technical review question

[kevin]

How many agencies perform their technical review separate from verification?? Does anyone have the tech reviewer perform the technical review as well as the verification?? Some of the discussion lately has me wondering what is the best practice - I've worked in places which have done both and was wondering if anyone has a strong opinion on the matter either way??

[Charles Parker]

Kevin, my agency does the verification separate from the Technical Review. But I wanted to provide a definition of both because I think someone else had the definition of a Technical Review as reviewing the methodology.

Verification Definition from SWGFAST--The final step of the ACE-V method. A review and independent analysis of the conclusions of another examiner.

Technical Review Definition from ASCLD-LAB--Review of notes, documents, and other data that forms the basis for a scientific conclusion (see ASCLD-LAB 2008 Manual). The emphasis is mine cjp

Kevin once ID have been marked (yes marked-----arrrrgh), then they go to a verifier, which can be anyone in the office and we generally try to rotate the numbers. I may give 2 to this LPE and 2 to the next and so on and so forth. Each month there is a reveiwer (what we call receiving) who does all the Admin and Technical Reviews. Generally whoever is doing the reviewer we try not to give verification to, but sometimes we do (not often). After verification and the work sheet is completed and the report is done is goes to the reviewer. Most Crimes Against Person are Tech Reviewed (Murder--Rapes--Robberies) and the tech review goes more than the ASCLD-LAB definition. We look at the Non-Suitables, No--D's and Inconclusives. Not the ID's since they have already been looked at once.

99% of the time verification is done by someone other than the reviewer.

[kevin]

Thanks Charles- we do it similar to you guys from the sound of it, however we tend to have the same person do the tech reviewer and verification in most cases. I wonder if having a verifier also do TR would be something to get dinged on down the road depending on what SWGFAST is going to set as far as minimum documentation on latents?? I could see that becoming a sticking point as a verifier would have to evaluate the latent independently while also verifying another examiner's interpretation of the information....or maybe I've just been overloaded with SWG's, transparency, methodology, etc.....

On a side note, I would think that if methodology was reviewed as part of the TR process (and I'm not in agreement that it should be per the ASCLD/IAI definitions); then TR would have to be separate from the verification/verifier.....