“Is it time to retire ACE-V?”

[Bill Schade]

I see that this is a presentation listed for the upcoming IAI conference. (Thursday-1230)

The title intrigues me

I have always been comfortable explaining my job using the steps of ACE-V as a framework. I’m aware of the debate about whether it’s a process or a method and I’m interested to hear what Michele has to say during this presentation. I'm not sure why we should change the acronym.

But if it helps, I'll offer an alternative to using ACE-V

“I” inspect the latent print
“D” determine value (sufficiency)
“I” inspect the known print
“O” observe the consistency / inconsistency
“T” theorize a conclusion
“S” scrutinize the results

I’m not sure if it will catch on, but I would love to testify in court to the “Idiots” method of latent print comparison.

[ER]

This bulletin board needs a "Like" button

[g.]

Hilarious!

It would have made a much better title for some of my research: "A Critical Review of Idiots..."

g.

[Bill Schade]

Thank you Eric and Glen for appreciating my sense of humor.

But I'm surprised there hasn't been more serious discussion of the topic. The title sounds radical, but what do you think of the premise?

Does anyone else feel that the term "ACE-V" has become a "crutch" or a "pat answer" when asked how we do what we do?

I realize that if you call it by another name (ex: Visual comparison?) we could run into the same problem. But the idea that ACE-V is a full explanation of the process we follow is probably open to interpretation.

There are a variety of ways to Analysize an unknown or a known impression, and a variety of ways to compare two impressions, and a variety of ways to decide on a conclusion and we openly acknowledge this is true. Is saying we follow ACE-V implying that there are strict rules to follow when when we know the method can vary so much?

I personally use ACE-V as the start of my explanation and then give detailed information on the process I followed. I would give the same detailed information no matter what I called the process overall.

[John Vanderkolk]

Yes, let's replace ACE-V with AACE+V

What I like about ACE or AACE as phases within the overall visual examination is the similarity to Stephen Palmer's description of phases within vision as four components (or AACE) of categorization in his book, "Vision Science, Photons to Phenomenology, 2002, The MIT Press, ISBN #0-262-16183-4, p413";
1. Object representations; the relevant characteristics of the to-be-categorized object must be perceived and represented within the visual system. (or, Analysis of an image)
2. Category representations; each of the set of possible categories must be represented in memory in a way that is accessible to the visual system. (or Analysis of another image)
3. Comparison processes; There must be some way in which the object representation is matched or compared against possible category representations. (or visual Comparison)
4. Decision processes; There must be some method for deciding, on the basis of results of comparison processes, to which category a given object belongs. (Evaluation of what I have seen in my Analyses and Comparisons)

Palmer, a cognitive vision scientist, describes how we see and decide very similarly as we describe ACE. When we have identified a print, we categorize the latent print to 'one category,' or one standard image, within the many candidate 'categories' when we conduct an AACE latent print exam. I have no heartburn describing what we do as a visual examination and I am prepared to break down the visual examination into the components of AACE, or ACE. AACE is a visual examination. Palmer's 'Categorization' or AACE can also be used to explain or describe the phases within seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, and listening and then determining what the stimuli means. ACE or AACE
give us a way to procede, document, and explain what we strive to do when we conduct a visual examination of two or more images.

I am AOK with AACE or ACE.

JohnV

[Pat]

"ACE-V" is a laboratory policy, or maybe even an individual examiner's policy before reporting conclusions, but it is not the process an individual examiner might articulate as the way fingerprints are compared or identifications are made. "ACE" refers to the mental process in a single examiner's mind. I believe it is important to distinguish between an individual examiner's mental process and the laboratory policy.

Let me offer some observations regarding the way we, as individual LPEs, do our examinations:

1. The mental/psychological processes involved in examination of two friction ridge skin impressions to reach a conclusion is incredibly complex and will probably never be completely understood.

2. In the overall mental process, all LPE brains function fundamentally the same during a fingerprint examination. In other finer details of the mental process, we each do some things differently.

3. The variety of combinations of quality & quantity of details in friction ridge skin impressions is virtually infinite. No two comparisons in the history of fingerprints have been identical in all regards, either in the details that were used to reach a conclusion or in the precise mental way that conclusion was reached.

4. There is no single, absolutely "right" method of fingerprint examination such that all other methods, even close permutations of the "right" method, are wrong.

5. If a method of fingerprint comparison is accurate and reliable, it is not "wrong."
a. "Point Counting" can produce accurate and reliable results.
b. ACE can produce accurate and reliable results
c. Hypothesis testing can produce accurate and reliable results.
d. Following the "5-Step Process" I proposed in 2000 can produce accurate and reliable results.
e. Any number of other "methods" can produce accurate and reliable results.

6. The key for any individual examiner, and the responsibility of every professional examiner, is to study and understand in the best possible way what she/he does in a fingerprint examination that produces accurate and reliable results.

7. It is also the responsibility of every examiner to be able to articulate in a comprehensible and transparent way the process as she/he understands it.

8. When I got into the business, most of the above was irrelevant. That was in the Twentieth Century. This is the Twenty First Century and the old ways are no longer "good enough." Any person who claims the title LPE as a professional has an obligation to understand the process in a way that is explainable to others, and which is accepted in the country where she/he practices. Ultimately, if the courts accept the method and the evidence after a rigorous, cross examined testimony, then the method is, by definition, "correct."

9. Countries that have a single police agency with a single mandated training program can have unanimity among examiners. Countries with even a dozen autonomous police agencies will probably find some variations among them in the exact methods and explanations of fingerprint examinations. In the US, we have something around 23,000 police agencies, mostly independent of each other. Our form of government recognizes States Rights and even local rights in the way police departments are run and managed. We will probably never have unanimity in the way we conduct examinations in the US, or in the way we explain the method or process. To believe differently is naive. We can try to establish uniformity, but we can never expect total uniformity across the US. The best we can strive for is to ensure that those within our sphere of influence understand what they do and can explain the process in terms acceptable in the profession and to the courts, even if it is not exactly the same description as that given by other LPEs in other agencies or other areas of the country.

Personally, I teach the ACE method as a practical approach to doing an examination. ACE-V is the Lab Policy, but to reiterate, ACE is the method an individual LPE uses to conduct an examination. The following summary is a very bare bones explanation of "Practical Application of ACE" as I teach my students . Please keep in mind that the full initial lecture runs into many hours, and details and refinement occur throughout the training period.

Analyze the latent print in two ways, first for distortion as a basis for determining tolerance (substrate distortion, development medium, pressure distortion, slippage, etc.) and second, for anatomical features at Level 1 and Level 2 as a way to prepare for the search of inked prints and as a starting place for the Comparison (determine pattern type, note unusual features such as scars and wrinkles, select and memorize a target group, etc.). Memorize the target by drawing it in your notes. In practical application, analysis at this point focuses strictly on the latent print.

Compare the latent to the inked prints available by searching for pattern match, unusual features, and target group in all the inked prints available. I teach my students that if they have done a thorough job of analysis, formed a correct image of pattern and other features, and memorized a target, they WILL recognize the print again when they see it if it looks the same. For that reason, Comparison focuses strictly on the inked prints at this point until "recognition" occurs. If "recognition" does not occur, go back to the latent, re-analyze, and pick a different target group a reasonable distance away from the first target. Once a suitable candidate is located in the inked prints, the process moves into Evaluation.

Evaluation consists of the side-by-side, back and forth examination to determine if there is sufficiency for making either an identification or an exclusion. If no conclusion results, go back to the latent and re-analyze for a possibly more tolerant view of pattern or orientation and another new target, then repeat the Comparison. An identification results when sufficiency is established, and there I paraphrase Ashbaugh's criteria: "ridge formations at all three levels, if available in both images; in sequence; having sufficiently detectable uniqueness; to individualize."

When I testify in court, I describe the ACE process fundamentally as given above. I usually reference the Q-Q graph in the SWGFAST document, "Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions."

I have found this to be a very satisfactory way of performing an examination and explaining it, both to students and to lay persons. I will freely admit that the act of reaching a conclusion is "subjective," but I will maintain that the ACE process itself is objective. But the word "subjective" does NOT mean unreliable or inaccurate. A "subjective" conclusion reached by an LPE trained to competence can be very accurate and highly reliable.

I think this is one way of explaining what we do, but not by any means the only method. I don't think any one explanation answers all of the questions that might be asked. I use ACE because that is in SWGFAST guidelines/standards and it is defensible or credible for that reason alone, if no other. I firmly believe that no matter what method of explanation an LPE uses, the LPE must understand both the method and the way to articulate it thoroughly.

[Alan C]

“I” inspect the latent print
“D” determine value (sufficiency)
“I” inspect the known print
“O” observe the consistency / inconsistency
“T” theorize a conclusion
“S” scrutinize the results

I’m not sure if it will catch on, but I would love to testify in court to the “Idiots” method of latent print comparison.

You need to write an introductory book on this method. It could be called IDIOTS for Dummies.

[Bill Schade]

It can be a follow up to my first book in the series

AFIS for Dummies manuel.jpg