Another Interesting Article

[Gerald Clough]

Les,

I'll buy that. The science or not debate is largely semantics, and your last post reduces the relevant issues to the essentials. And that is that science begins with observation and the development and testing of principles. Over a century of observation by those who observe widely and deliberately in their practice of applying what may be learned to a practical end has yielded a body of observation that not only rivals that of most other fields, but generates substantial testing of the principles. Even casting out those cases in which fingerprint evidence convicts those who never confirm the truth, we have a truly immense number of observations confirmed independent of the fingerprints. That's quite a rare thing among fields in which observation leads to theory. In that sense, the practice of latent print examination constitutes a body of scientific inquiry. That mass of expert observation in a field that depends on a growing body of knowledge that bears directly on the utility of the outcomes can hardly be other than a contribution to scientific knowledge.

While the rigorous scientist may correctly state that there is no classical proof of uniqueness (not the least reason for which being that uniqueness cannot be strictly defined), the advances in highly credible knowledge of skin development make a vast contribution to the reasonable principle that uniqueness is sufficient for identification that was drawn for those myriad observations. It is sufficiently persuasive, not only to adepts, but to laypersons who share the vast human experience of observing similar phenomena and depending upon those observations in making critical decisions.

What the critics like to ignore is that fingerprint identification is more solidly grounded in demonstrable reasoning than a number of other "sciences" upon which judges and juries depend in order to make the most grave determinations. Issues of mental retardation are literally the stuff of life and death in what are commonly called "Atkins" cases. One need read for only a short time in the literature of the experts, and especially in the works of collateral experts like Dr. Flynn*, to discover that the state of knowledge and agreement is so disordered and varied in its interpretations for different purposes that fingerprint identification appears as arid and solidly grounded as Newtonian physics. Yet the most serious decisions in law are often decided solely on the opinions of those experts (always offered in opposition - always; not sometimes).

Perhaps the best answer is we are as scientific as possible and as we need to be to serve the law and not as scientific as we will become.

*The "Flynn effect" is the principle that the "normal" IQ rises over time, and that IQ tests score must be rescaled continuously over the life of a given test. The reasons for the effect are vigorously speculated upon. Dr. Flynn, who is cautious in his speculations at to meaning and application in his scholarly writings, can appear more confident when he appears as a witness, always for the appellant who wishes his IQ score to be scaled downward.

[Big Wullie]

I must confess

I am learning vast amounts about Latent Prints on this topic.

I have no doubt you are all experts in your fields and study whatever you need to, to become a fingerprint Expert but, the science issue I am not entirley convinced of yet.

Of course Experts will always disagree even Forensic Experts and for proof of this we need only look to Omagh.

Low Copy DNA is not as convincing as one first thought and the odds are certainly lower than every one first thought too.

I am learning that obviously the ones at SCRO who said Y7 Belonged to Shirley McKie never done their jobs properly and went to court saying it was, "in our opinions" her print, They offered no explanations why they came to their decisions.

They had no convincing methods they could tell the jury, Not the Judge The jury they are the ones who decide Innocence or Guilt and they went to court saying : "In Our Opinion" whereas Pat went to court and made it plain and simple and explained why he came to his conclusion, Exactly what made him come to his conclusion and 15 members of the Jury decided Pat was right.

So why did so many at SCRO get it so badly wrong if they all applied the same methods, Principles, ACEV, techniques and or sciences ?

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Wullie, consider the act I mentioned earlier, that of balancing your checkbook. Some of us make small errors adding or subtracting during the month. The balance in our check register at the end of the month may not always match the figure in the statement sent out from the bank. When that happens, we recalculate all the way through from the beginning of the month and try to find the error. But what if a person is so stubborn that he refuses to go through his check register to find his mistake and instead simply insists that the bank computer got it wrong? In a broad sense, that is what happened at SCRO and with Peter Swann.

Gerald, as I see it, you are saying that the process of deriving the underlying theories and principles is science, but any one specific application of those theories is technical, or analytical as Charles introduced that word into the discussion. So, the guy with a PhD in the mechanics of internal combustion is a scientist when he develops a new hypothesis about how to get better gas mileage. His design and experimentation of a new automobile engine is science. But after we buy the car, the technician who tunes the engine every year or two is a technician.

I think I've chopped one heck of a fruit salad here -- checkbooks, automobile engines, and fingerprints. Oh well. "There is no perfect analogy," somebody said.

Les, you contend that if the underlying theories and principles are scientific, then the application is, too.

A friend of mine in the DNA section of the lab and I have a friendly, ongoing debate over whether fingerprint identification is science. I asked him yesterday what makes DNA science and fingerprints not, and he gave a one word answer: "Numbers." His position is that since he can calculate an objective probability of a DNA sample coming from a specific source using scientifically verifiable statistics, DNA analysis is science.

I had the honor of being a member of the original Daubert team preparing for the Byron Mitchell hearing in Philadelphia in July, 1999. US Attorney Paul Sarmousakis brought before the team the idea that, instead of defending fingerprint identification as science, we could sidestep the issue and go for admission of fingerprint evidence under Kumho Tire. In other words, we could go to court and contend exactly what Gerald proposes. We could have said we are technicians practicing in a highly technical field built on a foundation of science. The team unanimously rejected that suggestion. Mr. Sarmousakis presented the arguments that fingerprint identification is science and Judge Joyner so ruled. We have won the vast majority of cases with those arguments. I would submit that only one judge, Judge Patricia Coffey in New Hampshire, has ruled otherwise, and that is a "one off." Judge Pollock has overruled himself and the Maryland case was about simultaneous impressions, not the identification of a single fingerprint. As Dogma points out, if the courts accept fingerprint identification as science, then for the purpose of that trial, it is science.

Lots to think about here.

[Ann Horsman]

Is the human eye a scientific instrument?





What about the brain?





These are the instruments we use to determine identification or not. I believe these instruments are indeed scientific based on how they function yet they can error if our methodology is not followed. I believe the methodology was not followed for Mayfield, SCRO, etc.

[Dogma]

How can examiners come to different conclusions if they use the same data and follow the same methodology? Let’s look at some cases. In Mayfield, based on the investigation that followed, I believe that the examiners did use ACE-V. The problem was that they didn’t use good judgment. ACE-V doesn’t guard against a faulty analysis, flawed comparisons or skewed evaluations. It doesn’t guard against bias in the verification process. It is simply a model.

One Christmas season I visited the craft store and bought a nutcracker kit. I actually bought two, one for me and one for my eight year old daughter. We sat at the table one night and assembled and decorated the nutcrackers. My daughter admired my handiwork but was disappointed with her results. She wondered how, since we both built the same kits, used the same glue and the same palette of paints, could we end up with two nutcrackers that were so different?

In the case of Ken Moses, he allowed himself to be bullied into rendering a decision before he had the opportunity to examine the higher quality images he had been promised. He also saw himself as a “verifier” of the FBI’s work and not as an independent examiner who, in turn, had to have his own conclusions verified.

In the McKie case, it would seem that the SCRO examiners allowed themselves to be influenced by information unrelated to the task of examining the print. They then found a rabbit hole, jumped in one after the other and haven’t been heard from since. The only evidence of their ever existing at all was some blurred charts full of fanciful illusions that showed up at some hearing.

[Charles Parker]

Going back to the Ashton article that started this foo-fa-raw I would like to quote him from page 1.

Is what we do a science? Make no mistake, the basis for the individualization of fingerprints is founded in science. Genetics, anthropology, anatomy, and dermatology are just a few of the sciences upon which we base our work.

Again his words on page 7.

In conclusion, it is my “non-scientific” opinion that the Individualization of Fingerprint Evidence is not a Science in any way shape or form. I respect the scientific roots of the discipline and the scientific understanding that I have gained concerning the development of friction skin, however, when I sit at my desk with two fingerprints before me, it is comforting for me to know that my opinion is just that “an opinion”. It is an expression of my belief, based upon my observations and my experience and subject to peer review. It is not a statement of fact, though it may be supported by the weight of other opinions.

I agree with those two statements (mostly-a word change here or there). Ashton states that the comparison of two friction ridges is not science but goes no further to describe what it is.

In this thread I have bought up four different concepts of what the actual comparison of two friction ridges impressions might be; Artful Interpretation, Technical Procedure, Analytical Method, or Scientific Inquiry. I really believe the Artful Interpretation can be done away with. The old argument “Is It Art or Science” is not even close to being relevant in today’s discipline.

I cannot speak for Gerald but for myself I believe that sitting at my desk and pulling a latent print from the envelope and going through the process to reach a conclusion is not a technical procedure. For those that still use threshold scores to decide their conclusion, perhaps they would feel comfortable with that concept. Count the numbers and reach a conclusion. There are some who would argue that if it is not a Scientific Inquiry then it must be a Technical Procedure. I disagree as there a number of descriptions of the difference between a Technical Procedure and an Analytical Method. I would argue as strongly against the comparison of two friction ridge images to be a Technical Procedure as I would that it falls within the realm of a Scientific Inquiry. For those that might espouse that the only two avenues for Expert Testimony is a Technical Procedure or a Scientific Inquiry I would disagree. The Forensic Sciences is full of examples of testimony derived from Analytical Methods such as Drug Analysis, Blood Spatter Analysis, Ink Analysis, Toolmark Analysis, and Crime Scene Reconstruction to just name a few. Even DNA uses the term “Comparative Analysis” in some of their publications. Just do a Google search on “Analytical Methods in Forensic Science” and start reading. Be advised it will take you awhile. Even the Science of Fingerprints has its share of analysis starting with “Qualitative-Quantitative Friction Ridge Analysis”, Friction Ridge Analysis and even the beginning phase of ACE-V is analysis. Analytical Methods are not banned in the courts.

I want to thank Gerald for his description of Analysis and how it fits within the scientific community. He has articulated what I have not been able to do in the past several years. Thanks Gerald.

But this is all academic.The dye was cast in 1999 with the Mitchell case. The question was asked should it go Technical or Science and if I had been a member of that elite group I would have said “Science” if I am forced with only two choices. However I do not think it is wrong to state that the very foundation principals of friction ridge analysis that A) no two areas of friction ridge skin are duplicated in their most minute detail and B) barring serious injury they remain the same throughout ones life (Permanent and Unique)are based upon a Scientific Foundation but that the very act of comparing two friction ridge impressions is a Analytical Method (Comparative Analysis).

But the concept that the actual comparison of friction ridge skin is not based on Analytical Methods but on Scientific Inquiry is moot. Testimony in Mitchell and hundreds of cases since have proposed that the conclusion reached comes from a Scientific Inquiry. This testimony and the evidence presented have been accepted in a vast majority of those cases. To move today from our conclusions being based upon a Scientific Inquiry (i.e. The Scientific Method) to one of Comparative Analysis would simply give the critics of fingerprints additional ammunition. So a change after only 9 years is certainly not in the cards being dealt today.

However it is my personal point of view that we have reached the proverbial “A Bridge Too Far”, as we are on the opposite bank from the rest of the comparative disciplines and being hammered. The difference being is that the 101st Airborne is not crossing the river in rubber rafts to save what is left. All than can be done is to dig in and hold the ground or be demolished in the process. But we might have one weapon left to use. It is terrible and no one wants to use it. Pats DNA associate who voiced the view that science is numbers and nothing else and he might be right and numbers are the weapon that will drive the enemy back. Developing a statistical base for individualization is that weapon. Do we use it or do we not? (OK it is a lousy analogy but I like it and I am allowed one a year).

For the newbie’s as Pat said, take these ideas and concepts and research them yourselves. Discover for yourself whether you accept the concept of comparing friction ridge skin from an Analytical Methodology (Comparative Analysis), by being independent of prior bias, assessing the image in front of you as to its quality and quantity of information, comparing that information with a known sample and reaching a conclusion (based upon spatial, sequential, appearance and sufficiency of friction ridge detail) OR a Scientific Inquiry by first forming a hypothesis that the image you are about to examine will or will not belong to the subjects known prints (I have seen it written both ways), and then develop a means of testing your hypothesis to determine if is true or false.

Anyway, time to leave and conduct some more friction ridge analysis (oops friction ridge scientific inquiry).

PS Ann you can use those same instruments doing Comparative Analysis as in a Scientific Inquiry. Analytical Methods do not forbid the use of instruments.

[Ann Horsman]

PS Ann you can use those same instruments doing Comparative Analysis as in a Scientific Inquiry. Analytical Methods do not forbid the use of instruments.

Hi Charles,

I posted that because there have been people who clearly felt that since LP did not use a 'real' machine, such as a GCMS, that we did not use science to make identifications.

[Charles Parker]

Ann, you are so right. And a nice set of instruments they are as well.

Perhaps a poll would allow the "Silent Majority" speak.

[Les Bush]

Gday Pat,

The separation of latent print examination from other aspects of Fingerprint science is unnecessary since we dont separate the chemistry of our development techniques or the physics of light enhancements. I appreciate that the outcomes from latent examinations relies heavily on the expert to get it right so we have a responsibility to the courts, ourselves and the science to ensure we meet those expectations. Because there is still a transition to contemporary thinking and knowledge we will have situations where existing experts feel challenged by the science mantle. As a direction I was posting that our scientific knowledge should be on the friction skin development biology while our expertise is about how we produce outcomes in examinations. Those examinations include ten-print, scenes, photography, laboratory techniques and nafis computer.

The other question about DNA and mathematics needs to be understood for newbies that the loci used for their examinations represents a miniscule number of loci available for analysis. Consequently they use statistics and probability to bolster the significance of their findings. If they used all the DNA information as we do with all fingerprint features then their level of confidence would equate to our own. We too can produce geometric values that represent the triangulation of each fingerprint feature loci. The Metric tool was one idea as to how that can be achieved. At the end of the day we are all forensic scientists using our applied science techniques. Cheers les

[Charles Parker]

Hi All,

It has been said by our esteemed colleague from Australia that separation is unnecessary in the Science of Fingerprints. Les may be right that it is unnecessary but from my point of view it is a reality. Not one I created by the way. As with any scientific endeavor you have different aspects such as pattern interpretation, classification, automation, recording, techniques of latent print development, crime scene application, photography, preservation, friction ridge analysis, public speaking, court testimony, certification where some are and some are not, accreditation where some are and some are not, and probably several more that I have left out. They are separated by their different tasks and the skill set necessary to achieve their stated outcome. They will remain separated unless one thinks that recording; pattern interpretation and latent print development are scientific inquiries and must follow The Scientific Method to produce the results they do. I will go even further and say that the chemistry of our development techniques is separated by their specialty. Are they separated into a physical, chemical, dye and mechanical techniques? Are they separated into the surfaces they are developed to work on? Are they separated by the skill set, knowledge and ability to apply these techniques?

Our honorable member from Australia has stated that:

I appreciate that the outcomes from latent examinations relies heavily on the expert to get it right so we have a responsibility to the courts, ourselves and the science to ensure we meet those expectations.

A truer statement I cannot fathom and one which I agree most with. We most assuredly have the responsibility to get it right and get it right every time.

I agree 100% as others do that the Science of Friction Ridge Skin is an applied science. I have been arguing that it is since 1979. I argued against those that said it was partly an art form. I rejected that back then and I reject it today. The Science of Friction Ridge Skin is a body of knowledge that like a diamond has many facets of which contain management issues, training issues, Criminal Justice Information issues, Crime Scene and Investigation issues, and all the aspects that I listed in the first paragraph plus Scientific Inquiry such as research and experimentation in friction ridge formation the cause and effect of distortion, the enhancement of automation features, the use of statistical studies, and the effects of bias in our examinations. All of those I welcome, but they have the responsibility to get it right. For those in the facet of Scientific Inquiry or the expansion and addition to the body of knowledge known as The Science of Friction Ridge Skin, I say The Scientific Method is very appropriate. The Scientific Method is a tool of science, and a very specialized tool that is geared to expand the body of knowledge of that particular field. Like any tool it is not appropriate for some other tasks that encompass the body of knowledge that a different tool has been designed to do.

Our esteemed and knowledgeable associate from down under stated

Because there is still a transition to contemporary thinking and knowledge we will have situations where existing experts feel challenged by the science mantle.

I will not offer my thoughts on what is or what is not contemporary thinking and knowledge as it will take me into the wee hours of the morning. Since it is such a subjective topic I will leave it to the readers of this post or philosophers of science to delve into that subject and decide for themselves.

When I graduated from High School my SAT (or ACT cannot remember) was the highest in science. I started college with science in mind and have always loved the topic as well as logic and the philosophy of science. A temporary change in my life made my degree plans to switch from science to law enforcement. But I still had enough science hours to get a BS degree from the University of Maryland. Do I feel challenged by the mantle of science? If I was a scientist I would have to say that might be a possibility. But I would hope that the scientist might at least consider that there are some other possibilities such as that person is not afraid but just does not have a grip on the concepts, or that person is not afraid but is just dumber than snow, or that person is not afraid but just does not agree with what is being said. There may be even other possibilities that a scientist would explore. But to arrive at a conclusion that a person is afraid of the mantle of science from the postings on a forum is not very scientific. But it is human nature that those that do not agree with our beliefs or less than ourselves. It is said that the sign of an open mind is someone who can argue both sides of an issue equally well. I have read that Benjamin Franklin was such a person. I never met the man nor have I ever met someone who I thought had an open mind. For someone to argue both sides of an issue equally well they must be very knowledgeable on the issues of both sides. It would be fantastic to meet someone of such caliber. I on the other hand succumb to the frailties of human nature and associate myself with those that have similar beliefs as I. I fully realize that is not a good thing and on occasions try to elevate myself to engage with those that have different beliefs. Too brief an engagement sometimes I must confess. I personally do not believe I am afraid of the mantle of science. I believe I actually embrace it. What I am afraid of is those that I perceive follow the mantle of Scientific Imperialism of which use I define as:

The tendency to push a good scientific idea far beyond the domain in which it was originally introduced, and often far beyond the domain in which it can provide much illumination." (John Dupré, Against Scientific Imperialism, 2006) Scientific imperialism can thus describe an attitude towards knowledge in which the beliefs and methods of science are assumed to be superior to, and to take precedence over, those of all other disciplines.

At one time I embraced like a long lost brother the concept of ACE-V. I preached it a lot, I wrote SOP’s based upon it, voted on it in SWGFAST, and looked forward to its growth and acceptance in the Science of Friction Ridge Skin. I can remember as I talked about it others joked and said things like “hey, I think I have a latent here with 4th and 5th level detail” and jokes were made about ridgeology. I practiced ACE-V and encouraged it until the articles and publications started that equated it with The Scientific Method. I thought that does not sound right, but surely I must be wrong as these are smart people. I then started reading and learned things that I had forgotten and learned new things that I did not know. I slowly began to realize and believe that it was not part of the very defining role in the evaluation and comparison of latent prints. It is great for research and experimentation of that I have no doubt but in the use of it for reaching a conclusion that two friction ridge images may or may not be from the same source I have to say that it is far from the domain from which it was originally intended. I am in fact a non-believer that ACE-V is a form of TSM. If you believe that puts me in the category of being afraid or too complicated for me to understand or that I am dumber than snow, then so be it for I am not responsible for your beliefs I am only responsible for my own.

I am not as good of a writer as Gerald and Kasey are. I wish I was and I keep trying. I have to admit that Gerald, Kasey and some others have written pieces that have actually changed my perspective. That is a comfort to me to know that my feet are not permanently planted in concrete and that if the right reasoning comes along I am capable of changing my mind. Not good for my ego maybe but certainly good for my soul.

I think this topic is pretty well exhausted and so am I.