I thought I had read something before on L1D and L2D on this site, but heaven help me I cannot seem to find it. It could be on the earlier site before the change in July of 2005.
The discussion had to deal with the following:
If L1D between two images is in disagreement can you still have L2D in agreement that is sufficient to individulize?
If the answer is no, can you have partial disagreement and still have L2D in agreement that is sufficient to individulize?
Perhaps someone can remember the thread and point me in the right direction, or provide me with a possible answer.
Level 1 and 2 Detail
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Level 1 and 2 Detail
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Steve Everist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:27 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
Charles,
I think I found the post and thread you were talking about. It's on the old board. The following link is to the first post in the thread. If you scroll down, you'll see all the reply links.
http://www.clpex.com/board/threads/2003 ... /23/23.htm
The first reply, by Terry Smith, is the one that I think you're remembering.
I think I found the post and thread you were talking about. It's on the old board. The following link is to the first post in the thread. If you scroll down, you'll see all the reply links.
http://www.clpex.com/board/threads/2003 ... /23/23.htm
The first reply, by Terry Smith, is the one that I think you're remembering.
Steve E.
-
John Vanderkolk
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:07 am
- Location: Washington, DC
I do not understand how a unique and persistent source of friction ridged skin can deposit first level details that are in disagreement between two images and then have second level details in agreement between the same two images. If the general direction of the general pathways actually disagrees, how could specific ridge paths agree? Also, I do not understand how first and second levels of details are in disagreement between two images then third level details are in agreement between the same two images. If the general directions and specific paths disagree, how could specific textures, edges and pores agree on ridges that disagree?
What would partial disagreement be? If disagreement is partial, would the remainder of the images agree? Would this be the inability of the examiner to determine whether the details agree or disagree?
What would partial disagreement be? If disagreement is partial, would the remainder of the images agree? Would this be the inability of the examiner to determine whether the details agree or disagree?
-
sandra wiese
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:47 pm
- Location: Colorado
examples
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the whole arguement, cause I'm kinda stupid that way....But as I see it I can see how in certain, uncommon but not rare circumstances, that you would easily have Level I not agree but Level II still would. The only fast examples I can come up with before my lunch break is over would be:
-if your latent was a loop with a scar you would also search whorls as scarring can distort some whorls (i.e.: easily double loop whorls) and they end up being loops--same with a lower count loop turning into an arch with the right kind of scarring.
--if you had a print that was a mirror image of itself (i.e.: on a plastic baggie that got folded over on itself) would appear to have different Level I than your exemplar
If this is the gist of the question then that one is easy to envision. I guess I can also see distortion by smearing or such messing up your core enough to make the Level I on a latent appear different than it is but the rest of the print was not distorted and smeared so the Level II matched....But if the argument is that you can see and have agreement at Level II if Level I is distorted (present but distorted) and not discernable....Well then I would have to respectfully ask you to 'show me' because my teensy brain can't envision that.
And as for Level III matching when Level II does not....Well, I can't even figure out how that is theoretically possible much less think of a practical example so again I would want to see it for real to even understand that question.
That's my two cents and my nose is officially back to the grindstone.
Sandra Wiese
-if your latent was a loop with a scar you would also search whorls as scarring can distort some whorls (i.e.: easily double loop whorls) and they end up being loops--same with a lower count loop turning into an arch with the right kind of scarring.
--if you had a print that was a mirror image of itself (i.e.: on a plastic baggie that got folded over on itself) would appear to have different Level I than your exemplar
If this is the gist of the question then that one is easy to envision. I guess I can also see distortion by smearing or such messing up your core enough to make the Level I on a latent appear different than it is but the rest of the print was not distorted and smeared so the Level II matched....But if the argument is that you can see and have agreement at Level II if Level I is distorted (present but distorted) and not discernable....Well then I would have to respectfully ask you to 'show me' because my teensy brain can't envision that.
And as for Level III matching when Level II does not....Well, I can't even figure out how that is theoretically possible much less think of a practical example so again I would want to see it for real to even understand that question.
That's my two cents and my nose is officially back to the grindstone.
Sandra Wiese
I keep 6 honest serving men
(they taught me all I knew)
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
-Rudyard Kipling
(they taught me all I knew)
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
-Rudyard Kipling
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
To All:
Someone told me that if anyone could find a specific thread on this site it would be Steve Everist. They were right. The thread is not exactly how I remember it but close enough. It also provided me with Dusty’s five types of conclusions that I have also been looking for.
First let us leave 3LD out of this discussion just for a little while.
Some LPE’s will say that you can always exclude just based upon L1D.
Some LPE’s will say that you cannot always exclude just on L1D.
When those statements are made I really think they are talking about two different things.
One is the overall L1D and the other is specific L1D.
Sandra gave a couple of good examples. A scar changing the pattern type from a loop to a whorl, or position reversal, or a latent image that appears to be a loop, but is actually a whorl but some distortion effect has made the overall latent image appear to be something that it is actually not. That is overall L1D disagreement. But when comparing the two images closer there is L2D in agreement in a specific area that is away from the distortion effect. There you have L1D agreement in that specific area along with L2D.
In Handwriting Analysis there is something that is called “pictorial effect”. An example is if you take a pen and on a piece of paper in a very slow and deliberate hand write your name in cursive. Then right below that in a very fast and wild hand sign your name a second time. The difference is the “Pictorial Effect”. But QD Examiners are taught about pictorial effect and they go deeper. They look at the initial, medial, and terminal stroke of each letter, and the connections between each letter, etc. They go beyond the pictorial effect.
If a LPE has analyzed a latent image and observed the flags indicating some type of distortion then they will ignore the pictorial effect of the latent looking like a left slant loop and concentrate on specific areas that are independent of the distortion. If they have L1D in agreement then they precede down to compare the L2D.
For the two statements above I would change them to the following:
You can exclude based upon specific L1D that is free of distortion or disruptions.
You cannot always exclude based upon overall L1D.
That is the point that was trying to be made in our office that got this whole thing started.
It is not perfect so just jump in here with your 2 cents.
Someone told me that if anyone could find a specific thread on this site it would be Steve Everist. They were right. The thread is not exactly how I remember it but close enough. It also provided me with Dusty’s five types of conclusions that I have also been looking for.
First let us leave 3LD out of this discussion just for a little while.
Some LPE’s will say that you can always exclude just based upon L1D.
Some LPE’s will say that you cannot always exclude just on L1D.
When those statements are made I really think they are talking about two different things.
One is the overall L1D and the other is specific L1D.
Sandra gave a couple of good examples. A scar changing the pattern type from a loop to a whorl, or position reversal, or a latent image that appears to be a loop, but is actually a whorl but some distortion effect has made the overall latent image appear to be something that it is actually not. That is overall L1D disagreement. But when comparing the two images closer there is L2D in agreement in a specific area that is away from the distortion effect. There you have L1D agreement in that specific area along with L2D.
In Handwriting Analysis there is something that is called “pictorial effect”. An example is if you take a pen and on a piece of paper in a very slow and deliberate hand write your name in cursive. Then right below that in a very fast and wild hand sign your name a second time. The difference is the “Pictorial Effect”. But QD Examiners are taught about pictorial effect and they go deeper. They look at the initial, medial, and terminal stroke of each letter, and the connections between each letter, etc. They go beyond the pictorial effect.
If a LPE has analyzed a latent image and observed the flags indicating some type of distortion then they will ignore the pictorial effect of the latent looking like a left slant loop and concentrate on specific areas that are independent of the distortion. If they have L1D in agreement then they precede down to compare the L2D.
For the two statements above I would change them to the following:
You can exclude based upon specific L1D that is free of distortion or disruptions.
You cannot always exclude based upon overall L1D.
That is the point that was trying to be made in our office that got this whole thing started.
It is not perfect so just jump in here with your 2 cents.
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
Strict Scrutiny
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:45 pm
I am one of those who say you cannot always exclude based on L1D. I have seen examiners argue that a print lacks sufficient quality to match, yet is surely can be excluded because the pattern type is evident. My response is how do you know what you are observing is not also an effect of distortion? I never have received a satisfactory answer. I agree that if distortion is present then an the examiner must be cautious whether the pattern type is reliable (if it is so distorted that L2D is gone--why would you think L1D is any more reliable?)
My 2 cents.
My 2 cents.