esmaltz,
The article David is referring to is "Documenting and Reporting Inconclusive Results", by Alice Maceo. J Forensic Identification 2011, 61(3); pp 226-231.
It has clear examples of all the various ways to describe in more detail "inconclusive". Essentially you are correct, they all do mean "inconclusive". The point of LVMPD was
to qualify and describe in more detail what they mean by "inconclusive". It is too imprecise and does not truly capture what the analyst observed.
I have some other articles on the topic of "inconclusive" imprecision (email me if you are interested), but the point is, they (and a few other labs) are
trying to break open that gigantic category and clarify what they mean by inconclusive. This is being done by all the other forensic disciplines and notably, firearms, question documents, and footwear/tiretracks.
g.
Fundamentals of LPE
-
esmaltz
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:24 am
- Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Re: Fundamentals of LPE
g. wrote:The article David is referring to is "Documenting and Reporting Inconclusive Results", by Alice Maceo. J Forensic Identification 2011, 61(3); pp 226-231.
It has clear examples of all the various ways to describe in more detail "inconclusive". Essentially you are correct, they all do mean "inconclusive". The point of LVMPD was
to qualify and describe in more detail what they mean by "inconclusive". It is too imprecise and does not truly capture what the analyst observed.
g.
Yes, I understand you must give a reason for an inconclusive result. I was just confused because he listed them as separate results. If they choose to have separate inconclusive options describing the reason then why do they still have an inconclusive only option?
David Johnson wrote:We have Identified, Excluded, Incomplete (With or without detail in agreement), Can not Exclude (this would be your Inclusion) and Inconclusive.
-
John Vanderkolk
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:07 am
- Location: Washington, DC
Re: Fundamentals of LPE
I like 5 conclusions, which can be pared to 3 conclusions:
1) "Was Excluded" or 2) "Was Not Excluded": If excluded, done. If not excluded, ask more questions and seek more answers. If not excluded, can it be identified? If you stay with the not excluded conclusion, state why.
3) "Was Identified" or 4) "Was Not Identified": If identified, done. If not identified, ask more questions and seek more answers. If not identified, can it be excluded? If you stay with the not identified conclusion, state why.
5) "Was Neither Identified Nor Excluded": Relevant questions have been asked and answered about the latent and standards. Cannot identify or exclude. State why this inconclusive result was reached.
Answers 2 and 4 can be pared down to one answer, 5, if all questions have been asked but neither identification nor exclusion can be reached. I understand why examiners might choose answers 2 and 4.
JohnV
1) "Was Excluded" or 2) "Was Not Excluded": If excluded, done. If not excluded, ask more questions and seek more answers. If not excluded, can it be identified? If you stay with the not excluded conclusion, state why.
3) "Was Identified" or 4) "Was Not Identified": If identified, done. If not identified, ask more questions and seek more answers. If not identified, can it be excluded? If you stay with the not identified conclusion, state why.
5) "Was Neither Identified Nor Excluded": Relevant questions have been asked and answered about the latent and standards. Cannot identify or exclude. State why this inconclusive result was reached.
Answers 2 and 4 can be pared down to one answer, 5, if all questions have been asked but neither identification nor exclusion can be reached. I understand why examiners might choose answers 2 and 4.
JohnV