Adding Value

[Dan Perkins]

Hi,

has anyone got any examples of where they have been able to 'add value' to fingerprint evidence by going beyond stating their opinion that a certain person touched a certain surface to increase or decrease the significance of the identification? Perhaps considering things like position of the latent on the surface, orientation, matrix, other impressions etc..

thanks

Dan

[Pat]

I had single lift submitted to my state lab by local police in an armed robbery case some years ago. In my report, I identified the latent print as having been made by the suspect, but I did not specify which finger. I got a call from the prosecutor asking specifically which finger. I said that it was his left thumb, but I really didn't think that would matter which finger it was because it merely place him in contact with the surface from which the lift was made. The prosecutor explained that a woman had driven up to her bank around midnight and was sitting in her car with the motor still running, preparing to get out to use the ATM, when a man wearing a ski mask came running out from some bushes with a gun in his right hand. He ran up and, with his left hand, reached to the door handle and opened the driver's door. The door handle was the kind you reach under with your fingers and place your thumb on the door above the handle. That was where the lift had been made.

In court, I was asked by the prosecutor if I could tell the exact spot from which the lift had been made. I looked and realized that background noise from two racing stripes ran through the lift. There were small nicks and tears along the edges of the racing stripes that were visible in the lift, so I answered that I thought I could. The court adjourned from the courtroom and reconvened in the parking lot with me kneeling by the driver's door of the victim's car as I looked closely at the racing stripes. Sure enough, on the racing stripes one could easily see the nicks and tears exactly as they appeared in the lift, so I was able to place the latent print card back on the surface exactly where it had been lifted. It was directly above the driver's door handle on the very spot your left thumb would come to rest if you opened the door with your left hand. I continued direct testimony kneeling on the parking lot, was cross examined while kneeling there, and even had some questions from jurors that the judge allowed. It was one of the most unusual testimonies I have ever delivered.

The added value of the finger and exact location of the latent print corroborated the victim's statement regarding her allegation that he had held a gun in his right hand, thus he had used his left hand to open her car door.

Is that what you meant by "added value?"

[Bill Schade]

In a previous life with a different agency, we always took an overall evidence photo before lifting prints from evidence. Our Crime scene staff did the same thing at the scene.

I always thought that documenting location and orientation on the surface "added value" to the evidence

I wonder why more agencies don't do this, especially now that digital imaging has eliminated the cost of film and printing photos

[Graham F]

Dan & Bill

Yes,” in a previous life with a different agency” & country, the provision of a full detailed description of the latent location, its orientation & all relevant measurements was mandatory. You could get “dinged” for not supplying this information. This data was always utilized in the bureau to ascertain digit determination to aid the search process (pre & post AFIS) and if identified subsequently at court when the location was of particular relevance. Just a few years ago I was recalled to give evidence on an old cold case from 1988. Latents were located inverted on the inside of window frame adjacent to the left had edge of the frame. Hence the location indicated a right hand. Measurements from the exterior ground level were relevant as the window was not of usual height from the ground, being much higher and out of normal reach, so no one had just leaned inside the window. Full internal & external measurements were taken as part of the normal examination process and were fully relevant.

On another case I am aware of the latents were located on the neck of a bottle. The positioning of the prints indicated the bottle had probably been held upside down by the neck. Not the normal way to hold a bottle and pour a little liquid libation. The bottle had been used as a weapon in a homicide, so just stating that prints were on the bottle would not be too significant. Our graphics unit (pre Photoshop available for latent experts) produced displays detailing the ways the bottle would probably have been held to deposit the latents that were developed.

When I was in the US at a state bureau, the vast majority of incoming cases from other agencies and PD’s the description of latent location was minimal or even nonexistent. A full description then might have been as detailed as a “latent on a door.” That said, I would not think this lack of detail is the norm.

Location and orientation of the latent is vitally important in digit determination to ease the search process. Indeed if I read a detailed description, I will be thinking of possible digit determination prior to even looking at the latent print. Of course, if you are just going to search the latent as all digits with a 360⁰ rotation and clog up the system, then you will not give a “rats a..” about description, orientation & location.

Dan there are many cases out there where this has been of significance and as you are in London, you know where to go and ask for info.

[josher89]

What about in situations where a vehicle was stolen and the latent prints that were developed after recovery of the vehicle were located on the edges or doors or under door handles? Should we be reporting that the latent lift that contained three apparent simultaneous impressions had to have been left there when the door was open (i.e. the ridge detail stopped in a linear fashion along the edge of the door and didn't pick back up on the 'B' pillar of the vehicle--meaning casual contact with the vehicle would make it very improbable for a print (or prints) to have been deposited in such a way so as to have them terminate in a line which just so happens to be the edge of the door)? Is this information that is unnecessary or would it assist the trier of the fact?

[Bill Schade]

Lets not get silly and complicate things

We report results, document what we can and let investigators investigate

[Ernie Hamm]

Thank you, Bill.

[josher89]

It was simply a hypothetical, fellas. We've been talking about this around the office lately and how our prosecutors won't file charges on people who's prints are only recovered on the exteriors of vehicles (they are saying that a 'casual contact' defense would work so we're not going to try it). Calm down!!

[Neville]

Josher I am with you I see no problem giving evidence that assists the court to make sense of the 'facts'.

[Dan Perkins]

Hi,

thanks for your responses.
Yes, these are the sorts of things I'm looking for - I'm aware of a few examples where due to the nature of the surface the latent was on the examiner felt able to offer an opinion that the individual identified was likely to have been the last person to touch the surface, or was able to offer an opinion that marks have been left simultaneously, or that the blood matrix of the mark was on the digit rather than the surface.

Has anyone come across any examples of an examiner using two latents which on their own are not suitable for identifcation but when considered as simultaneous impressions can be used to establish an identifcation?
Or has anyone heard of a situation where an examiner was able to interpret indicators in a latent to offer an opinion that it had been slid along the surface in a particular direction which 'added value' to the evidence?

thanks

Dan

[SConner]

Hi,


Has anyone come across any examples of an examiner using two latents which on their own are not suitable for identifcation but when considered as simultaneous impressions can be used to establish an identifcation?

thanks

Dan

Commonwealth vs Patterson
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/432/432mass767.html

[Neville]

Hi Dan
To use the modern term, our 'SOP's once included that you could use two simultaneous impressions to identify an individual provided each finger contained 8 points or more and on the approval of the Chief Fingerprint Officer. In the late 1980s it was considered that each print should stand on its own merit, this was at the time we dropped the 12 point rule.

I do know there were a few cases, though can not recall any in particular, where it was used including one I did. Sorry not much help really. It was less uncommon to give evidence that two or more prints had been simultaneously placed on a surface.

Re slippage, I would give evidence but have not as I recall. I know slippage was reported in a death in Auckland where a fleeing offender jumped between two buildings and defence was suggesting the police pushed him, if the defence suggestions ever made into a court I do not recall. Unfortunately for the offender he actually made it across the gap between the two buildings but the edge he had hold of was damp and too wide to get his fingers to reach the far lip so his fingers slowly slid off the top, not good for him of the poor cop who was trying to stop him.

As for your blood situation I am aware there has been some study on this, for one a student at a Sydney Uni did a Masters on something similar about 10 years ago, one of our Aussie mates may remember more than I can on that.

Cheers
Neville

[REG]

As much as I respect Bill and Ernie, I have to disagree. I think if you dont lend all your knowledge to the case then you could be misleading by not providing information. We are experts in friction ridge identification, but it goes beyond that. I think that we are also experts in how to process a particular item, how to photograph prints and how items are touched.

I had an investigator talk to me about a case where she wanted help in figuring out how an item was touched. After explaining that I would almost certainly not be able to help, I looked at the photos anyway. The investigator had an idea that the touch might help the case, but they couldnt explain it. In this case there were very few ways to leave the prints the way they were left on the item. I gave those possibilities in court and let the jury decide. Without that testimony the prosecutor was not even going to charge the person. With the "touch" testimony, they had a conviction.

I agree that in 99.9% of the cases, there is nothing that we would be able to add to the case when talking about touch, but to say that we only identify prints is definitely an "old school" way of thinking.

[L.J.Steele]

Let me toss in a couple of cents...

One of the things I flag to attorneys at CLEs is to look for the photo of the latent before the lift is made. And if the lift is from something portable, to check for photos and documentation of the item at the crime scene. One of the easier ways to fabricate evidence, I'm told, is to take a lift from something the defendant touched when arrested, booked, questioned. If there's no photos of the item at the scene (particularly if it is a very generic item) and the latent before lift, that's a yellow flag to look more carefully.

I suggest to attorneys to look at the other information in the latent -- dirt or grit caught in the lift medium, suggestions of a textured surface, etc. -- again looking to see if there are any yellow flags that the lift might not be what it claims. I tell them to think about the orientation and how the object was handled. (Look at Pat W's South Africa case for a fine example of how this sort of thing was critical to finding the problem.)

But that's all stuff that we may ask you about in discovery or by a phone call, or talk to our experts about.

What you can say in court -- that's trickier. A smart attorney is going to ask lots of questions in voir dire (outside the jury's presence) about your training and experience in opining about orientation (in the absence of photos), simultainiousness, "aging" a print, opining that the print was made by the last person to touch the surface, and so on. Said smart attorney is going to ask about studies that support your opinion, confirmation bias, small sample sizes for comparison, and so on. If you are going to do this, I'd suggest being ready to support your answer with treatises, training material, articles, experimental results, and anything else that supports your opinion.

[Ernie Hamm]

My agreement with Bill’s comment was to his “not… complicate” the issue statement. As it was stated, this was a hypothetical enquiry, but individuals should guard against the extent of any ‘hypothetical’s’ and carry them into dangerous waters. I can recall giving testimony similar to Pat’s (not quite as animated) by having to reposition a latent on an object in court for demonstration purposes. Bill, and many others, has probably had the same experience. That is information pertinent to the evidence, of value to the trier of fact and can be confidently demonstrated. I would just urge caution on casting out more-and-more hypothetical’s such as “age/freshness” of the print, “age/gender/ethnicity” of the donor, “stress level” of the donor, actions of the donor such as ‘tightly gripped’ vs. “lightly touched”, handiness of the donor, etc, etc and all those things mentioned by L.J. Steele. These are areas that have been researched and perhaps touched on or referenced during a person’s training. An attorney, prosecution or defense, would just love to have a witness give opinions during their testimony as they draw out more and more hypothetical’s, bolstered by the answers coming from an EXPERT. You can deal with this line of questioning during trial and able to provide reliable responses, but be very sparingly with the information in preliminaries and especially in written records.

I am talking about court testimony. What information you provide to investigators is another story. You can always relate to investigators what you “think”, which can differ from what you “know”, and that may be valuable to them when linked to other information. Just be sure they understand.

‘Nuff said, back to the tar pit.