Friction Ridge Process Map

[Michele]

I get your frustration, I think everybody is frustrated! I’ve read several times on this chat board that things aren’t moving forward because certain people aren’t getting their way. I’ve been to 13 out of 14 ASB meetings and I can tell you that that is not the reason for the delays. Here’s the process:

1) A document is sent to the ASB Consensus Body (CB)
2) The ASB CB Chair forms a Working Group (WG) to go over the document (and there is a chair for the WG as well)
3) The WG then submits the reviewed (and perhaps modified) document to the ASB Consensus Body for a vote to go out for public comment.
4) When public comments come in, the Chair of the ASB CB determines how the public comments will be handled (they could go back to the WG).
5) Then a document with the public comments resolved goes back to the ASB CB for a vote.

The 5 conclusions document was sent to the ASB Friction Ridge Consensus Body quite a while ago. It went to a WG and hasn’t been sent back to the ASB FR CB for a vote to go out for public comment. The end result is that it hasn’t been held up because people aren’t getting their way; it hasn’t even been voted on yet (to go out for public comments). Why? I think everyone has different opinion about the delays. Instead of sharing my personal views, my best advice is if you are interested to know the reasons (or to develop your own opinion) then you should request to attend the meetings for yourself. People who are not members (called Observers) CAN attend ASB meetings. The meetings are all by phone (webinar type meeting). Observers can even participate in WGs (they can have a say, they just can’t vote). I wouldn’t listen to rumors, attend some meetings and then arrive at your own conclusion.

[ER]

Thank you Very. I really appreciate this perspective, and I think it emphasizes an important point.

The proposed standard does not require the use of a 5 conclusion scale.

The debate over 3 vs 5 vs other is important and should continue. There are persuasive arguments on each side.

HOWEVER

Since both traditional and "support" conclusions are already in use, can we agree on standard conclusion language? Since Bert and I both Identification, can we establish a standard for that conclusion? Even though I use "support" and he doesn't, can't we agree on a standard on how to describe that conclusion?

I could be misreading or misunderstanding the dissenting opinion, but I've only seen arguments against the 5 conclusion scale. So please correct me with answers to the following questions.

1. On its own, what's wrong with the proposed ID standard?
2. On its own, what's wrong with the proposed INC standard?
3. On its own, what's wrong with the proposed EX standard?
4. Even if you choose not to use "support" language, what's wrong with the proposed standard for the "support" conclusions for the agencies already using them?

Again, I'm not asking what's wrong with a 5 conclusion scale. Illusion of precision, decreased reproducibility, etc. doesn't apply. Given that these conclusions are already in use, what's wrong with the wording of each conclusion to standardize existing conclusions?

5. What is your proposed alternative to the definition of ID?
6. What is your proposed alternative to the definition of INC?
7. What is your proposed alternative to the definition of EX?
8. Not for you, but for those currently expressing limited support, what is your proposed alternative to the definition of SSS?

[Michele]

I think it’s been said.

ID: ID is a conclusion (inductive reasoning), not a LR. The LR is the weight of the interpretation, not the weight of evidence. If a conclusion is a LR of propositions, do practitioners understand what that is, can they explain it in court? If they understand it, can explain it, and are prepared for the questions that will come up during testimony, then go for it, do it now. No need to wait. I hope people aren’t waiting because their planned explanation is to say ‘this is the standard, it’s recommended by the OSAC and ASB’. Remember, lots of things were recommended in the past (zero error rate, absolute and conclusive) but it all fell apart once someone looked into it.

SSS: SSS is very different from Consistent but Insufficient. SSS is an overstatement in many cases.

What hasn’t been said clearly (my fault, I should have clarified this in my last post) is that when the ASB WG is reviewing the document, they could be modifying the document (i.e., the current ASB draft may not be the same document being discussed on this chat board). Wouldn’t it be something if those supporting it (and criticizing those who don’t support it) see the modifications and say “NO!”

It seems pointless to take sides (or criticize others) if you don’t have all the information to consider.

Another thought, if some are using 3 conclusions and others are using 5 conclusions, then that is standardizing terms, not standardizing conclusions, which would/should be a different document.

[ER]

I think it’s been said.

Then I missed it. Can you please restate it?

ID is a conclusion (inductive reasoning), not a LR.

Where does the standard claim that ID is an LR?

The LR is the weight of the interpretation, not the weight of evidence

[W]e conclude that the most informative summary of evidential weight is the likelihood ratio
- Simone Gittelson, Charles Berger, Graham Jackson, Ian Evett, Christophe Champod, Bernard Robertson, James Curran, Duncan Taylor, Bruce Weir, Michael Coble, and John Buckleton

There is a tremendously long history describing a likelihood ratio as an expression of the weight of evidence. I do not understand how you can say that it isn't. "Weight of the interpretation" is an unfamiliar term to me. Is there a source or definition for that?

What hasn’t been said clearly (my fault, I should have clarified this in my last post) is that when the ASB WG is reviewing the document, they could be modifying the document
It seems pointless to take sides (or criticize others) if you don’t have all the information to consider.

I thought this whole discussion was in relation to the proposed OSAC document. In that regard, we have all the information we need for consideration. If the discussion moves to a different, unpublished draft, please make that clear. For now, I think it's safe to continue the discussion on the existing document.

Another thought, if some are using 3 conclusions and others are using 5 conclusions, then that is standardizing terms, not standardizing conclusions, which would/should be a different document.

Yes. That's the document. That's what's being proposed, standard terms and definitions for the possible conclusions. Not WHEN to use each conclusion, but the terms and definitions of those conclusions.

[NRivera]

I think it’s been said.

ID: ID is a conclusion (inductive reasoning), not a LR. The LR is the weight of the interpretation, not the weight of evidence. If a conclusion is a LR of propositions, do practitioners understand what that is, can they explain it in court?

I can agree with this statement. It has always been my understanding that the judge or the jury are the ones responsible for assigning weight to evidence. Our responsibility is in articulating the significance and limitations of the information we relied upon to reach a conclusion/decision/result. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Is there something in the stated definition of ID that makes this document invalid?

If they understand it, can explain it, and are prepared for the questions that will come up during testimony, then go for it, do it now. No need to wait. I hope people aren’t waiting because their planned explanation is to say ‘this is the standard, it’s recommended by the OSAC and ASB’. Remember, lots of things were recommended in the past (zero error rate, absolute and conclusive) but it all fell apart once someone looked into it.

If this is true, then why do we need OSAC at all? or ASB? We could just do what we want as long as we can wordsmith it well enough to satisfy others. We're not talking about "recommendations" here. We're talking about national standards. These are documents that a number stakeholders have said are necessary and important. These are documents that establish an important baseline in how this discipline is practiced in our country and standards to which people need to be trained so they CAN explain it adequately. I don't think this characterization is fair or responsible.

What hasn’t been said clearly (my fault, I should have clarified this in my last post) is that when the ASB WG is reviewing the document, they could be modifying the document (i.e., the current ASB draft may not be the same document being discussed on this chat board). Wouldn’t it be something if those supporting it (and criticizing those who don’t support it) see the modifications and say “NO!”

It seems pointless to take sides (or criticize others) if you don’t have all the information to consider.

Another thought, if some are using 3 conclusions and others are using 5 conclusions, then that is standardizing terms, not standardizing conclusions, which would/should be a different document.

You are absolutely correct. The ASB WG can absolutely modify the document. We could look at it and say a lot more than just "No." This is why there is an additional process for OSAC to add a standard to the national registry. Maybe I am not articulating my perspective adequately. My issue is not at all with either side of the arguments. Personally, I think the document as-submitted is flexible enough to allow for all the perspectives put forth here. My issue is that this particular document (never mind the others in the queue) was sent to ASB in the year two-thousand-and-eighteen. 2018. Here we are A YEAR AND A HALF LATER and I STILL don't know what the problem with the document is, because it hasn't even made it to public comments yet. How can this be acceptable? What other information do I need to form that opinion?????? If you agree with the document, that's great. If you don't, that's great too. When I say "you", I mean that generally, to anyone with a dog in the fight. We can have the conversations and KEEP IT MOVING through the process. The problem is: WE DON"T KNOW EITHER WAY. We serve on these committees and boards for a purpose. Key word: serve. I like to think I'm providing a service to my fellow examiners and the discipline by contributing to these conversations and documents. I think that concept is lost on some, maybe not on you, but I feel very strongly that the current state of affairs is completely unacceptable and it needs to be addressed.

[Michele]

Great point! When I said examiners have to be able to explain it, I meant with valid reasons, not with salesmanship.

These aren’t National Standards… these are standards for Federal agencies. They are hoping others will adopt them through a trickle-down effect. If an agency doesn’t follow them, I would expect them to be asked in court why your agency doesn’t follow them, and I would expect a reasonable answer, not just ‘my agency has chosen not too’ or ‘that’s an agency decision’. In the same respect, if these were implemented today and I worked for an agency that did adopt them, I would expect to be asked some questions about them and I would expect examiners to be able to articulate how they determine when the threshold of ‘extremely strong support’ is met. If the answer is, ‘it’s my subjective determination’… well, that’s not science. Science (remember, we are a forensic science) has systematic approaches to arriving at conclusions, and metrics for when to arrive at a conclusion. So, you asked if there was anything that makes this document invalid? If I were testifying (or working for a defense attorney), I would say that there is no way to determine when someone has ‘extremely strong support’ (or other levels of support) and therefore, this document isn’t specific enough to be usable in a scientific sense. Maybe Glenn can use it since he’s using a statistical model, and maybe the Army Crime Lab can use it, but how can others use it? The document says, “It is the conclusion that the observations provide extremely strong support for the proposition that the impressions originated from the same source and extremely weak support for the proposition that the impressions originated from different sources’. The word ‘proposition’ is a mathematical term. How do I know if the proposition provides extremely strong support? I don’t know how to estimate that (or if the proposition provides extremely weak support). To me, I need a document on the method (instructions) before knowing how to determine these things and how to use this document.

I couldn’t agree with you more, the process is not effective, let alone efficient. You mentioned this has been at the ASB for a year and a half; the articulation document has been at the ASB for 3 years and 5 months. Along with the ASB’s lengthy process, why has it taken the OSAC so long to come out with a method document? We’ve been doing this for over 100 years, is writing out what we do that difficult? I’m wondering if they are working on new methods instead of just writing what we do now and developing new methods as the new methods are validated.

I agree, I think the lengthy process is an issue. I’ve heard from others that this is normal when developing standards. It may be normal but to me, it’s not necessary. Since I’m not in the position to do anything but write letters (which I have done), instead I’ve chosen to make the changes where I can (at my local agency and at agencies interested in an alternative approach that can be used now).