CLPEX Chat Board

Dear Les, I saw your post and just glanced at it while I was posting mine. I printed yours out and have been reading it and I just have a few points of view.

You are right that ego and timidity are character traits that define the person. But is it not the person that is working the science of fingerprints (or doing the analysis)! How can one cut who they are out of the total process?

You stated “the problem with ‘difficult’ latents is the accurate application of the principals of fingerprint science”. Accuracy is a human observation, and how would one know if accuracy has been applied until after the analysis has been done. One certainly cannot determine accuracy before the action has even taken place. The word application is another word that denotes human endeavor. Your application, my application, the FBI’s application. Since we are all human they are going to be a little bit different. Sometimes different enough to be critical.

You stated “with accurate recording and visual presentations any errors should be obvious at an early stage”. Again recording and visual presentations are human endeavors and can be flawed. The word “should” kind of leaves it open. What if it is not obvious at an early stage? Should Could Would

You stated that you were surprised that there were so many variations of errors in the Mayfield case. My response is that I was not surprised. They were human beings, and the reviewers were human beings, and human beings can and do make mistakes. When it comes to human beings the variables of character, thought, ideas, feelings, ability are as varied as there are stars in the sky.

I am not trying to make light of your posting. It was an interesting glimpse into your point of view. I just do not share the philosophy that science is that rigid. I believe that science is a moving flexible concept that is powered by the human mind. A mind that still must struggle with flaws.

Take care down in OZ

Hi Charles,

thanks for the posting it made enjoyable reading and nothing taken the wrong way. I agree with your views that human error forms the base of our problems. That is the same position that Cole and others are making. Where I would like to add some pressure is the question of how to sort the differences within our profession. We call ourselves experts in fingerprint identification and present our conclusions to community courts for their acceptance that what we have applied can be trusted. The consequences to the accused can be extreme as Shirley MckIe is experiencing. As professionals we have separated ourselves from the average person by qualifying at the level of expert. That qualification is not taken lightly by the courts and their trust in our ability needs to be preserved. The onus then comes back to us to ensure we accurately apply the scientific principles. Our knowledge and belief is that the science of fingerprints is firm, solid and our contemporary developments are refinements not radical change. An example is that the numeric standard still has application in the non numeric since we still apply the principle of quantifying the detail. We are in a period of transition with the current group dynamic representing a mixture of extremes between progressive and sedimentary. Our future viability lies in being able to define an international philosophy and practice it very well.
In your previous post you asked for my agencies policy on dissention of opinion. We are an accredited lab with procedures covering how dissention is managed. Our approach is to try an avoid having a case file that contains notations of dissention. Being a senior member of this agency I've been involved in several dissention situations and each has had a resolution based on consensus. Our agency has the advantage of technical aids such as digital comparitor software for flat screen monitors and Smartboard audio visual systems for presentations. Where a case file does contain notations of dissention it is maintained as a complete record of the examination. The views I express in these postings are my own and not that of the agency. Cheers Les

Charles, et al.,

In those rare instances that apparent conflict cannot be otherwise resolved internally, consider what might be a workable alternative in your scenario: Two examiners sign the report, each responsible for their own part of the examination/comparison/ID, or a supplemental report is written by the second examiner/reviewer.

In practice, the original examiner writes the report, including any identifications/individualizations (ID's) made. If additional ID's have independently been made and verified (Reviewer & additional qualified examiner/supervisor), that info is added, and signed by the reviewing examiner. Of course, the different work product should be documented in case notes related to the report(s).

The forgoing would only work when there is limited difference of opinion; meaning that the original examiner does not dispute the additional ID as being erroneous, only questioning the sufficiency of data to make a positive call. It also presupposes that non-ID's are not normally reported in detail when ID's have been made.

If done properly, and examiners are prepared to openly discuss how & why there are multiple examiners involved, any apparent conflict can be minimized, with the results of each examination resting on its own merits.

Just some food for thought...

If I have missed an identification and you say take a look again then that seems okay. If you are having trouble verifying an ID and need a starting point in an extreme sea of palm with no landmarks then that seems okay. If I say a print is not of value because it was late in the day and you look early the next morning with digital imaging and say look again then that seems okay.

If I say an ID is inconclusive because there is not enough for me and you say it is an ID, we both look again and we both still disagree then the findings should be reported as inconclusive. Always better to let an individualization go when it borders on the scale of quality and quantity.

If I say it’s an ID and you say it is not and there is no clerical error then somebody aught to be going to management. Danger, danger Will Robinson!

The main problem with the posts I have read is talk about “demonstrating” an identification. If Kasey were to do his magic and give each ridge a different color and then highlight the creases to show me the path that they “truly” run then I say danger, danger again! Unless I’m in training and not reporting or verifying results, sounds like biased to me.

I think results should belong to the examiner. When disagreements occur there’s no problem taking a second look. I’m troubled with the idea of trying to convince someone to see something that they don’t. What do you think?

Thanks for listening, Vick

[quote="Vicki Farnham"]Just some food for thought...

<SNIP>
The main problem with the posts I have read is talk about “demonstrating” an identification. If Kasey were to do his magic and give each ridge a different color and then highlight the creases to show me the path that they “truly” run then I say danger, danger again! Unless I’m in training and not reporting or verifying results, sounds like biased to me.

I think results should belong to the examiner. When disagreements occur there’s no problem taking a second look. I’m troubled with the idea of trying to convince someone to see something that they don’t. What do you think?
<END QUOTE>

For clarification, is the hypothetical that you come up inconclusive, and a perhaps more experienced examiner can demonstrate their identification, but they are bound by your Inconclusive, which is what your earlier paragraph I snipped seems to say?

Maybe I can turn it around and propose that the demonstration of identification has been done first, and you haven't seen it to avoid bias, and you are Inconclusive.

I believe that Inconculsive can only ever be in the special case of a particular examiner and a given pair of images. I do understand your worry about the , "Oh. Now that you show me, I can see it." But...

A lot of us go on about "science" and scientific methods. Even if we limit the discussion to decisions and judgments made through application of scientific knowledge( rather than fundamental research), a huge amount of critical decision making is done in collaboration, or at least in consultation, with contributions of various insights and experiences.

The ellimination of false results caused by bias should not be realized by formula. Formula doesn't prevent influential bias. It is prevented through mental discipline and critical thinking, developed through training and guidance.

The reality seems to me to be that an accomplished examiner's demonstrated identification is not, in itself, a "bias". If the experience or seniority or supervisory position is influencing judgment, that's pernicious bias. But it's not bias to be shown a well constructed demonstration in which the features can be seen with sufficient clarity with which to judge the validity of the demonstration.

Are we saying that we're not confident enough in our own abilities to evaluate that we can't be shown the approach that led another to a conclusion without being corrupted? Can that be true of all science, or are we different? If we're not different, how then can any scientific observer reach a valid interpretation who has been educated in all that came before and familiar with how others have interpreted their observations, all those "bias" producing demonstrations?

Perhaps the distinction is between convincing someone to "see something that they don't" and showing someone what can be seen.

Imagining that there exists a formula of best practice that will elliminate error through bias is a chimera and, I think, more dangerous than admitting a demonstrative argument to show an identification. It also tends to gut the discipline of much of its potential, since the only sure way to avoid bias is to require identifications to be limited to the absolutely obvious, observed in stict isolation.

Gerald,

The “snip” did refer to a decision of inconclusive and the verifier demonstrating an identification.

If we are trained to the same skill level and there is not enough information for me and there is for you to individualize, do you believe demonstrating would or should make me change my mind? I feel the V in ACE-V should be an independent examination not a collaboration to come to agreement. My “collaborator” does not sign my reports and walk into court with me to “demonstrate” “my” decisions.

I learned early in a “bull-pen” of examiners that many skill levels are present. These levels are not always indicative of training or experience. Talent and confidence can play a large roll. I imagine there will always be examiners more able and less able than each of us. When I need verification of a difficult individualization or I have searched and searched and feel that I may be missing something, then I turn to these talented and confident individuals for verification. When seeking verification on difficult identifications or inconclusive decisions I believe it is important to seek an individual who is equal to or exceeds your own talent.

If they feel that my identifications are inconclusive then I bow out, my identification is not verified, and is therefore inconclusive. My notes reflect an unverified identification and the identification is not reported. It is my feeling that if the identification is so close that it balances on the edge of a knife, I could be creating a dangerous situation for myself. Always better to choose the more conservative decision.

Now, if I have marked a print inconclusive and the verifier feels there is enough to individualize then I would look at it again on a fresh day in the morning when I feel I am at my best, probably several times, using Photoshop, plotting minutiae and tracing ridges. If I wish the verifier to look at certain areas with me to explain what they feel is happening then I do. I would do this with any “consultation.”

When it comes to the “gray” areas of analysis I feel they are very personal. The number of times “explainable differences” can be “explained” is my decision. Allowances for movement lines, ending ridges allowed to be a bifurcations, a ridge to bifurcate in one direction rather than the other, tonal changes, unclear areas, swipe marks, trash, enough 3rd level detail to make an identification with fewer minutiae, ... the final outcome rests on my shoulders.

Several years ago I asked for an ID verification and it was returned to me with “I just don’t see it.” Using Photoshop, I demonstrated the ID which I felt had a proverbial plethora of information. It was still returned to me. I gave it to a 3rd examiner who said the same. There were just too many “explainable differences.” It wasn’t an erroneous ID, it was just too convoluted to call for them. I was so confused because I couldn’t see why they couldn’t see what I did. I certainly expected my demonstration to change their mind. I consider both of these examiners to be both talented and wise.

In my early years, I don’t remember getting training in bias. Today we read studies, articles and blogs about it repeatedly. I never felt when I had worked a particularly heinous, bloody crime scene and returned to my office and fingerprinted the bloody suspect and compared the prints that there was biased. I still don’t believe that my identifications were biased because they were based on methodology. If there wasn’t enough or it wasn’t him then that was it. Some studies show that may not be true.

When a senior analyst says it’s an identification I didn’t consider that to bias a junior individual. Yet I personally have seen an erroneous identification verified by just such a junior individual. I can see that same junior individual being “demonstrated” an identification and verifying. Whether it was because of trust or being swayed doesn’t seem to matter at this point. The damage was done and an innocent man was extradited. Thankfully it was found before prosecution.

While it’s true that demonstration of results should not be a biased, I also believe that it can be.

It is not my concern whether someone can verify my idents or not. Nor is it my concern whether I can verify someone else’s. It is my concern to follow the methodology that has been set before me, make my own decisions and “demonstrate” my decisions when called upon. It is also my responsibility to keep the possibility of bias of any kind, whether it is “realized by formula” or not and whether it is “pernicious bias” or not.

Science does involve a huge amount of critical decision making done in collaboration. Every corner needs to be reviewed and accepted by our peers if possible. I believe this is true when we are talking about the Basis for and the Methodology of the Science of Friction Ridge Analysis. The Science is sound, the decisions are subjective. Herein lies the difference when referring to an Applied Science as opposed to Mathematics.

I don’t believe that my “confidence in my abilities” has anything to do with my blog. It is my opinion that someone would be hard pressed to “corrupt” my decision making process. However bias is a very real hindrance to the practice of all science and it is something that is currently being addressed by our community. The ability to demonstrate results to our peers when called upon is paramount. “When called upon” is different than “unsolicited to change my opinion.”

If we cannot attempt to find a formula of best practice then I fear we are not very scientific at all. The beautiful thing about this venue is that we are both entitled to an opinion.

Deepest Respect, Vick

Hi Vicki

I liked the majority of your posting as it had realism in relation to the office dynamic of who can verify difficult latents. The problem you highlighted is that some latents will be too difficult to get consensus and must fall into the basket of insufficient. The movement toward probable findings would say that this opens the door for an expression of confidence in what detail can be reported.
Because technology has increased our ability to present the comparison process we can open the 'black box' of evaluation and view/discuss how decisions were made. You stated
[Science does involve a huge amount of critical decision making done in collaboration. Every corner needs to be reviewed and accepted by our peers if possible. I believe this is true when we are talking about the Basis for and the Methodology of the Science of Friction Ridge Analysis. The Science is sound, the decisions are subjective. Herein lies the difference when referring to an Applied Science as opposed to Mathematics.]
Lets not forget that even Mathematics has conditions under which results are achieved. For example the end point of a long division can have a numeric threshold of a set number of significant figures. The result means that the purpose has been deemed to be fulfilled. We do the same in determining our results.
Regards. Les