Fingerprint Dogma Final Exam

[Guest]

<snip>
I just don't think it's about objectivity (at this stage - maybe you can convince me?)

I'm strongly inclined to agree. Whether we talk about analysis or evaluation, and whether or not we agree on the terms, objective and subjective, any number of decisions during the process of a non-trivial comparison require judgments. Even the decision of how many judgments were resolved to sufficient degrees of confidence to justify a positve conclusion is itself a judgment.

Factors affecting each decision may be numerous and the number of possible permutations of factors and their relative weights could be imagined to be quite large. And those factors must, as Glenn remarked, include personality - and I would add its close associate, culture.

Now, I do not believe lively discussion of objectivity and subjectivity and such are to no point. These are issues that should be part of an examiner's training, because they encourage thoughful reflection on the process and because the terms are used with various implications in common speech, and those implications may arise in court. But I make a distinction between seeking the prevention, detection and redress of error in the practical realm of serious consequence for an accused and the philosophy of process aimed at improving the consistent reliability of the discipline.

I make this distinction because I think we must recognize that there is no degree of training, no definition of procedure and no accountability that can entirely assure that no erroneous conclusion can reach a courtroom. That said, I believe I will begin a new thread with some questions I would like to ask.

[G. Clough]

That's me above as Guest. I moved to the home computer and apparently don't have the right cookies set to automate my ID here, and the system won't send my password reminder to my home email.

Gerald Clough

[Guest]

[Shaheen]

If you can explain what you based your conclusions on, then it is easily going to be an objective assessment. But that is not to say that two practitioners with opposite conclusions didn't both base their results on an objective assessment.

Shaheen. Thanks for the thoughful response. If I am understanding you, then it is in how you define subjective/objective (and ACE for that matter). Interesting. Well then yes, I think we probably have different definitions and can academically agree to disagree. But it has made me think. As I said before though, and as one guest mentioned too, that until the profession develops standard criteria for Decision XYZ in any stage, by my definition it would have the aspect of subjectivity, but I am fine with that.

I think also, and this may be from the necessity of courtroom testimony, that if I were to get into attempting to define subjectivity/objectivity using your definitions, it may fall flat to an astute defense atty or jury. I would rather just be transparent and address the issue. I think if done clearly and concisely, with proper analogies such as doctor's opinions, etc. they will get it and not feel that I am being evasive of the point.

Secondly, I am not familiar with your thesis project ("Standard Fingerprint" project). Have you posted info about this on the site, or can share with us? Thank-you.

[Gerald] I would agree with your comments esp. those re: training, etc.
Also, I hadn't considered "personality's close associate": culture. That's an excellent point. ANd not just culture in social aspect, but culture of training, culture of mentality, culture of excellence/motivation v. culture of apathy and laziness, culture of minutiae based examinations v. culture of ridgeology, etc. Yes, I am strongly inclined to degree. If I end up using the word "culture" in my papers, I will have to give you credit.

Thanks,

g.

[Dogma (formerly Guest)]

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this string and the other postings I made on the forum. The numbers show that the subject matter was provocative, if nothing else. As I have written previously, there were no knock out punches. However, some of your responses have allowed me (and others) to see things anew and perhaps regain control of the argument regarding what the fingerprint discipline is and what it is not. We have seen academicians and lawyers ram our square peg into the round hole of their liking. (Don’t get Freudian on me, now)

We practitioners have a lot of work to do. We are criticized for a lack of standards. Some of that is misplaced. There are standards for methodology and conclusions. Where we are lacking is in standards for training and proficiency. Guidelines may exist but are unenforceable. There was a time when just about everyone received the same type of training. Unfortunately, those options are no longer available. Those of us who work in accredited labs where examiners must meet minimum qualifications and are routinely tested are not the problem. Those of us who are working outside the accredited arena, but voluntarily submit to testing and certification, are not the problem. If you are one of those that think that all is okay because “we’ve done it like this for twenty years and never had a problem” guess what: you are part of the problem.

Not all of this is our fault as examiners. A lot of the blame goes to employing agencies who want the work done but are unprepared to dedicate the resources necessary to do it right. Some blame goes to judges who failed in their gate keeper roles: not in keeping the science out but in keeping the unqualified examiners out. And some blame has to attach to certain attorneys who continue to attack the fingerprint discipline because their client was falsely convicted but fail to acknowledge that their client was freed because competent examiners revealed the error (Jackson/Upper Darby, PA; Mayfield). From listening to the lawyers you would think that Stephan Cowans of Boston won his freedom solely on DNA evidence when in fact DNA testing opened the door to a re-examination of the fingerprint evidence. It was not until a competent examiner revealed the fraudulent claim of a match that the DA moved to dismiss the charges. The following excerpt is from the Innocence Project web page: “After reviewing the DNA test results, the Suffolk County District Attorney re-analyzed the fingerprint that had been used to convict Cowans. This re-examination showed that the fingerprint did not actually belong to Cowans.” Of course the fact that the officer who was shot identified Cowans as the assailant didn’t help matters.

Let’s not ignore academia. We have those who say one thing when addressing forensic practitioners and something else when speaking to a group of lawyers. Some have found a convenient career accelerator attacking our profession although they have never practiced or received training in what we do. And, of course, we must recognize those that continue to spout the same old line although the courts continue to reject their reasoning. I suppose that if a lie is repeated often enough it will eventually cross the line to acceptance. None of these learned individuals has bothered to actually test their theories about the discipline they criticize. They tell the courts that testing needs to be done. But they won’t do it. Why? Because their doubts will be disproved and they will have to look elsewhere to advance their careers. I wonder if they will offer refunds to those who purchased their books full of misconceptions.

And of course we share the blame. The participants in Mayfield went through structured training and proficiency testing and some, certification. Part of the error may have been bias. Part may be due to the defense expert rendering a conclusion before doing a complete examination. In the Jackson case, the defense expert, a certified examiner, may have acted as a rubber stamp for the local police examiners. And so it goes.

I think this string has gone as far as it can. It’s time to move on. I may return at sometime, perhaps in another incarnation. To those who were afraid to respond to an anonymous post, all I can say is: BOO! To those who took up the challenge and saw an opportunity to think through some of the dilemmas that confront us, I offer my heartfelt thanks.

Best wishes to all for the upcoming holiday season.

[Shaheen]

Just a quick reply to Glenn and Gerald,

Glenn, I can see how this discussion would not go so well during courtroom testimony, and I understand how you arrive at your description of objectivity and the ACE-V method. I think there is no "wrong" or "right" answer here as the waters are very muddy.

Gerald - I also agree with your observation of culture as a contributing factor in the ability of practitioners. I would like to add to this by mentioning that I worked on a casual basis for a document examiner for around a year, and he had noticed that in comparing the three work-experience students (all were final year undergraduate at the time of their employment) that two (both females) were very fast learners, were able to decode complex signatures very quickly, and completed their work load in half the time of the other student with high accuracy (the other was a male). While I don't believe that gender really affects this, the document examiner noted that the girls were heavily involved in sporting activities during their spare time, and the male was quite the opposite.

So maybe engaging in sports can speed up evaluation and decision-making activities, and this spills over to the ability to make comparisons.

On another note, my project is aimed at developing a "standard fingerprint" for ascertaining the efficacy of chemical reagents used to develop fingerprints, prior to their use on actual casework items. It is proving to be a great challenge and hopefully I can complete this by early 2007. If you are interested in this further, please email me at shaheen.aumeer@uts.edu.au and I will be happy to discuss this with you.

Shaheen

[g.]

Shaheen:

So maybe engaging in sports can speed up evaluation and decision-making activities, and this spills over to the ability to make comparisons.

Shaheen, just a note. I too have seen this effect, but it wasn't so much sports, as a competitive personality. Teaching a course now for latent print examiners (the Wertheims' RSW course), I have had the experience of seeing (especially trainees) become very competitive to "beat the others" out and rush to get "on-line" (do their own casework). Partly it seems to be the excitement of wanting to become independent, and partly it is a competitive nature. This I have found to be a fascinating aspect of "personality" when it creeps into one's work product. (I am guilty of it too as I can be terribly competitive and have felt this pressure at times: i.e. do a lot of cases this month, finish an assignment first, complete research before a competitor, and so forth).

As a side note, as has been provided in my lectures and data I posted at this site, but soon (next year) to be submitted to JFS, I have seen differences in some tasks between Male and Female. They are subtle, but suggest at this early stage, that Males are more confident than females when providing opinions or making determinations on limited information. As it follows then, females in my studies, have tended to be more conservative when reaching conclusions when males and females are provided the same limited information in prints. An example is interpreting whether or not minutiae are present in distorted regions of a print.

Good luck with your research as well, and I hope to meet you some day.

Oh and P.S. "Dogma"

DOGMA: I think this string has gone as far as it can. It’s time to move on. I may return at sometime, perhaps in another incarnation.

If it's "OK" with you then, we will still keep discussing issues. Thanks.

g.

[mary ellen holmberg]

I know this will probably bring some responses--but could men be reckless and women be careful? It seems as if most of the erroneous id's used as examples were made by men. Just a question.....
mary ellen holmberg

[Guest]

Good question. How about comments from others?

[Shaheen]

I have more of a social science hypothesis/question:

The hypothesis is that:

Certain males still feel compelled to be the "bread winner" for their family and will enter the fingerprint field based on reasons other than a natural ability in that area (ie job stability, hours, pay).

Certain females do not feel this pressure and will take the time to ascertain their area of natural ability which happens to lead them to fingerprints.

Am I thinking too deeply about this?

Actually, that's not the question. My question is how did you come to the conclusion that fingerprints was the field for you? What factors influenced that decision?

Also - Is this concept relevant for practitioners who entered the field a number of years ago as opposed to recently?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Kind regards,
Shaheen

[Dave C]

Ahh haa!! Interesting debate on male v female. I am looking at this myself. If however, I can point some of you in the direction of Fingerprint Whorld for one moment, I seem to remember a few years back I published an article about this very matter. I believe in the equivalent of the FBI, the Russian Federal Bureau only employs females since it is believed they are more adept at examining patterns and interpreting visual information.

Personally I think it is time to look into this matter quite seriously for while I may not go as far as limiting employees to male or female, there may be areas of forensic science more suitable to one gender or another and it may be we have to adopt recruitment packages and training methods to suit each gender.

Food for thought?

[David Fairhurst]

Food for thought?

A: A banquet for the unscientific vultures.

I can hear the Coleisms already.

"All the best examiners are women"

"Mr A. cannot be a better examiner than Ms. B who works on the bench next to him. These statistics prove that."

Here's a Daveism for you to chew on.

"Variation within groups will be greater than between groups"

[Guest]

It is dependent on the individual. Each person is unique to themselves. Some have ability and some don't. Another divisive issue

[g.]

Dave C:

Far be it from me to disagree with the the Russian Federal Bureaux, but I personally have not seen any greater performance by females in my studies (for the limited tasks I have given them). Perhaps down the road I may see some difference in performance, but for now all I have seen is a slight increase in "conservative" reporting for females (and the evidence for this is only marginal, i.e. as Dave F. points out, there is so much variance within groups, that it masks the differences (if any) between groups. In other words, there are some conservative females and some not, but on the whole, I am seeing a slight increase in conservatism for females....but no differences in ability at this point. Maybe you will find something here. Keep us posted.

Shaheen: (and Dave C and Dave F may be interested)

Interesting question about how we got into it. I, like many, fell into it. I KNEW I wanted to go into forensic science (way back in 1985!), but I thought it would be better suited for me in TRACE and the analytical sciences. Turns out, when I first had the opportunity to interview for latents, they gave me tests. I naturally excelled at the tasks (I had always had a brain for puzzles, images, and visual memory).

But here's the point, it gave me intense pleasure to do this. I was hooked on making matches. And loved doing case work, finding that tough little print....so here's my question:

Isn't that a bias in a way? If we (I know I am not alone in this) are activating in a sense a pleasure center in our brain, isn't getting that warm, fuzzy feeling like feeding that "fix"? Aren't we in some ways, satisfying a need for us...wanting a match.

Now obviously, the bottom up (objective data in the print) info should override this need, but clearly as Dave C., Dror, and Peron have pointed out, top down influences can override (or at least obfuscate) the bottom up.

Just noting an interesting psychological phenomenon. Anyone else thought about this? Or is it too out there? This would be a great thing if Busey and co. could show by brain function mapping "the warm fuzzy feeling".

g.

Glenn

[Dave C]

G,

wonderful concept!! Are we hooked on the fix that is an ident? Is that why, just like a soccer striker who hasn't scored in 10 matches, we get the jitters when we don't find a match for a while in fingerprints? Is that why we might just start getting withdrawal symptons, depression, anxiety? It would be an interesting study....if ever it could be done....to find out if historical erroneous idents were made by officers who had been short of an ident or two for a while. Was it desperation that effects the mind? Then again, if the officers concerned were finding too many....had they OD on ident juice and fried their decision making processes to the point where they lost control of conservatism and caution?

This is all highly philosophical, of course, but such discussions are interesting and thought provoking.

Thanks G for another starter for ten.....nice one!!

[Guest]

I think this thread has taken a refreshing turn. And indeed it comes right back around to objectivity and subjectivity again. I hope nobody tries to argue the social psychology is 100% objective. Glenn can say his data is trending toward female conservatism and that is about the most objective statement one could make. Beyond that it all becomes subjectively based. But fun to ponder.

Bureaus of disciplined all-women selfless examiners ruled by power hungry ego driven men. This is bringing back fond memories from my social psychology course years ago. I got in trouble for arguing objectivity and subjectivity there also.

I had an old friend who used to tell me that “no matter where you go, there you are”. I thought he was crazy until I started saying it too.