I agree that the phrase could well lead to the notion that you're trying to convey that "It might be him, but the rules won't let me say it." How do you convey the results to the investigators in a way that makes it clear what you mean? Almost any check box sort of phrase might be misinterpreted. When I was with a very small agency, it was easy to explain face-to-face, and the low volume (latent work was only a part of my job) let me do my report in narrative. I'm thinking about cases in large state labs working for many outside agencies. I'm wondering how often the investigator is unaware of the exclusion value. There's a strong tendency to drop unproductive leads and evidence out of the investigation, and an examiner's report that there's no match feels like just another lead that didn't go anywhere. Careless wording can result in the latent never being resubmitted when another suspect is identified, when the latent, while not containing sufficient characteristics to identify or Level I only, might well address exclusion.Dennis Degler wrote: I don't like 'unsuitable for identification' because it leaves the question of whether or not the latent might be used to exclude. And I really prefer never to use the phrase: "[the suspect] cannot be identified nor excluded . . . " because I think that sounds suspiciously like "we almost have him identified but we're not 100% certain".
Certain ones I know would rather call the latent unsuitable in every case where it couldn't be identified, with no thought of using it to exclude a person, and I don't agree with that. If a person is on trial, for example, I think the jury ought to know, not just the fact that the latent print found at the scene of the crime could not be identified, but also that it could not possibly have been made by the defendant.
There is a tendency among analysts of most forensic fields to try to reduce conclusions to such terse phrasing that some of the value of the evidence is lost or the meaning confused. We see that in DNA reports. The results are numerical and don't always mean what they should to the lay reader.
I sometimes think many kinds of results should go out with a pre-printed briefing on how to interpret the results. You can get this from the state DNA lab, for instance, IF you ask for it, since one of their people had put it together to answer inquiries. Since probability isn't taught in many police courses (and is seldom enough exposed in high school and college) an explanation is necessary to interpret results.
It's important that when we craft reporting phrases that we are responding to real limits on our time, on our need for efficient reporting, and not being lazy or wanting to just sound scientific.
