Case at Supreme Court

[raybie]

Another salient citing is the NAS reliance on a report by HABER & HABER.

Reading their credentials leaves me wondering why the NAS are relying on their report. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

[RL Tavernaro]

I find the comments regarding confrontation interesting, & have a connection with Haber & Haber as well.

I started my career and received my initial training in a large municipal agency, where fingerprint (& latent print) identification was largely an individual pursuit. With rare exception, the only formal training provided was a 40 hour internal course, and a kind of apprenticeship with an experienced examiner, usually lasting 3 to 6 months. I attended college courses on my own to qualify for the promotion exam to the latent print level, and then after securing that position, had to take vacation time and pay out of pocket for specialized training on numerous occasions. It was often difficult just to get a required letter authenticating eligibility to attend some classes. Our supervisor was a Sergeant with no experience or knowledge of latent print processing or identification. There should be no argument that the operational and training environment at most agencies has greatly improved in the intervening years (since the 1970's). There was competition among some members of that agency, for number of identifications made, or number of cases worked. However, there was little confrontation, aside from the occasional personality clash.

After 8 years at that municipal agency, I was able to move to a state lab, and was greeted with an entirely different environment. Not only did I have an experienced latent print examiner for a supervisor, but continued training was required and supported. Perhaps most important though, confrontation was a major component of workflow in latent print comparisons. In 1980, long before verification was in vogue for most agencies, it was greatly encouraged, albeit practiced in a different form in my lab. The different form involved challenge & confrontation. When an identification was contemplated, it was passed to another examiner. The second examiner would then do an independent comparison with a critical eye & expectation that it would not be an identification (a forced negative bias?). Even if the second examiner concluded that the two prints did come from a common source, they would withhold that conclusion, seeking areas that might require interpretation and/or explanation. The initial examiner would then be confronted & challenged with potential problems in the comparison. The initial examiner was then forced to defend the identification to the satisfaction of a skeptical and knowledgeable critic. Any required interpretations and/or explanations had to be sufficient to withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny (or as we would ask: would it hold water (or was it leaky)?). Sometimes additional examiners would become involved, and the debates could be heated. On more that one occasion a visitor would walk into our office area, overhear one of our 'discussions' (down the hall, around a corner in an office), and immediately turn around & leave.

At the IAI Conference in Dallas (2005) I had the opportunity to attend the Haber's presentation. In discussion following that presentation, they conceded that a type of environment that encouraged challenge & confrontation over simple 'expected' verification would strongly mitigate possible bias, and could alter their conclusions.

[raybie]

Mitigation has always been the issue. This was the result of the study conducted by Evett and Williams in the 80's.

[RL Tavernaro]

I'll admit that it has been awhile since I've read about the Evetts & Williams study, but I'm not sure what you mean about mitigation being the result of that study. I do recall what might be referred to as an 'enhanced' bias regarding use of a specified 'point' standard, as recently posted by Pat Wertheim in a different thread (i.e., when using a 16 'point' standard, there virtually no comparisons finding 13, 14 or 15 matching 'points'). However, that was just one facet of the study.

Could you please explain in what way mitigation is the result of the Evetts & Williams study?

[raybie]

All the recommendations set forth in the review of the sixteen point standard are ways to mitigate practitioner error which includes bias. Many of the recommendations are not new.

The recommendations include regular training, competency testing, auditing (by external labs) and accreditation etc.

[RL Tavernaro]

Thank you. That makes more sense to me. I probably should have realized you were referring to the recommendations as opposed to the results reflected in their data.

Does anyone know of any study designed to test the effectiveness of mitigating factors? Shouldn't potential cures receive at least as much attention as the alleged disease?
Regards, RLT