Simultaneous Impressions

[Charles Parker]

I am finally getting caught up on my reading and one of the items I am currently pondering over is the SWGFAST document “Standards for Latent Print Examinations Involving Two or More Friction Ridge Impressions as a Simultaneous Impression”. This is currently a “Draft for Comment” that I believe may expire in April when SWGFAST meets.

First a disclaimer: I have not completed reading this document as I am digesting it a piece at a time.

Second a bit of praise as this document contains clips and photos of what the discussion is about in the standard. Also there are citations or references at the end of the document. I think this is a step in the right direction and applaud SWGFAST for moving in that direction.

On the first page of the document it states “The SWGFAST Glossary defines a simultaneous impression as “Two or more friction ridge impressions from the same hand or foot deposited concurrently.” Now I looked in their “Consolidated Glossary” and I cannot find SIMULTANEOUS IMPRESSION anywhere. Now there might be another SWGFAST Glossary somewhere, but it is not posted on their website. Having worked on that committee it may be that simultaneous impression was defined earlier but when they went with the consolidated glossary over the topic specific glossary, SWGFAST deleted a number of words (thinned the glossary down a bit). If they want to define it great, but saying it is in their glossary when it is not raises my eyebrows a little. However that is a minor thing.

The other thing I noticed is are Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. Here is a description of the figures.

Figure 1—Simultaneous impression across two surfaces (torn piece of paper)
Figure 2—Simultaneous impression with void due to substrate gap (shape of the revolver)
Figure 3—Simultaneous impression across a semiporous surface (label) and a nonporous surface (plastic). [In essence a print that is part on a bottle label and part on the bottle]
Figure 4—Simultaneous impression across two pieces of paper.

Now did I miss the boat? From my POV those type of impressions have not been considered simultaneous impressions but are single impressions. Yes Figure 3 is on two different substrates but on the same item.

Does this mean that if I have a print on a shattered window glass because of the breakage in the glass I am dealing with a simultaneous impression? If I have a latent impression on a piece of glass where a shoeprint has stepped on it does that move it from a single impression to a simultaneous impression once the shoe makes contact? Does this mean if a crime scene person is holding a piece of glass with a single print and it accidentally breaks that it moves from a single impression to a simultaneous impression?

From my POV a simultaneous impression was an issue of contact from adjoining fingers or areas and was not used to define a single impression that had congruity of ridge flow.

Is this what the majority of SWGFAST members have called simultaneous impressions? Is this what most of the examiners in the discipline would call a simultaneous impression?

From my POV they are single impressions and should not be called simultaneous impressions just because part of the impressions lays part on the glass of a beer bottle and part on the label of the beer bottle and they are JOINED by ridge flow?

However in all honesty if you take their definition it could literally mean simultaneous, but is that what the majority of those practicing in latent prints would call simultaneous? From my POV I do not think so.

I urge the readers to go to the SWGFAST Website and look at figures 1-4. If you consider those latent impressions as simultaneous impressions then contact SWGFAST and say “Way to Go”. If those are not what you would consider simultaneous then contact SWGFAST and say “Whoa, wait a minute----those are not considered simultaneous impressions in my neck of the woods”.

Time is running short for this Draft for Comment. If the majority of those practicing LPE say those are simultaneous impressions especially in light of the ruling against simultaneous impressions in Massachusetts I might hesitate to call a single impression a simultaneous impression?

Your thoughts and ideas on figures 1-4 of the SWGFAST document dealing with Simultaneous Impressions would be appreciated. Maybe I just missed that part of my training.

Besides was there not a move to change the wording from Simultaneous Impressions to Clusters?

[Gerald Clough]

Yeah. On first look, I was ready to leap on board with you, thinking the first illustrations weren't at all what I was thinking of. I wrote a good bit of my response before I turned back. On reflection, I think Figures 1-4 do fit, but they take one aback because they appear to represent a particular subset of simultaneous impressions.

I read the issue of simultaneous impressions to be, in plain language, when impressions of two or more portions of friction ridge skin can be shown to have been deposited in the same instant of contact with a hand or foot. Interpretation is required, either because there is a gap in continuity in the hand or foot impression or because the impression lies across a discontinuous substrate. We tend to think mainly about things like two or more finger impressions of the sort shown in the later illustrations. But the discontinuity in substrate requires a similar analysis, only now including analysis of the physical nature of the substrate(s). Is that a single finger on paper that was later torn or just a visual coincidence? Is it a single finger on a substrate like the pistol with valleys that caused the discontinuity or the product of multiple contacts? Is it a single palm impression on glass that was later broken or another visual coincidence?

The one on the beer bottle is there, I think, to illustrate one class of simultaneous impression, and it's easy to analyze, but analysis is still required. They could have made it more ambiguous, but, if you think about it, if they had made it open to another interpretation, it wouldn't then be demonstrably a simultaneous impression. The key is that it is a discontinuous substrate. Not one that would bother you much, but representative of a class of situation that could be a problem.

I think your situation of a print on broken window glass is indeed a simultaneous impression. Being broken glass, the analysis is greatly aided by being able to make a physical reconstruction of the substrate, but it qualifies. It's a broken substrate, and we still have to show up why we take it to be one impression. The glass with the shoe print would not normally be a simultaneous impression. It might be an analysis problem if the features of the shoe confused some fingerprint features, but it's not two skin impressions. A technician breaking a piece of glass would also, I think, create a simultaneous impression situation for the examiner. But not a difficult one.

I think they are trying to address simultaneous impressions in a way that covers all those situations in which a certain type of analysis is needed. Some of those situations do not require a great deal of additional consideration in analysis. Some of them, the ones we worry about most, do. But they're all situations that should be addressed in the examination.

They should have included situations like Figures 1-4 in the Determination of Value section and some of the classic type of the later figures in the earlier section. If you're going to use illustrations to support difficult language, the illustrations ought to help, not confuse. All in all, though, they did a whole lot better job of addressing the issue in a definitive way than I would have done.

[Michele]

Inherently, I tend to agree with Charles but I understand what Gerald is saying and I think his points are all valid. I think of these types of examples as different parts of a single impression, not as multiple impressions deposited in one touch.….but I guess it’s all in how you define the words.

I thought this was interesting:

Before conducting a forensic case examination of a simultaneous impression, examiners shall have completed training in the examination of latent print simultaneous impressions. 1

1) Ashbaugh, D. R. Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction to
Basic and Advanced Ridgeology. CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, 1999, 134-135.

I like the idea behind this but it’s very vague. Does any training on this topic exist right now? Is watching a presentation considered training? Without clearer expectations, I think this is self-evident and should be left out of the document (just my opinion).

[Charles Parker]

Brother Gerald, I hope you have been fine. Everything here is pretty good. Lots of work though!

I see your point which is based upon their definition of simultaneous impressions. It seems to me they constructed the definition and then everything that would fit in the box, they threw it in.

Interpretation is required, either because there is a gap in continuity in the hand or foot impression or because the impression lies across a discontinuous substrate.

As I understand it then a simultaneous impression is any impression where there is a discontinuity in the substrate. Does that only apply to the substrate or would it also apply to a discontinuity of the ridge flow, or how about discontinuity of the matrix (moving from blood to perspiration)?

Let us take another look at their definition: SIMULTANEOUS IMPRESSION—TWO OR MORE FRICTION RIDGE IMPRESSIONS FROM THE SAME HAND OR FOOT DEPOSITED CONCURRENTLY.

Now if Figure 2 fits that definition because there is a gap on the cylinder of the revolver and Figure 3 because the impressions shares a porous label and a plastic surface, surely it can be used to describe an impression that is comprised of two different types of matrix or there is damage to an area of the impression that leaves two separate areas with a void in the middle (latent print on glass with a shoeprint on top).

My whole point of this is that I do not think that most LPE out there would consider Figures 1-4 as simultaneous impressions. Now if I am wrong please correct me and I will change the way I think about simultaneous impressions over single impressions. To me they are single impressions that were made on different substrates or separated by a void. I also do not think they fit their own definition by being Two Or More Friction Ridge Impressions----To me that goes to what would normally be considered two or more impressions.

Look at it this way. I have a latent print on a beer bottle and the impressions is part on the label and part on the glass of the bottle and it has been identified with the left index finger of Chuckie Boy. Now am I going to say somewhere that I compared the Simultaneous Impression on the beer bottle with the single impression of the left index on the fingerprint card associated with Chuckie Boy.

Simultaneous---More than one impression of friction ridge detail as it would normally appear on an exemplar card (I am not offering this as a definition but an explanation of simultaneous impressions).

Now I have not looked up all the citations they quoted (I am working on it), but I have yet to find one that even indicates figures 2 and 3 to be considered as simultaneous.

Please forgive me but I am a little nervous calling something simultaneous impression that was previously considered as a single impression especially since Patterson. Where are the studies on dealing with simultaneous impressions besides the one John Black did. Now I understand that Patterson was more into accumulative weight and not simultaneous, but that word was used in court (you can only use accumulative weight if you can show simultaneous anyway).

But Brother Gerald, you did make a good point and if they stick with the definition and this document then I am just going to have to change my way of thinking and alter the teaching that if a latent impression does not have continuity then it should be considered as a simultaneous impression (GIHT). Besides you taught me before that it is not what I think but what the people who pay me think----I remember that---You got me good. I could not argue with that logic.

Take care Brother.

Michele, thanks for the quote. I blew right past that one on my first reading. Kind of confusing is right. I guess since I have never attended training on simultaneous impressions, I cannot conduct simultaneous friction ridge examinations. Did I not read somewhere else that that friction ridges from the fingers, palms and soles of the feet are similar and that if one is trained on the examination of the friction ridges on the fingers one could also examine the friction ridges of the palm of the hand or sole of the feet. I need to try to find that.

Well since you need training in simultaneous impressions to conduct simultaneous examinations would it not only follow that before you can conduct palm impressions you would need to attend RSA palm print classes? Who knows where one could get training on bare footprint examinations!

Yes I think their statement needs some clarification.

But I do think SWGFAST is doing well with the clips, photos, and citations. A step in the right direction! I also think this is a tough subject to write standards on and it might take a couple of more attempts. I have not finished reading it yet.

[Gerald Clough]

I completely agree that the broken substrate examples are not what most examiners would have included as simultaneous impressions. I think the point was that they require the same sort of analysis and have to stand up to the same kind of challenges. I think that at some point in the whole range of latent impressions that can be found, they tried to drawn a line and decide what was adequately addressed in the general standards and what would fall within the special case of simultaneous. I've been struggling with something similar in working on a physical evidence field handbook. What goes with what? Do I address it thoroughly in one section on account of what is deposited or in another on account of how it's deposited or its analytical value? If I break down into too many specific cases, it's hard to reference. If it's too broad, it's hard to address clearly. I think I'm okay with what they did here, because when they promulgate a standard, the standard can be used to judge the reliability of conclusions. And since I've been working almost exclusively in appeals, I've come to have a much deeper appreciation of how much impact various standards can have on all sorts of practices.

It's sure worth everyone contributing their comments to the SWG. Since they make it reasonably clear what's going in the pot as simultaneous impressions and including the reference to training, reports and testimony on latents that fit are subject to being evaluated as to whether the requirements of the standard can be articulated. So it's something of a big deal when it covers things not otherwise thought about as simultaneous. It would seem that some were thinking of them as simultaneous, or they would have crafted a definition that excluded them. On the other hand, Charles, they might have done just as you say, started with the definition and looked at everything it described.

I don't think there's a problem with their beer bottle example in the text. I think they confused the issue by saying there were prints on the paper and on the glass, when the point was really that there are three finger impressions on the bottle. I'm at a loss as to why they threw in the paper/glass label. It didn't contribute to it being simultaneous impressions and was confusing, unless I'm off on what they're getting at. Your example of one print across the label and glass is still a plain, single impression. Figure 3 is unrelated to this example. It merely shows that they include impressions across two overlapped substrates of different types and impressions across overlapped substrates of the same type.

And thanks for asking. Things are going well here. Not much actual latent examination, and what there is is likely to be pretty straighforward, along the lines of ID falsification. I'll get by and see you sometime.

[Charles Parker]

Brother Gerald, I have been thinking about what you have posted and you maybe right. They are simply trying to set new standards for the discipline.

Simultaneous for some of those situations kind of fooled me but if you think about it, every latent print is really simultaneous. I mean if you have a single latent print did not the top and bottom of it make simultaneous contact.

Maybe do away with the concept of a single print and consider all prints as simultaneous.

I still like Mr. Ashbaugh's description of cluster. I always thought that was a proper way to go. Apparently SWGFAST did not.

Second---Trying to set up a new standard makes sense. Not too many people jumped in on this one, so I guess they are OK with it. Shucks the Captain Crunch thread and this one went up about the same time and there are a number of more visit hits on the Capt. Crunch thread.

That could be a sign. All future documents for comments should be posted on a cereal box.

Or it could be like Michele said in that there are people that post and there are those that disdain those that do. I would put a 3rd group in that a number of LPE have just quit coming to this message board.

I am out of here---time to go home and watch LOST. Take care Brother.

[Amy Hart]

I guess I ignored those examples of simultaneous impressions, because to me, they were all kind of silly. It's not likely that I will associate torn pieces of paper, as I will probably get them out of context. A print on a revolver with a void in the middle is no different to me than a print on any other surface that has a drag mark (or piece of dirt, whatever you like) through the middle of it. A print on a label and on the surface to which the label is applied should have enough continuity in the ridge detail so that no one would question that it's all part of the same print. And two separate pieces of paper? Again, when I get them, they will be out of context, since I don't collect the evidence myself. It's not that likely that I would be able to associate them - other than in an "Isn't this curious?" sort of way.

My issue with the SWGFAST draft is in either the title or the rules starting in section 5. SWGFAST is creating a standard, and in this standard are rules for how a comparison should be documented. It also encompasses a standard on reporting conclusions. I'm sure that these standards will be incorporated into all comparisons (not just simultaneous impressions), and I don't agree with the method. I believe it's cumbersome and inefficient. As I think of the many lovely cases I have worked in my lifetime, it would not have been possible for me to meet the standards set forth in this document. For example, SWGFAST wants me to write "inc" on my lift/photo/legible copy when I have an inconclusive result. So, in the case where I had 47 suspects, where was I supposed to write the names of the 25 people that I could neither identify nor eliminate? They're in my notes - why do they need to be on the lift/photo/legible copy? And that's just a matter of practicality. I don't even want to get into the philosophy issues involved - none of the agencies understand my reports when I put things in the simplest terms. If I were to start throwing in latent print jargon, I would spend all my time explaining any report that I had the good fortune to actually produce.

I really think SWGFAST is overstepping in this document. It should either become a guideline, like most of their other publications, or it should remove any references to documentation and reporting. I don't know who wrote these sections, but it seems to me that they don't work in a high volume setting with lots of processing and a 7 month backlog. If these standards are adopted, I will never finish working another case.

[Gerald Clough]

The SWGFAST documents don't speak to the intended difference between standards and guidelines, but I think we can fall back on the common definitions, and the upshot of those is that guidelines are, in instances such as this, intended to provide guidance in setting standards. Basically, defining the goals of a subsequent standard.

We should remember that standards aren't just in place to get everyone on the same page or to enforce a common practice. Standards can also legitimize a process, providing a reference to counter a claim that some process is...well... non-standard. Among the relevant meanings of "standard" are "an approved model" and "something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence." And, of course, a standard has to be standard, either by virtue of a high uniformity of practice within a field where anything much different simply isn't reliable or by virtue of an authority that defines the standard. The latter is the case where there is need to urge a standard practice that does not exist.

All of those things are at work in this case. Recognizing and validating the reliance on simultaneous impressions and their potentials and limits is certainly, I think, an important reason for this effort. I don't think any scientific process can be considered credible without recognized standards. But, unless a standard is either codified in law or in specific requirements to adhere to it as a requirement of licensure or certification, it certainly isn't absolutely binding, nor does it automatically render any other procedure unreliable. Otherwise, no new standards would ever evolve. It does, though, expose divergence from the standard to demands to explain and validate the alternate practice. How materials are marked up is, I think, rather unimportant divergence, so long as the same information is available.

Another goal of some standards is simply to provide some commonality among practitioners, so that their peers can evaluate the product.

One argument I am very hesitant to accept is the plea that the volume of work precludes the standard. That's not just in this field. It may be literally true, but most often the fault is not in the standard but in the resources provided to carry out the work. That, too, is a motivation for standard practices, to urge the provision of enough resources to meet a high standard in critical missions.

I have, though, not worked in a high-volume latent print operation, but I fully understand the need for great efficiency. I have, however, been in official critical-mission operations for more than thirty years, and I've suffered through a great many advances in standards of all kinds that strained or exceeded the resources available. In every case, the eventual response was to build up the resources. I can't, offhand, think of any instance when the lack of resources got us off the hook on the standard.

You may be right. They should carefully consider, not the ideal unit, but what is typical, and perhaps advance the practice through guidelines or, as you suggest, reform the documentation portion as a guide, suggestions as to how documentation might be done consistent with the examination process. The analytical and comparison processes are at the core of validating the proper use of simultaneous impressions, and that is where standards have the most value.

[Amy Hart]

Please don't get me wrong - I am a huge fan of standards. I spent my entire formative years in latent prints asking my trainers how I would know that something was suitable. In essence, I was asking for standards (which no one would ever give me).

However, standards become binding whether that is the intent or not. We do have to explain why we deviate from a standard. When a standard for documentation and reporting of simulateneous impressions is accepted, it will logically follow that all comparisons and reports should follow those standards.

I guess I'll have to get into the philosophy. I don't agree with marking out the 2nd level detail on my lift. That's not all the information I use. It doesn't even come close to explaining my thought process when I do a comparison. For instance, it will not tell you that, today, I used the focus group of 2nd level detail off the core to begin, and then worked my way around the print until I reached the scar formation near the tip. It also doesn't tell you that, yesterday, I used a focus group near the delta to work my way around the print to get back to the core. These are some mental exercises I do to try to make sure I'm not making up information to suit a foregone conclusion (i.e. to try to eliminate bias). I think the documentation standards were written to try to preempt challenges from courts and defense attorneys. I think it just creates a new set of obstacles, where we find ourselves inadvertently led back to a point standard.

Also, as far as the reporting of simultaneous impressions is concerned, I was taught to avoid jargon whenever possible when writing. If your audience is familiar with your terminology, that's one thing. If they are not (and investigators who deal with way more information than just the latent print evidence are probably not up on all the latent print terminology), when you use jargon, you simply confuse the issue. As in newspapers, in lab reports to users outside the laboratory, you should be writing to the median capability of your intended audience. I would prefer to save the specific descriptions for conversations where I can demonstrate my meaning in words (probably many different explanations) and pictures/live demonstrations.

On top of everything else, we rarely go to court in my area. Most of the time, we go to court for negative testimony (why it is possible to touch an item and not leave prints). I work about 200 cases a year and testify maybe 4 times a year (in a really busy year). It seems like an inefficient use of my time to prepare for a court challenge that is statistically unlikely to happen to me.

As far as I am concerned (any maybe I'm just being stubborn), if someone wants to question my comparison or ID, take the lift/photo/legible copy and the standard and compare it yourself. Then question me about every portion of the print. If I cannot argue for identification in a satisfactory manner, then I have a problem. But the problem is not in my method, it's either in my conclusion or in my argument.

I guess it also comes down to this small factor - I've spent my whole working career learning that nobody really wants to know what I think, so it seems like a huge waste of time to write it down!

{Added note: There is an argument for resources determining standards. In my experience, when the turnaround time on cases becomes too large, agencies simply stop submitting cases. To them, it's not worth the wait. That has the beneficial effect of decreasing the backlog, but there are no additional resources added. Administrators then do not see any need for additional personnel to solve situations that appear to solve themselves. This is especially true when, as in my system, the budget gets cut every year.}

[Gerald Clough]

I, too, worked where trials were pretty infrequent, and when they did involve latent prints, the defense theories were absurd, verging on the space alien put it there kind of argument. It was a small agency, small enough that latent work was only incidental to my primary assignment, which meant that I could take pretty much as long as I wanted to mess with elaborate documentation and reporting. We're in a discipline that sometimes has a hard time with budget. Serology can say, look, the technology is scientifically outdated and needs replacing, and a process takes pretty much precisely this much time, and we get this many cases - do the math, and pay up. With latent, they can say, look faster.

It's not exactly jargon, but I had the same problem interpreting DNA reports as I guess officers have with latent reports. One of the serologists worked up a kind of DNA Results For Dumb Officers to cut down on the "what does this mean?" calls. (I did that for the prosecutors for latent results, not that anyone on the defense knew a fingerprint from a football.)

Come to think of it, maybe while they're working on standards, they could work up a standard for the number of LPE's per annual caseload. It kind of works for officers per thousand population numbers.

[L.J.Steele]

I, too, worked where trials were pretty infrequent, and when they did involve latent prints, the defense theories were absurd, verging on the space alien put it there kind of argument.

A few years back, I ran across an Arizona case, State v. Moody, 192 Ariz. 505, 509, 968 P.2d 578, 582 (1998). The Defendant wanted to raise the claim that "his participation in the crimes was involuntary because aliens took control of his body and made him kill Michelle Malone and Patricia Magda, rendering Moody a mere unconscious observer of the murders." His attorney refused to investigate the claim and was allowed to withdraw. Moody tried the case himself on the above theory. He was convicted on both counts and was sentenced to death after an aggravation and mitigation hearing.

His conviction was vacated and he was sent back for a new trial with a new attorney. Part of the decision said that "part of the conflict between Grills and Moody stemmed from the latter's insistence on the "alien defense theory," his lawyer's reluctance to espouse it, and the trial Judge's refusal to allow witnesses in support of it. While this conflict might be present regardless of who represented Moody, new counsel "may [have been] more successful at persuading the client to follow a different course of action."

[Pat W. may recall the Moody case -- it came up in his neck of Ariz.]

[Charles Parker]

Hey it could happen. Ailen mind control. With some people I know I would swear that is what has happened.

[Charles Parker]

Well SWGFAST just finished their meeting and I am curious did they pass on Simultaneous Thing or is it still going to hang out there until their meeting after the IAI meeting.

Is SWGFAST planning on opening this one up for discussion at Louisville?