just semantics when identification changed to individualization (and then back).

I've read some of the debates from ID News in '79 and '80 about Resolution VII. These seem to be more focused on defining what inconclusive means and how we should report and testify about that. Interesting to see similar discussions (to some extent) continuing today.

Overall, I find it interesting that we have 3 basic conclusions (according to SWGFAST anyway), but the current definition for two of these conclusions are very recent.

[timbo]

The New South Wales Police in Australia use a term called RDC - Ridge Detail Consistent - instead of inconclusive. It is defined as:
"Although there are ridge details consistent with the (eg. Right Thumb) fingerprint impression of ****, there is insufficient friction ridge detail to establish positive identification; however, the (eg. Right Thumb) fingerprint of **** cannot be excluded in respect of this matter."
I'm not certain of the exact timing for when it came into practice, but I know it has been around since at least the 90s. The courts in NSW are fully accepting of it as evidence - obviously only corroborative evidence, though.

On a separate note - Steve, your Photoshop skills are amazing - you should run a Photoshop workshop or something.....