Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:33 pm
I'll return to lurking. This crowd is way too tough for me. But I'll leave with an attempt to clarify. No blame and no hostility intended. I'm sorry if it came across that way.
First, my comments were more in the form of questions than answers. I assume the vast majority of examiners are following ACE-V and using adequate verification procedures. I will continue to ask how on earth an "independent" verification can be made in-house (note I said independent, not an attempt at unbiased) ... perhaps a topic for another thread? It is inconceivable that ANY agency would permit reports to be sent to judicial authorities w/o verification, even the "slam dunk" idents. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that everyone did it.
My lab has been partly funded by the state, partly by federal grant monies and partly by annual contract fees charged to agencies. Technically, any LE-related agency (including my lab) is biased unless they operate for free. That is impossible, so total lack of bias is impossible, so you do what you must in order to minimize the potential effects. My concern is with those LE agencies who employ their own examiners from the investigative ranks as "potentially" pressured to provide results needed for conviction. I do not solicit fees to testify for the defense, but I am available if called in local cases. I am concerned that these in-house set-ups beg for the kind of scrutiny that is causing us so much hassle, expense and inefficiency in trying to get huge backlogs completed in a timely manner. I do not mean to suggest that any examiner (especially those who care enough to participate in this forum) would be intentionally dishonest or biased beyond what is unavoidable. But if such bias did, in fact, exist, would I expect to find it more often under those circumstances?
We have seen what seems to me to be a rash of bad idents. Is this actually happening, or is it the result of more demanding defense work uncovering what has always been there? Is it increasing, or is the publicity simply increasing due to internet and news coverage? I don't know, but it causes all of us a great deal of trouble when we don't know what "independent" means to the judge, and whether the entire legal community will take up the banner and impose yet another obstacle in an effort to fix yet more perceived problems. Do they in fact exist? I don't think so, but we are at the mercy of the courts, and perhaps the media as well.
There is nothing wrong with non-scientists or street cops being trained to examine latent prints. I worked the streets for 15 years as a reserve deputy, and in that mode you often must assume possible guilt when interviewing subjects until innocence is proven. To do otherwise could cost you your life. But I am also a scientist, and I know and practice the "scientific method", which is related to ACE-V.
Most larger labs and (hopefully) agencies do follow SWGFAST guidelines. Large city labs face more sophisticated legal defense teams. It would seem that small town agencies would be more likely to get away with cutting corners? I don't know. It seems like an almost weekly occurance that some bad ident makes the news. Since our profession depends on integrity, these cases undermine all of us. Since our idents, while based on sound science, are ultimately completed with subjective professional opinion, this is being eroded. My question remains, is this a trend, or has it always been there and is just now being uncovered by more aggressive defense?
Not everyone can qualify for a latent print examiner's job IF you follow SWGFAST guidelines. Obviously a few have either slipped through the cracks, or have been grandfathered in by virtue of years of service. I agree with Tash that "there is a huge variance in the degree of education, training and procedures." More power to the courts in tightening this up, but don't generalize to the 99% who are doing professional work.
With federal grant availability being threatened for non-accredited labs in the U.S., I expect the small crime labs will begin to merge for survival, or disappear. The courts and defense will, no doubt, begin to put more emphasis on ASCLD accreditation, which in turn requires adherance to SWGFAST guidelines and ACE-V. As I mentioned above, it is disconcerting to realize that some so-called examiners do not follow the intent of the protocols. And, since latent print work is not dependent upon a laboratory environment, many in-house operations may survive.
In a profession which has for so long, so effectively self-controlled itself, are we losing ground? (That's a question, not a statement).
First, my comments were more in the form of questions than answers. I assume the vast majority of examiners are following ACE-V and using adequate verification procedures. I will continue to ask how on earth an "independent" verification can be made in-house (note I said independent, not an attempt at unbiased) ... perhaps a topic for another thread? It is inconceivable that ANY agency would permit reports to be sent to judicial authorities w/o verification, even the "slam dunk" idents. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that everyone did it.
My lab has been partly funded by the state, partly by federal grant monies and partly by annual contract fees charged to agencies. Technically, any LE-related agency (including my lab) is biased unless they operate for free. That is impossible, so total lack of bias is impossible, so you do what you must in order to minimize the potential effects. My concern is with those LE agencies who employ their own examiners from the investigative ranks as "potentially" pressured to provide results needed for conviction. I do not solicit fees to testify for the defense, but I am available if called in local cases. I am concerned that these in-house set-ups beg for the kind of scrutiny that is causing us so much hassle, expense and inefficiency in trying to get huge backlogs completed in a timely manner. I do not mean to suggest that any examiner (especially those who care enough to participate in this forum) would be intentionally dishonest or biased beyond what is unavoidable. But if such bias did, in fact, exist, would I expect to find it more often under those circumstances?
We have seen what seems to me to be a rash of bad idents. Is this actually happening, or is it the result of more demanding defense work uncovering what has always been there? Is it increasing, or is the publicity simply increasing due to internet and news coverage? I don't know, but it causes all of us a great deal of trouble when we don't know what "independent" means to the judge, and whether the entire legal community will take up the banner and impose yet another obstacle in an effort to fix yet more perceived problems. Do they in fact exist? I don't think so, but we are at the mercy of the courts, and perhaps the media as well.
There is nothing wrong with non-scientists or street cops being trained to examine latent prints. I worked the streets for 15 years as a reserve deputy, and in that mode you often must assume possible guilt when interviewing subjects until innocence is proven. To do otherwise could cost you your life. But I am also a scientist, and I know and practice the "scientific method", which is related to ACE-V.
Most larger labs and (hopefully) agencies do follow SWGFAST guidelines. Large city labs face more sophisticated legal defense teams. It would seem that small town agencies would be more likely to get away with cutting corners? I don't know. It seems like an almost weekly occurance that some bad ident makes the news. Since our profession depends on integrity, these cases undermine all of us. Since our idents, while based on sound science, are ultimately completed with subjective professional opinion, this is being eroded. My question remains, is this a trend, or has it always been there and is just now being uncovered by more aggressive defense?
Not everyone can qualify for a latent print examiner's job IF you follow SWGFAST guidelines. Obviously a few have either slipped through the cracks, or have been grandfathered in by virtue of years of service. I agree with Tash that "there is a huge variance in the degree of education, training and procedures." More power to the courts in tightening this up, but don't generalize to the 99% who are doing professional work.
With federal grant availability being threatened for non-accredited labs in the U.S., I expect the small crime labs will begin to merge for survival, or disappear. The courts and defense will, no doubt, begin to put more emphasis on ASCLD accreditation, which in turn requires adherance to SWGFAST guidelines and ACE-V. As I mentioned above, it is disconcerting to realize that some so-called examiners do not follow the intent of the protocols. And, since latent print work is not dependent upon a laboratory environment, many in-house operations may survive.
In a profession which has for so long, so effectively self-controlled itself, are we losing ground? (That's a question, not a statement).