CLPEX Chat Board

Kathy—You know me too well. I like the debate.

Again the following are my words and should not be considered those of any other organization or agency; past or present.

It is unfortunate that those who make the rules have the power but not the logic to see the big picture.

I honestly think they need to be educated because most of it is mis-information. Take the Fingerprint Critics; do you really think they would be taking the stand they do if they had your background, experience, and knowledge. I don’t think so.

Now each accredited lab has a policy in place called a “Deviation of SOP” that they can implement if signed off by management. Deviation is a back door hole that can be used for escape if your Sop’s is fixing to bury you.

If g. Pat Wertheim or Ron Smith had that situation come up, then I would think management might put in place a Deviation Request and then comply. Let us reverse it. If I took one to g. or Pat Wertheim and said I had one I needed to just get verified that they would be allowed to do that? I would be told to submit it just like any other piece of evidence and wait my turn for it come back from their full examination in 3-9 months. Now Ron is not ASCLD-LAB (I don’t think) so he can do anything he wants (within reason).

But if they were really serious about that then would they not be asking my lab to ignore or violate our Sop’s which would be an ethics situation for them because they thought it was for the greater good.

With the code of ethics and standards of professional conduct, the agency could as stated file a deviation request OR file ethics or unprofessional conduct against the LPE for proceeding with something that is not permitted in the Sop’s. Violation of ones own Sop’s could be considered an Ethical or Professional misconduct?

So anyway you go the bench worker could get slammed.

RL Tavernaro wrote:The short story is that while in court, I was asked by a judge to complete a comparison that resulted in an identification (individualization). I suggested to the court the identification could be 'verified' (since another examiner from our lab happened to be at the courthouse that day). The defense strongly objected, & asked the judge to prevent any further examination, which was granted, and the court ordered me to testify regarding my examination. The defense later proceeded to argue to the jury that a verification should have been done, & requested the court throw out the fingerprint ID.

I've got sympathy for the defense attorney (I suppose that's no surprise), the situation would raise a number of flags to me.

The in-court examination puts the verifying examiner on the spot -- presumably it needs to be done quickly, thus some time pressure. There's some inherent bias -- the verifier knows that not only was this found to be a match, but there's enough evidence of guilt that the case is on trial. And, I would expect that if the other examiner had concerns or qualms, there would be an inherent subconcious pressure not to embarass the testifying examiner by disagreeing. I'd have objected too, were I trial counsel, and listed those very reasons. (What did your trial counsel say?)

It would seem to me the policy for in-court verifications should be "no". If it is that important to the prosecution (or defense) case, they can ask for a continuance and deal with it in a proper manner.

This thread is not complete without a response from Gerald!!!

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Who in their right mind would think its acceptable to actually perform forensic work in court? A live comparison in court, outside your forensic laboratory, where you would not have adequate lighting, proper tools, limited distractions and no pressure for a decision? Does the detective recreate the investigation in court? Does the crime scene analyst have the scene and all the evidence brought in to re-do their investigation? Does the DNA analyst re-do their analysis in court? Does the coroner perform the autopsy in court? On and on and on....I think not! Its time to show the courts that latent print examination is not some process that takes 30 seconds or done by a computer that flashes MATCH, and an opinion is provided. We perform a professional examination and issue professional results.
Is 100% verification really necessary? A company that specializes in backlog reduction would certainly like that, it provides more work as backlogs grow. The key is to have enough quality examiners, provide them with quality training and continued training, don't overload them with work, don't have them dabbling in this discipline and that discipline and not have enough exposure to latent examination to do excellent work. Certification is just the beginning of competency, they need continued exposure to difficult casework, quality proficiency testing, quality control monitoring and provided the opportunity for professional development to build confidence and ability. If an agency can only afford one latent print examiner, then they shouldn't have that function at their agency and should send it out to an agency that can properly perform the work. Computers and an Internet connection can provide the opportunity for agencies to efficiently share services.
An examiner that is trained to full competency should not have to be subjected to every case being reviewed. Random review of all comparison work should satisfy the need for quality control.
Are the agencies that send all of their comparisons out for review also having the examiner's AFIS entries checked to see if they are missing any of those as well? Are there latent lift and fixed latent evaluations double checked too? Does it really take at least two examiners to do every aspect of the job? Our crime scene analysts don't work in pairs, are they missing critical evidence as well? If the work by a latent print examiner is so difficult and subjected to such scrutiny of every aspect, then we deserve the highest status of them all, inclusive of the prime laboratory facilities that I have seen built for DNA and we should be paid at the top of the scale.
Perhaps we have all been trying to get by with too few people, too little training, not enough money, not enough tools, undervaluing ourselves and presenting the wrong image in court.
Maybe the NAS report sent us on the road to be the professional that we are supposed to be.
Another point about the clpex site, either all us should use moniker aliases or real names, not both.
I haven't been on the soap box in a while, hopefully some food for thought.
Thanks,
Greg Eilers

In response to Mr Eilers I would risk being considered a complete infidel but here goes...

I completely support the idea of outside verification BUT if we are going to go to that amount of trouble we really should do (or get as close as possible to) the double blind thing. The only problem I see with this is (1) it will create a logistical and some other nightmares in finding a practical way of doing it RIGHT! OTHERWISE WHY BOTHER??

As for (2) , yes it will very likely lead to further or bigger backlogs and in effect hamper the investigative process...there are so many levels on which this is wrong I would rather not even explore that.

Which brings me to my actual risk of being cast outside the citadel, branded and condemmed...

Is there anyone (PM me if you like) who would agree with me that the last 3 decades of fingerprint practise has been little more than a knee-jerk reaction to greater scrutiny in an ever improving world of multimedia fodder? Compound this with the Dauberts, the Kumhos, the Coles and all other relevant interested parties who started asking questions and what we have is a whole bunch of parties teaming up to question the discipline and hell-bent on shoe-horning it into something that could pass as science?

Let us also not forget the 1978 IAI resolution repeated in Ne 'Urim in 1995? It should be painfully clear that there are more than enough internal politics in the discipline that we don't need any outside ones thank you very much.

Spice this with a generous dollop of Mayfield, stir in some McKie to taste and what do we have?

Oh and then came DNA...the latest WUNDERKIND in crime detection against which everything now had to measure up.

Come on folks, improve the discipline by all means and keep it current as time goes on but throttle that aligator as much as you want, whip it, put a leash on it...it will most likely not turn into a German Shepherd!!

Lisa, Greg, & others,
In the interest of brevity, I tried the 'short story' version of an actual case experience, but it appears that some additional details may be helpful. Although much of the following information is to the best of my recollection (without verifying documentation), I have high confidence in the salient facts.

• 1. My participation in the case was to 'prove a prior conviction'. The comparison was ostensibly an 'inked to inked' of a copy of fingerprints taken at the booking for the current offense, to a copy of fingerprints in a certified 'pen-pack' from a prior conviction.
  2. Policy at that time was that the request be submitted prior to trial, allowing sufficient time to analyze the materials, and obtain better quality copies or originals if required. The time-frame on this particular case precluded following that policy, and management granted an exception. An alternate policy provided for obtaining inked fingerprints of the defendant at the courthouse, and comparing those to the 'pen-pack' fingerprints, which I proceeded to do. At that time, verification was not normally required in 'inked to inked' comparisons.
  3. Fingerprints from the defendant were obtained in the courtroom during a recess, & the jury was not present. The comparisons were completed outside of the courtroom in a private office with no distractions. I have always taken some 'tools of the trade', including a fingerprint magnifier and 'pointers', to court when testifying about fingerprint comparisons. The lighting was adequate for the job.
  4. The quality of the fingerprint photocopies (both booking & 'pen-pack') was very poor. When I fingerprinted the defendant in the courtroom, I discovered he had apparently 'sandpapered' his fingertips the prior evening, resulting in relatively poor quality prints. The resulting comparison in my opinion had more in common with a moderately difficult latent print comparison than a typical 'inked to inked' comparison, resulting in my suggestion that a 'verification' comparison could be done.
  5. If the 'verification' suggestion had been followed at the courthouse, I believe that it would have been presented essentially blindly, without the second examiner knowing what my conclusion had been, or the specific circumstances. He would have had access to the same original materials & known that I had done a comparison, but not the conclusion. He would have been afforded access to the same facilities and tools, and requested to do an independent & objective comparison.
  6. An independent verification comparison was completed post-trial, and the identification was confirmed.

The minute entry for the appeal decision is at:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/S ... 2001DT.pdf

I found the duplicity of the defense arguments interesting. Their very strong objection to the verification was off the record. The request for no further examination may have been on the record, but not in presence of the jury. Was it ethical to later argue that the state was derelict in its duties by not providing a verification?
Regards, RLT

Hi Greg

I really have no arguement with what you are saying I have in another post, you may have read, given the impression that I would in court make a latent ID. That is not what I was saying, I was like wise talking about Ten prints, which are suposed to have been taken in ideal conditions?

So if AFIS is able to make a Ten print ID on a database of a million or so I think I could be excused for making an ID on a database of 1 in the same amount of time and without verification, anyway the defence has always got the ability to stand up on their feet and say I object!

But as I said I actually agree with you.

Our agency handles outside verifications as follows:

Since we do not know how latent print examiners from outside agencies have been trained, we treat those verifications as routine casework in this manner.

The outside agency sends in a photo/image of the latent and a photo/image of the known print as well as a copy of the ten print card the known print came from.

An examiner in our agency will do the initial exam (ID) and then have that verified by another examiner within our agency. Notes are taken by the initial examiner and a brief report generated by them e.g. latent A and the known fingerprint marked as the R. middle of Jon Doe were made by the same individual.
There is no mention in the report of it being a verification.

Since these are quick exams and technically "verifications" with photos/images only, we move these to the top of our casework pile.

We have taken this approach to cover our tail since latent print work is expected to be performed by qualified latent print examiners and verifications are also to be done by qualified latent print examiners. How does our agency know that so and so from small town PD is truly qualified?? They may be doing the work but did they go through a documented training program etc. etc.... we don't know that. I don't want to get called to court as a verifier and be put on the stand and questioned about doing verification work for someone that I don't even know is qualified to do the initial comparisons.

The only way around the above in our agency is to obtain the training records of so and so from small town PD and have them reviewed at our lab to determine if we feel they are truly qualified. Once we have those documents in place in our lab and they have been reviewed and approved, we will do verifications for those individuals - we still do notes and issue a report but the ID does not need to be verified by another person within our agency. These also come in as routine casework but are moved to the top of the pile.

KWSouthDakota wrote:Our agency handles outside verifications as follows:

Since we do not know how latent print examiners from outside agencies have been trained, we treat those verifications as routine casework in this manner.

The outside agency sends in a photo/image of the latent and a photo/image of the known print as well as a copy of the ten print card the known print came from.

An examiner in our agency will do the initial exam (ID) and then have that verified by another examiner within our agency. Notes are taken by the initial examiner and a brief report generated by them e.g. latent A and the known fingerprint marked as the R. middle of Jon Doe were made by the same individual.
There is no mention in the report of it being a verification.

Since these are quick exams and technically "verifications" with photos/images only, we move these to the top of our casework pile.

We have taken this approach to cover our tail since latent print work is expected to be performed by qualified latent print examiners and verifications are also to be done by qualified latent print examiners. How does our agency know that so and so from small town PD is truly qualified?? They may be doing the work but did they go through a documented training program etc. etc.... we don't know that. I don't want to get called to court as a verifier and be put on the stand and questioned about doing verification work for someone that I don't even know is qualified to do the initial comparisons.

The only way around the above in our agency is to obtain the training records of so and so from small town PD and have them reviewed at our lab to determine if we feel they are truly qualified. Once we have those documents in place in our lab and they have been reviewed and approved, we will do verifications for those individuals - we still do notes and issue a report but the ID does not need to be verified by another person within our agency. These also come in as routine casework but are moved to the top of the pile.

I would like to submit (and you folks must please help me where I have it wrong) that the idea of outside verification is to establish more scientific scientific methodology...basically following the ACE-V principle.

Now, sure, there would be a risk of the second or third verifier being called to the witness stand but surely this should be the least of considerations? What should be the greatest consideration should be to get as close as possible to a true double-blind verification. Sending a guy (or girl... ) a single case with marked latents and 1 set of tenprints is no attempt at double blind to me...it basically sky-writes the message: Hey, we think it is him...in fact we are actually quite sure but we need your rubberstamp as approval...

Now I know a true double blind will very likely end up in a nightmare of logistics, back-logs and delayed response time, ultimately delaying justice...but we have gone so far down this road that we pretty much now have no option but to make it work.

I also have to wonder why the original case worker's training, methodology and experience is of any relevance...surely performing a verification is all about the information in front of you...AND ONLY the information in front of you...the suspect latent, control latents, suspect 10 print and control 10 prints. Having near non-matches would be a bonus, yes, but ultimately, in my mind there can be no place for anything but the information before you...yes, as double-blind as possible.

I must also wonder why a comparison can not be performed in court as mentioned earlier? Science or not, is it not the true expert who can explain his field to the layman in layman's terms?

I can understand why this would be a challenge to an expert who started life in the electronic era with no paper print grounding but surely magnifiers are still available if needed?

Just my 2c worth...

antonroland wrote:I would like to submit (and you folks must please help me where I have it wrong) that the idea of outside verification is to establish more scientific scientific methodology...basically following the ACE-V principle.
. . . . . . . .
I must also wonder why a comparison can not be performed in court as mentioned earlier? Science or not, is it not the true expert who can explain his field to the layman in layman's terms?

Dear Anton,

You have avoided the dogma and hit the science nail on the head here. The ACE-V methodology helps establish our field as good science. Using this methodology as a standard best practice is very important.

One of the tenents of science is "falsifiability." That means that a scientific conclusion should be capable of being "falsified." For example, if an astronomer announces the discovery of a new comet and describes its orbit around the sun, other competent astronomers are capable of examining the first astronomer's data, or collecting their own, and either verifying the first astronomer's claim or proving it false.

That cannot be said to be true of astrology. Read two astrology forecasts for your birthday and they will be drastically different. There is no way to prove one correct and the other false. And two people with the same birthday and the same forecast can have experiences opposite from each other, and neither in line with the astrology forecast. Thus, we can say astronomy is science and astrology is not.

The key here is the concept of "falsifiability." Once it is established that astronomy is science, it is not necessary for a second astronomer to review the announcement of a new comet to make the finding by the first astronomer scientific. The second astronomer's review and conclusion may establish the accuracy of the first astronomer's find, but the science is there with or without the second astronomer.

Likewise, it is verifiability that helps establish our field as scientific. Verification does not make any single conclusion more or less scientific than any other conclusion. Verification helps establish the accuracy or reliability of a specific identification in question. But it is the fact that another competent fingerprint expert can repeat the ACE process and confirm the identification if it is correct, or prove it wrong if it is not, that is "scientific." It is not the verification itself, but the fact that verification can be performed that is scientific.

While an in-court comparison and identification may not be the best practice, and it may not be in line with a particular department's policy, those considerations do not make it any less "scientific" than any other identification. One might argue that it could be considered less reliable, but not that it is "unscientific."