Adding Value

[Cindy Homer]

To me, anatomical orientation, if it can be determined, is part of the analysis of a fingerprint. It is part of the "story" of the print and helps me interpret what I see in the print. As a fingerprint examiner I am only interested in anatomical orientation in so far as it helps me with my examination. I report it in my case notes. I am rarely ever asked about orientation but when I am I will describe how the hand would have been placed on the evidence in order to leave a fingerprint/impression with such an orientation. I don't believe it is a part of our roles as fingerprint examiners in the forensic process to "add to" or "subtract from" the value of a print for investigative purposes. The only "value" judgements I make about a print are whether the print is of value or not for identification. When asked to testify about orientation I produce an enlarged copy of a photograph of the evidence and explain to the jury where the fingerprint is on the evidence and how exactly the evidence would have been held to place that print in that orientation. That's all. What the jury, prosecutor or defense attorney does with that information is up to them. It is either of value or not to the prosecution or to the defense.

Also, regarding your inquiry into simultaneous impressions, SWGFAST has a standard discussing it. http://www.swgfast.org/Documents.html all the way at the bottom.

Hope that helps a bit.

Cindy

[George Reis]

I worked a case (for the defense) a couple of years ago in which the crime scene investigator likely lied to add value to his lift.

In this case a beautiful lift of three fingers was retrieved from the crime scene. There was no drawing on the back of the lift card, and there were no photographs.

The video depicted a man climbing onto a counter and jumping over a seven foot high plexiglass wall. He placed his hand in the area where two plexiglass dividers overlapped as he made his jump. The area of the overlap was about 3 inches of overlap area and the space between the two walls was about 3/4 inch. And, the man was wearing leather gloves. The CSI claimed that he lifted the latent from the exact spot where the jumper had placed his gloved hand.

What is more likely the case is that the lift was made from somewhere else when the defendant was in the store, and the prints were unrelated to the crime. In this case, there was no evidence of where the CSI recovered the prints from, and it appeared that he testified to make the evidence fit the video.

George

[David Fairhurst]

Nice example George.

To the "it's my job to identify the print, and NOTHING more" people I ask, "What about cases of fabrication, where the lift is represented as coming from somewhere impossible, or a different substrate which is inconsisstent with texture visible in the background of the lift?"

And, if your answer is "Oh well! That's different!", Why is it different? You're the expert in latent prints in that courtroom, no-one else is, if the extra information is accessible to you surely your duty is to tell "the whole truth" and inform the jury of what you know.

I'm with Ernie though on not getting drawn into postulating and hypothesising; just tell them what you know from the evidence and leave the jury to it.
For example, I have a palm print that tells me that the defendant's hand touched a surface. Can I say what the defendant's arm was doing to get his hand into that position? NO! I am no more qualified than the jury to make that call, and therefore I'm not the expert anymore: so my opinion should not be admitted by the judge even if I offer it.

[CamilleB]

George’s example is good. And David brings up a good point. You can demonstrate with objective information how forgeries/fabrications are created and genuine latent prints are made. Also, you can demonstrate how ridges distort by touching or grasping different surfaces and shapes. However, Langenburg has pointed out that examiners have never been tested on how accurately they can interpret distortion clues. I’m not saying examiners aren’t “good at it,” I’m just saying Langenburg is pointing out we don’t really know yet. It follows - any time an examiner overstates their knowledge or provides conjecture on actions or elements of the crime based on a latent print… it doesn’t mean they are correct. Worse maybe, because how do you test accuracy/reliability for this?

But my question is, why are some examiners motivated to add value to evidence? Are they as motivated to add value that may exclude, or only add value for conviction? What is this our role?

[Cindy Homer]

Very well said Camille. I agree about the information regarding potential fabrication of a print. It is part of the analysis and findings and should be reported as part of discovery, just as I report identified as well as unidentified prints in a case. The objective is not to add value or subtract value to the case but to report findings. I'm really not interested in "which side" the information helps/hurts.