CLPEX Chat Board

The maturity level (or lack thereof) showing here is really pathetic. These types of exchanges don't leave one motivated to engage in 'thoughtful, profound' debates, or idea exchanges. Why would anyone participate when they most likely would be subject to belittling and insults by anonymous posters?

zero

You are right, Deuby. I certainly hope that none of my posts were taken as personal attacks against anyone. My aim was to examine the state of the science and not the demeanor of the practitioner. I am sure you can appreciate my frustration over the lack of answers although there have been plenty of responses. As regards the tenor of the posts, may I offer that to engage in debate is a sign a maturity. To shy away from it is a sign of immaturity and lack of confidence.

Dear Mr. Dogma (formerly Guest):

I apologize as I have been away for awhile and when I returned I only perused your earlier posts. But this post has peaked my curiosity and since you have stated that this is not a scientific survey, I take that as points of view are welcome. Well let me see if I can answer some of your questions from my point of view.

First, what I am about to say is not mainstream. There will most likely be more to disagree with me than will agree. That is fine, that is what this site is all about. DISCUSSION AND DEBATE. What I say here is my idea or thoughts and should not be construed as the predominant view of the fingerprint community.

Second, some ground work. Part of your recurring theme is science and since the definition of science is not settled, and this is my post to your thread, here is my idea of what science is.

SCIENCE—A body of knowledge at that time of a particular subject.

TECHNICIAN—Someone who works within the body of knowledge according to its methods and standards to produce something.

ANALYST—Someone who works within the body of knowledge according to its methods and standards and through observation develops opinions or statements.

SCIENTIST—Someone who works within the body of knowledge and through experimentation, research, and validation expands that body of knowledge.

Now I believe that most of the courts have stated when asked (or not), that the comparison of latent prints is closer to being technical than science. Of the 349 students I have taught in the last four years and providing them with the scientific and traditional philosophies currently out there, 98% of them say that the comparison of latent prints with known prints is not scientific but analytical or technical.

I personally do not believe that the comparison of friction ridge detail with known exemplars is science. I believe it is analytical (comparative analysis). NOW, that does not mean that the basis of fingerprints or the premises are not based upon science. They are based upon biology, physiology, chemistry, genetics, etc.

One should recognize the difference between the scientific foundation of fingerprints and the analytical application of comparison.

Third, let us deal with the question of uniqueness. You did not state whether you were looking for the forensic application of
uniqueness or the complete definition of uniqueness. The forensic application generally has to deal with the Individualization, Identification, Association, or Reconstruction in some form or another. Everything in our universe has a number of attributes. Some do not lend themselves to forensic application. For example space and time. These two attributes are not readily useable in a forensic application. So if you do use all attributes of something, then even two strands of DNA from the same person are unique in that they do not occupy the same space and time. Everything is unique from a certain perspective. The problem with latent prints is not that friction ridge skin is unique but having enough Quality, Quantity, of sufficient reliability or rarity to associate it with a single source.

Fourth, let us talk about numbers. Sufficiency and quantity are subjective decisions. It always amazes me when Latent Print Analysis is compared with Chemistry and DNA. They are nothing alike. They deal with Quantitative Analysis, while Latent Prints is Comparative Analysis. Latent Print Analysis is closer to Botany and Geology. How many points or features must be present in a part of a leaf or blade of grass for a botanist to identify it to a specific plant? How many features are necessary in a rock for a geologist to determine its type? There are no set numbers for that. Never have been and probably never will be. But those two scientific disciplines are not generally used in forensics and so their aspect of analysis is not predominant. Another example is how many brush strokes does it take to make a masterpiece of art? How many musical notes in the proper order does it take to make Brahms or Beethoven? You cannot say, and neither can I. Latent Print Analysis is dependent upon the subjective judgment of the examiner and the training, knowledge, and experience of that examiner and how that examiner is interpreting the quality, quantity, reliability and rarity of the latent print to the known exemplar. Not on a predetermined set of numbers. Latent print analysis is a round peg and some people keep trying to put us in the square hole of chemistry and DNA. If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit. A month ago someone went to their friends who were biologist and stated some of the things with fingerprints and reported that the biologist raised their eyebrows. Well no wonder. That is like going to an airplane mechanic and talking to them about cable TV instillation. Go talk to some Botanist or Geologist about the numbers they need to identify a plant or rock.

So, let us delve into your questions.

Number 2: When humankind became aware of themselves as an individual.

Number 3: See the answer to question 1. It has already been answered. It was just asked in a different way.

Number 4: No experimentation is required. The premise that experimentation has to be done for every scientific application is a fallacy. Where is the experimentation for gravity? Where is the experimentation that when you silver a piece of glass it will reflect a beam of light? Where is the experimentation that when you combine hydrogen with oxygen in the right proportion you get water? There are none. Do not confuse scientific precepts with scientific application. If you do not like those how about Professor James B. Conant who was educated at Harvard and was president of Harvard from 1939-1953, who states “There is not such thing as the scientific method” from “Science and Common Sense” by James B. Conant, pp 44-45.

Number 5: Purkinji, Faulds, Herschel, Galton, Henry, Vecutich, and 100,000 thousand others.

Number 6, 7, and 8: See my fourth statement above.

Thank you for your time.

A few weeks ago I directed an associate to this forum. I told him to check the postings of one Charles Parker. I told him that Mr. Parker often expresses concepts in new ways and had the ability to recite with daunting clarity. Thank you, Mr. Parker, for validating my faith in you!

2. At what level was uniqueness first observed?

This one really touches on the general question we address. It can only ever be largely speculative, but I suspect the most common application of such observation in the course of a critical task carried out by specialists is very ancient.

Any reference to the narratives of hunters and trackers reveals observations and conclusions not unlike those with which we are conserned. The observations of historical hunters under wilderness conditions may be taken to be those of their ancient counterparts, the tasks in the two times being little different, but for weapons.

We could take as examples Ben Lilly, who hunted bear and lions throughout the Southwestern US befroe and just after 1900, and Jim Corbett, the literate and steel brave destroyer of man-eating tigers in India. Lilly spoke at length and was often interviewed. Corbett wrote readable accounts of his adventures.

Both described what would be taken as commonplace among adept huntsmen, the recognition of individual animals by their foot marks. Such marks, when presented in limited detail revealed species, sex, age and size, and frequently, physical condition. Species and sex could be concluded with extreme certainty. Age and sex could be sufficiently certain for hunting purposes but would probably fall short of our standards.

With sufficient detail and clarity, marks were identified as being those of a particular animal, the "identification" being made by observation of the random features of pad arrangement, defects resulting from injury and fissures and other phyical variations in the pads. These identifications were beyond any reasonable doubt. In some of Corbett's cases, the fact of identification of the individual could be said to have been life or death matters for those living in the affested areas.

There is no reason at all to presume that these observations and conclusions were not made as soon as some humans became adept at hunting for animals. Perhaps as soon as they recognized that a particular predator had developed a taste for manmeat and survival might depend on recognizing when that particular beast was operating nearby.

I might add that it is entirely likely that there skills and experience were applied to the task of recognizing individual humans by their foot marks. Not by firction ridge analysis, of course, but with as much practical certainty in an environment in which there was quite a limited population of slow mobility.

Thank you, Mr. Clough. It's becoming clear that Texans don't shy from a challenge.

Good exchange of information by the Texans to Dogma. Now what is your hypothsis on the information provided, Dogma?

Still waiting for a few more to chime in (hopefully).

I can't wait.

Is this going to be a consensus or the basis for a compilation of responses?

We have had many of our brightest advocates supply testimony at Daubert hearings, and so far we have maintained the status quo. Yet, the challenges go on and probably will continue until a sympathetic ear is found. It doesn't help that our associates in forensic science seem to think that fingerprints should be measured by the same ruler that is applied to their own endeavors. But that is like using a protractor to measure a linear distance. There also seems to be a bias in some of those "on our side" against the participation of law enforcement in forensic analysis. They seem willing to sacrifice the "cop" examiners while setting themselves up as the ultimate authority. There's room at the inn for everyone. After all, this forensic discipline started with the "cop" practitioner.
I am not seeking a consensus. I am looking for new ways to examine, undersatnd and explain the existing problem. Many thanks to those who have constructively participated.

am I to late to share a word?

Are we not searching for a magical answer as to why two fingerprints are similar(identical) ie originate from the same source.

Will we ever find such an answer. I believe we will not.

The use of fingerprints as an identification tool lives from day to day.

It is reliant on the Fingerprint Experts ability to explain how he/she arrived at the conclusion that the fingerprints are similar.

Each question has several answers which are believable, it depends on how they are brought across by the Expert to the court of law. In his own opinion why are the prints similar.

It is our responsibility as the custodians of the fingerprint archives to arm our selves with sufficient knowledge to defend the continuous onslaught brought on by the non believers.

Should we ever find this magical answer will we still have a job?

Clyde Nichols
South Africa

perhaps intelligent debate might happen if intelligent were spelled properly?

Dogma (formerly Guest) wrote: Yet, the challenges go on and probably will continue until a sympathetic ear is found.

I'm not fond of the implication that the Daubert challenges are frivolous or that the defense bar is busy forum shopping for a judge willing to listen to fast-talking snake-oil salesmen.

So far, the prosecutors have won all the challenges, eventually. (The Plaza I decision put that judge under a lot of pressure to reverse himself in Plaza II.) On the other hand, the most recent challenges have had the benefit of Mayfield and Cowans to show that mistaken IDs, albeit rare, can happen and there are some 20ish other examples in Cole's most recent paper. I would not be shocked to find some judges a bit more sympathetic to the challenge to a particular examiner, laboratory, or identification as being too unreliable to go to a jury.

From the defense PoV, our question is whether the match is correct. If there's an error, it could be a good-faith mistake, like Mayfield, or a fabrication by law enforcement (as discussed by P. Wertheim at the NEDIAI conference earlier this month). We're not helped by knowing that defense experts missed all 20 of the known mis-ID cases and the vast majority of the known fabrication cases. So as defense counsel, we're left with a nagging sense in a number of cases that something is wrong with the evidence or conclusion, but no way to resolve that gut feeling with certainty. Our job is to zealously represent the client within the bounds of the law -- which means making sure the forensics were performed properly, by appropriately trained people, and that the jury has a fair impression of why the clean-cut nice man or woman from the crime lab might be wrong.

Cole and most (perhaps all) of the folks litigating these cases and testifying for the defense would agree that fingerprint matching works in the vast majority of cases. Most attorneys would likely concede that print testimony is relevant and has probative value -- it is the weight of it that is mostly in dispute.

Is it 100% error free? We doubt that. What is the error rate -- nobody knows, yet. But the jury needs to know that fingerprint matching isn't infallible.

Are there factors that might increase the chance of error? We think so. The FBI's Stacey report identifies several (confirmation bias, tunnel vision, pressure of high profile cases, culture of suppressing dissent in a lab, etc.). Dror's study has a small sample size, but it is supporting the same concerns seen in other fields about confirmation bais. There may be other factors having to do with the quality of the latent itself that make some IDs more likely to be mistaken than others. If we can figure out what these are, we may be able to craft questions and jury charges to point out these factors, just as jurors are told to look at lighting, event duration, distance, and the witness' stress in an identification case.