'Trust me, I'm a Fingerprint Expert'

[Simon Bunter]

Hi. Below is a link to an article from my firm regarding a case for which I recently attended to court. The wording in the article is aimed at solicitors but I thought the issues that arose at court were of interest to the fingerprint community.

http://www.keithborer.co.uk/news/view-a ... tification

In short, I found no more than 7 corresponding ridge characteristics with the defendant's fingerprint, some of which were in very poor areas of the mark and only noted during comparison with the reference form. I also found some differences. When evaluating my comparison findings I deemed the most appropriate result to be inconclusive.

At court, the police Fingerprint Expert said she found 14 matching ridge characteristics, no 'unexplainable' discrepancies and was in "no doubt" regarding the identification. She was asked to demonstrate where in the mark she found the extra 7 ridge characteristics but simply stated "we don't do that". When asked why, she stated that it was "not a challenging identification" (despite me challenging it). I was left with the impression (no pun intended) that she expected the court to simply accept her word and did not feel the need to demonstrate how and why she came to her conclusion.

Click on the article to find out the jury's verdict...

[Dr. Borracho]

With the greatest respect, Mr. Bunter, in the absence of images for us to analyze and evaluate, are you not asking us to trust you as the expert on your conclusion, just as the police fingerprint expert was asking the court to trust her as the expert? Are the images available, or might they be made available for concerned latent print examiners to review?

[Simon Bunter]

Hi, thanks for your reply. No, that wasn't the point of posting the article. I'm not asking anyone to trust me over the other expert. The only people I effectively asked to do that was the jury at trial. My point was the manner in which the police expert gave her evidence. In my evidence, for example, I produced my contemporaneous analysis and comparison notes and showed the jury where I found the 7 corresponding characteristics and the differences. By giving my evidence in this manner, I felt I was able to demonstrate to the court why I had arrived at my conclusion whereas my opposite number made no attempt to do so.

Unfortunately, I'm unsure as to whether I would need specific permissions from the other parties involved in order to post images of the mark and print. As such, it's probably safer if I don't post the images.

[Michelle C]

Was the only evidence in this case the Fingerprint Identification / Inconclusive??

[Simon Bunter]

Funnily enough... no. There was also DNA evidence on a ripped jacket sleeve found at the scene. I wasn't present for the DNA evidence being heard but my understanding was that there little/no dispute that it was his DNA. The main issue regarding the DNA evidence was whether it demonstrated that he was the last wearer, i.e. whether it was him that wore the jacket during the offence.

I must admit, the presence of the DNA evidence did make me think that the fingerprint argument might be considered a moot point but the jury's verdict appeared to suggest otherwise.

[Dr. Borracho]

Unfortunately, I'm unsure as to whether I would need specific permissions from the other parties involved in order to post images of the mark and print. As such, it's probably safer if I don't post the images.

I thought maybe after evidence was introduced into court, a venue at which the public may wander in to watch, that evidence became public information. Perhaps I am wrong, as I know little of evidentiary rules in the UK. However, if the images in evidence are considered to be on the public record, perhaps they could be posted here or at http://www.onin.com/fp/problemidents.html with other cases if you were to check with the webmaster. Perhaps the webmaster on that site might also post the images you had in the other case about which you recently posted regarding your CSFS Fingerprint Presentation (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2326 ).

Respectfully, discussion of cases like these would mean infinitely more among the readers of this venue if the images were available.

[Les Bush]

Hello Simon,

By now you may be thinking the idea of posting to this site hasn't gone exactly to plan. In your consultancy firm you are paid for a service and expected to perform at a professional and objective level. Your forensic firm employs two 'experts' including Catherine Tweedy who has been there two years prior to yourself. Verification of results is mandatory in forensic science as is repeatability. Can we on this site assume that Catherine verified your result and co signed your report? Fingerprint details are fascinating in their diversity of presentations, and as you appreciate there are distinct levels of details that usually can be observed. The fingerprint in this case is intriguing, from your notes, was there an apparent pattern type with ridge flow and any main features? You have confirmed seven level two features in agreement, from your notes were they clear and how close to each other? Seven features in agreement along with pattern details would raise a reasonable hypothesis of a correlation between the latent and the reference print. And you apparently found differences, but have left out the all important wording. clear and distinct differences. Differences can be highly subjective. A clear difference would put an end to most comparisons. In the McKie case there were clear differences, the long list of fingerprint expert signatories supporting the null hypothesis was evidence of professionals being able to assess images from anywhere in the world. Being close to Durham you would be well informed of the McKie case. From your professional position would you agree there were clear differences in the McKie case? Cheers from oz. Les

[Philp Gilhooley]

Simon

As others who have responded to your posting, I am puzzled as to your reluctance to post the images of the case you have presented evidence on, especially as it is clearly in the public domain.

If you are unsure of your responsibility in relation to confidentiality, your primary duty is to the Court.

I did notice that you have posted images in relation to a recent case you were involved in to demonstrate the conclusions you reached. I do not see any differences in that case in relation to confidentiality.

As you are, I am a practising Independent Fingerprint Expert, currently reviewing cases both in the UK and recently abroad.

Therefore as with the other responders to your post I would welcome an opportunity to view the images to give an opinion on the identification or exclusion.

In my opinion the case notes provided by the Crown Expert are important but I suggest not as important, as to whether the two impressions were made by the same person or not

I welcome your response

Phil Gilhooley

[Michelle C]

In this case you would be disagreeing with more than one practitioner. Depending on which Bureau within the U.K. processed this mark it could have gone through one or two validation checks and possibly a fourth if the person doing the evidence was outside the initial checking chain or if the mark had gone to a panel if deemed complex, which given there has been some level of questioning seemed entirely possible. If so you are going against multiple fingerprint expert decisions. Was your decision validated by someone in your organisation as we have our decisions validated in the U.K. Bureaus? Also with the bureaus all working towards the 17025 accreditation as set out by the Forensic Regulator are you too going to be accredited as an Independent expert??

[Simon Bunter]

Thank you for the responses, you all make some valid points. One of the main issues appears to be the natural curiosity of a Fingerprint Examiner to examine the images themselves so they can arrive at their own opinion. Perfectly understandable, I’d likely be curious myself if someone else had posted an article involving a difference of opinion. The purpose of the article, however, was not to seek a consensus for either point of view. It was to show how a Fingerprint Expert could attend court and not be able to demonstrate how they arrived at their conclusion. In my experience, at the very least, an expert would produce a ‘chart’ or ‘marked-up enlargement’ for a case like this. That said, I will consider asking the relevant Fingerprint Bureau for their permission to post the images on here.

I’ll now try to address everyone’s comments:

Hi Les. On the contrary, it’s going better than expected. It’s encouraging to see so many people interested enough to query the article and leave a comment. To answer your questions; yes, I am one of the experts employed by Keith Borer Consultants. My colleague (also an expert) carried out a blind verification process (in order to ensure they were not influenced by my result) and agreed with my finding.
You asked about the specifics of the mark itself. Below is a summary of my contemporaneous notes:

• Analysis (before any comparison was made - to avoid influence from the reference print)
The very tip of the core was visible but not enough to show whether it was a whorl or a loop. In total I found 14 ridge characteristics. I sub-categorised these into 7 ‘high confidence’ characteristics and 7 ‘low confidence’ ridge characteristics, i.e. ‘high’ being those that I clearly observed and considered to be unambiguous and ‘low’ being those that appeared to be characteristics but their position and presence was questionable as they lay in unclear and indistinct areas of the mark. I made detailed notes on an image of the mark to refer back to during the evaluation stage.

• Comparison
The fingerprint reference form used as evidence did not appear to fully disclose the relevant area. As such, only 8 of the 14 ridge characteristics (RCs) initially observed in the mark could be compared. These 8 characteristics consisted of 3 that I had ‘high confidence’ in and 5 that I had ‘low confidence’ in.

-Of the 3 high confidence RCs noted during analysis, only 2 were present in the defendant’s reference print. The 3rd characteristic, that I clearly observed at the analysis stage, was not present. Such a difference could therefore be described as ‘clear and distinct’.

-Of the 5 low confidence RCs noted during analysis, 3 were present in the defendant’s reference print, 2 were not present. As these 2 RCs were in indistinct areas of the mark, their absence concerned me less than the absent ‘clear’ RC noted above.

-During the comparison I noted a further 2 RCs that appeared to correspond between the mark and the reference print. As I had not noted these during my analysis, I gave them less evidential weight during my evaluation as I had clearly been influenced into ‘seeing’ them in the mark by their presence in the defendant’s reference form.

• Evaluation
My total of 7 corresponding RCs was made up of 5 RCs observed in the mark prior to comparison (2 high confidence and 3 low confidence) and 2 RCs only observed during the comparison. In addition, there were a total of 3 RCs (one of which I had clearly noted during the analysis) that were not present in the reference print. When evaluating these findings I considered them not to meet the UK Forensic Regulator’s definition of ‘identification’. I deemed the most appropriate result to be ‘inconclusive’.
I’m relatively well informed of the McKie case in that I have read many of the public inquiry transcripts and know the 86 recommendations. Others have examined the mark in a lot more detail and spent much more time on it than I have, so it would serve little point in me throwing my opinion into the ring. I think the important thing is to use the recommendations to improve fingerprint practices.


Hi Phil. Nice to hear from you again. You are absolutely right, my primary duty is to the court and that duty was fulfilled, so I don’t quite understand your point. I’m also not entirely sure what you mean in your last paragraph that “case notes provided by the Crown Expert are important but I suggest not as important, as to whether the two impressions were made by the same person or not”. Of course, whether two impressions were made by the same person is of the utmost importance. In casework, however, the ground truth is never known. As such, the manner in which an expert comes to a conclusion that the mark and print were from the same person is absolutely vital. Making detailed contemporaneous notes in a structured manner and being able to demonstrate that methodology to the court is therefore a very important part of that process.


Hi Michelle. You are correct, two other police Fingerprint Examiners had checked the police expert’s result. The expert accepted at court that this was not a blind verification and the two other examiners were fully aware of her result prior to carrying out their own comparisons. Despite the level of questioning, the mark had not been deemed complex or gone to a panel. So you are right, I was going against multiple Fingerprint Expert decisions. It has been shown in many cases in the past, however, that the verification procedure (particularly if it is not blind) is far from foolproof. We too are working to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for accreditation.


I hope this address everyone’s queries but please feel free to post again if you want me to clarify anything further.

[Les Bush]

Hello Simon,

Thanks for the reply, very informative from your point of view. Like a two sided coin the other half has its own identity and views in regard to the same comparison. We the web site audience are like the edge of the coin wavering left or right, not really curious as to who is right but more intrigued by how two experts and one latent can once again take us down a familiar road of disputed opinions. The original post did highlight the need for a proper explanation of the comparison results and your court presentation would have been very thorough. I am in full support of the need for professional presentations and oral testimony to explain process and result. The other half of the coin would not qualify as a contemporary forensic witness if I assume that your recollection of her testimony is accurate. Your reference to an accreditation standard is an encouraging indicator that fingerprint science in the UK has a strong focus on where the future lies. It is a shame that cases such as this one and the McKie case are two examples of where that standard is struggling to be complied with. Australia has had NATA accreditation of some Police forensic laboratories since the 1990's, in my former organisation I undertook the role of auditor in conducting internal and external laboratory assessments so I am quite familiar with the expectations of what qualifies as an acceptable forensic standard. What caught my interest in the 1990's was the very strong response against the North American experts who unlike yourself concluded that a latent mark did not have the origin as reported by several SCRO experts and supported additionally by three prominent UK experts. Unlike yourself the Americans sought and achieved additional reference material to fully investigate the disputed comparison. Two questions for you Simon, in receiving this case did you know the Bureau identification result prior to starting your comparison? Did you seek additional reference material? Cheers Les

[Philp Gilhooley]

Hi Simon
I will try and explain the points you have taken issue with.
When I stated the obvious that your duty is to the Court, I was only trying to emphasise that when you have a case such as this when you have a Crown Witness employed by the Police and an Independent witness such as yourself, employed by a Private Company, then it matters not who is instructing you, your Duty is to the Court. It was not my intention to personalise it to you. I was talking in terms general to all expert witnesses. If you see my point as superfluous, then I apologise.
I think it also important that probably due to UK Force policies the Crown witness would be unable to come on this forum and defend their conclusions.
In relation to confidentiality issues, you have already posted details of the case on a public forum, so I do not think that that it is a reason for not posting the images. These would not give any further information to anybody’s identity or the Police Force or The Court it was presented to.
When I spoke of the importance of case notes, I do acknowledge their importance. What I was trying to stress was that when reviewing fingerprint evidence, I see my main consideration is to verify or not whether the identification has been correctly adduced by the Crown. I think that is usually the first thing I am asked to verify in Counsel’s advice, before considering other issues for example ageing of the prints and how they were deposited.
In this case you have posted I cannot review:
1. The evidence of the Crown witness, I was not there.
2. I cannot review how or on what information they formed their conclusions
3. view how, or on what information, you formed you conclusions
What I and other experts on this forum can do, if you post unmarked images of both the Crime Scene mark and the impression from the fingerprint form, is to analyse and compare them and arrive at a conclusion which would either support the opinion of the Crown Expert or you. Surely that is fundamental both in fairness and Justice which I hope we all strive for.
In short Simon I do not think you can post on this forum details of a case where you disagree with another professional practitioner and not support it with some objective evidence that can be challenged, as you challenged the Crown’s evidence.
If I may digress, from the subject of this post, may I refer back to your presentation in Manchester this year (Link given by Dr Borracho in his response) and your presentation posted on this forum) You referred to the case, among others, where you accepted 45 features were in agreement, but there was 1 you couldn’t see on the fingerprint form. Personally I am satisfied that those two impressions were made by the same person, to the exclusion of all others. I would be very surprised if any person reviewing those images would come to any other conclusions. By chance did you consider, when analysing the crime scene mark, prior to comparison, that part or all of it was reversed for colour (It may or not be). I noticed that you marked the corresponding characteristics on black which would have been the furrows if the mark was reversed for colour, just a thought!
Also it would be great if you could present copies of those impressions devoid of marked characteristics especially the red dot.
I am more than happy to correspond off line if you wish. You will have my contact details from ‘LinkedIn’
Regards
Phil

[Dr. Borracho]

In discussion, one expert opined that style and substance are equally important in presenting evidence, but when only one is present in testimony, style wins over substance every time.

With due respect, Mr. Bunter, your post on this site seems to more heavily emphasize the importance of style. Respondents to your post here seem concerned with substance, as well.

An inarticulate witness in participation of the truth will lose out to a master communicator selling a compelling story. Are you merely a master communicator, or are you willing to subject your evidence to be tested by other experts interested in truth?

[Philp Gilhooley]

Simon
As you might realise by now this case is not going away and as Les Bush suggested the responses are not meeting your expectations when you first introduced the case.
I refer to the last post by Dr Borracho and completely agree that this case highlights style over substance.
Being articulate, a good communicator displaying excellent presentation skills should never cloud the accuracy or competency of what an Expert Witness is saying. Therefore in my opinion style alone should never win over substance/competency even without style.
Therefore Simon, in your first post on this case, I believe you have challenged both the Crown Expert’s identification of the impressions and the way they articulated their findings in the witness box. She I assume cannot challenge your views publically. In fairness I and others are willing to do so.
You refer to ‘Hot-Tubbing’ in your Manchester presentation. Some readers of this forum may see ‘Hot Tubbing’ less positively that you do.
My opinion is that it can favour style over substance. Just because a witness can articulate, present themselves in this manner and ‘think on their feet quicker’, does not mean that what they are saying has any more substance as to the less articulate.
Probably being ‘Old School’ I think that the witnesses should be heard separately, one for the Crown leading to Cross examination and then one for the defence if appropriate leading to cross examination. Let the Jury then decide! But then again I do not run Court Proceedings.
To conclude Simon, You have referred to us a case, you have disclosed both yours and the Crown Experts conclusions, you have posted your case notes, you have commented on evidence from the witness box and we are not proxy to where, when or what the case originated
Therefore I repeat Simon posting the unmarked images will in no compromise you in terms of confidentiality.
All we want on this forum is who is right you or the Crown Witness i.e Style or Substance
Kind regards
Phil

[Bill Schade]

I was following this conversation with interest but we seem to have gone off on a tangent.

Going back to the original post, I thought the question was along the lines of "should a witness have to demonstrate their data to a jury when giving an expert opinion". It seems to me that this is becoming a basic requirement of forensic testimony in today’s world. The discussion of Substance vs. Presentation Style is a related topic but might best be discussed in a separate thread.

Another related topic that this discussion raised in my mind was "how do you accurately convey the strength of your data and the resulting conclusion?" I think that is the underlying question in every discussion of how forensics has changed over the years. If we are to be fair, objective and transparent, then this topic must be codified into a standard of some sort. I've seen other presentations and discussions on this topic and would be interested to know how others define "basic", "complex", "confidence", etc. I'm sure all examiners know it when they see it, but what are the rules, if any?