New term for "Major Case" Prints

[David Fairhurst]

"Complete Recorded Area Palm" Prints

Imaging saying you can't check the latents unless you get CRAP prints.

He He

[Guest]

Standards Taken for Use in Print Identification and Detection (STUPID)

[Steve Everist]

Well, since this is for a couple of t-shirts:

Major Case Prints (MCP's)

I like it so much that I've already used it today in my notes...

[guest]

As an ID Tech who takes MCP's at a Jail, I'll say I always thought the term imprecise. 'MCP's' refers more to the circumstance requiring the product and not what the product is - in itself. I like something simple and also does not imply: 'complete'. Can a set of impressions ever be compete?

Extended Palmar Impressions - E.P.I. is one I like.

That said, it should be up to those who are taking the science into Court (the LPE's) who should have the most investment in their terminology.

Mark Roberts
KCSO AFIS

[Stephanie Howard]

Personally, Major Case Prints have always worked for me but if "a change is gonna come'', (and remaining acronym conscious) how about....

ECARD prints - Every Conceivable Area of Ridge Detail
CUECARD prints - Comparison Using Every Conceivable Area of Ridge Detail
FASE prints - Fully Acquired Standards of Exemplars
CARD prints - Comprehensive Acquisition of Ridge Detail
FACE prints - Fully Acquired Comparison of Exemplars

or we can just drop the 'Major' part and go with;
CASE prints - Comprehensive Acquisition of Standard Exemplars

.....or perhaps just a colloquial term such as ASHBAUGH prints - just because it sounds good.

Steve

[Danny L. Harness]

I am amazed at the suggestions calling for the renaming of Major Case Prints.

Terry Andrew Smith wrote in a previous post...

..."Changing terminology within the science illustrates to the
World that we are not stagnant..."

In order to be accepted in the scientific community we are eager to change our terminologies just because we think it will make us look good, or that by doing so, it will give us more acceptance.

I strongly disagree with that concept and think the opposite would be true. From a technical aspect, we are obligated to review and sometimes amend our procedures when necessary. In that regard we are showing the world that we are not stagnant.

I’m afraid that if we abandon terms, that all of us are familiar with, with out good reasoning, would be to say that we were not very grounded in our basic foundations. With the current Daubert issues of the day, I do not think this would show our profession in a very good light.

Steve Everist wrote in a previous post in regards to Major Case Prints...

"..."But it was created from an existing term, not the term being
created for the acronym to exist..."

I think Steve summed it up very well with his comment. In my view, we are being tossed around like a kite in a wind storm. Where are our foundation principles?

Pat and several others also summed it up correctly when they said that basically it boils down to a training issue.

That's the hard facts of the case. We (as a whole) are not willing to accept our responsibilities in this area. We think it would be easier to change some simple terminology and then everyone will understand out intent.

I would be ashamed to try to explain some of these suggested ideas to a court or jury. The fact is...

Our main responsibility is to explain what we do in a forensic setting.

What difference does it make what term we use? (Other than to appease ones ego)

I think when we are able to accept our training responsibilities and explain, with conviction, our basic principles...then and only then will we show the world that we, as a profession, are not stagnant.

We must be personally certain of our foundation before we can teach or explain it to others. Perhaps that's the basic problem we as a profession must address.

I'm sorry to have gone on for so long. Thanks for your consideration.

[hc]

KNOWN AREA'S for STANDARD EXEMPLARS YIELDING SUSPECTS (KASEY'S : )

[Terry Andrew Smith]

...was that IF the consensus was that the term be changed then his personal preference was.....

-and-

...that it IS true the existing term MCP's has caused some confusion (because he has witnessed to this, as have the other parties mentioned - and I suspect that's why it came up in SWGFAST discussions)

-and-

...that the field should be looking at things like terminology and CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY that despite the fact that WE know what different things mean, some terms may be confusing to the layperson. In reviewing our terminology we MAY be able to find better words which would potentially clarify things to others. There is nothing wrong with this type of review.

He didn't say...."In order to be accepted in the scientific community we are eager to change our terminologies just because we think it will make us look good, or that by doing so, it will give us more acceptance". This has little to do with acceptance in my humble opinion and everything to do with simply being more clear.

I like Major Case Prints. I like Total-Hand Friction Ridge Impressions. I wouldn't even mind if it were referred to as doing a "Form 345335" on a subject. I can explain either, if need be. It doesn't matter much to me and I never gave it ANY thought until this thread was started. I am not eager to suggest change simply for the sake of change, as my friend Mr. Harness would imply.

[Mike French]

I don't have strong opinions or emotions on this issue so I think that puts me in the minority on this one.

I'm just thinking out loud.... when a chemical supplier modernizes a name.... say from Isopropyl Alcohol to 2-Propanol do you think it generates this much debate? Maybe it does happen.

People are writing pages here.

[simon no senmon ka]

Although the FBI may not have originated the term, one of the earliest references to "Major Case Prints" I have found is from 41 years ago. On page 13 of ID News, Vol. 14, No. 11 (Nov 1964) an article by the FBI reads as follows:

"Fingerprint cards are frequently available for comparison with latent prints from the crime scene. Often impressions found at the crime scene involve areas of the palms, the lower finger joints, and the extreme finger sides and tips which are not present on the average set of fingerprints taken for routine record purposes. It becomes necessary for the investigator to take complete impressions of all of the ridges on the hands to permit complete and conclusive comparisons with all latent prints in the case. Palm prints should always include impressions of the lower finger joints as well as an extra impression of the outer edge of the palm, showing all the ridges below the little finger to the point where they merge with the smooth skin. Complete flinger tip and side impressions are prepared by first placing the fingers flat and then lifting them forward toward the nail, and repeating this procedure with both sides of the fingers. Finally an impression of the tip is made by rolling the finger from side to side. In the FBI we refer to all these Impressions as “major case prints” because we are recording every speck of detail on the subject’s hand.

It is unfortunate that a term relating to an offense category was chosen instead of a term indicative of completeness. If a new term is to be adopted, I would hope that it completely drops the word "case" and instead uses only descriptors that indicate complete record prints. Previously, MCPs (no apostrophe required or appropriate unless showing possession) never had such a formal structure as the proposed three card set:

1 - FD-249 Fingerprint Card
2 - FD-884 Palmprint Card
3 - The draft complete finger (joints and tips) and thenar card

Though it lacks sexy zing, the term "Full Set Prints" is a descriptor that indicates we are referring to completion of all three sets (and maybe even more cards if other forms are created in the future). For those interested, images of the new card (and existing finger and palm print cards) were recently posted at http://onin.com/fp

Yours in crime,
Nebaru Yubi

[KaseyWertheim]

KNOWN AREA'S for STANDARD EXEMPLARS YIELDING SUSPECTS (KASEY'S : )

I know which one get's my vote. *smile
-Kasey

[sharon cook]

"... so mandating the taking of major case prints through a live-scan protocol should ensure their acquisition."


Now THAT'S a horrifying thought! Major case prints with live-scan. Stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[Mark]

I've never cared much for the term "Major Case Prints", although I've often used it in conversations in the lab as many have stated it's a term that people in our field already know and are familiar with. Obviously these types of known impressions aren't just needed for "major cases", but it's a term that everyone has been used to for decades. Whenever I've needed to ask for these in a lab report, I've actually never used the term "major case prints". I normally would indicate something very simple and descriptive (in my opinion) such as "Clearly and completely recorded known prints from the tips, sides, and lower joints of the fingers and both palms are needed for a conclusive comparison to the latent print." I usually accompany this with a phone call to the detective or DA verbally telling them exactly what I need. For me, I don't know that a new term/acronym is all that necessary because I would more than likely keep refering to these in my reports and conversations with agencies as described above.

A more pressing question for me is why in the literature have prints from the fingers been titled fingerprints (without a space between finger and prints), while from the palms people always want to keep the words separate and call them palm prints? It doesn't make any sense for these to be treated differently.

Mark Mills