CLPEX Chat Board

MDavis
IAI Conventions are not a religious gathering. Your description of the fingerprint comunity as a fraternity is what is in question.

Fraternity & religion is based upon belief/faith which has no validation and no review. To be part of this group all you have to do is believe. This is faith.There is no testability to faith.
You are the one who painted fingerprints as a "fraternity". This is an association of like beliefs which is by definition a religion. The sum of the group by agreement.

A fraternal association thought that by committing suicide would bring them to the alien space craft hidden within the comet halebop(sp). There was no science involved, but only belief.

Objectivity that you allude to is not part of a fraternity. Objectivity is part of science. Since you subscribe to science, why do you describe your association as a fraternity?

Fraternity & religion is based upon belief/faith which has no validation and no review. To be part of this group all you have to do is believe.

The word "fraternity" was improperly chosen. It has many meanings, one of which is "a group or society formed by people who share common interests." That common interest intended is the objective analysis of forensic evidence and has nothing to do with beliefs or religion. This is way off topic. You may choose to regard latent print examiners as a closed society of "believers". I did not intend that.

critics have seen fingerprints as a fraternity/religion

This and other threads are adding diversity to the issue rather than focussing on what is central to how we articulate our understanding of two terms. Fingerprint science comes within the community of identification sciences and as such we need to share common language. Tuthill has written a well researched and balanced account of what both identify and individualise should mean. We correcty report the identification of a persons name by associating it with the area of friction ridge detail that has been individualised. Fingerprint identification science(Ridgeology) relies upon the principles of permanence and uniqueness of FRD. Our knowledge of biological development and biomechanical contact of FRD with a substrate leads into making observations, interpretations and forming conclusions that rely upon cognitive and intuitive reasoning. This generation of experts will be defined by what progress they make in rewriting policies and procedures and conducting research that validates our science.

There has never been an issue with the scientific background related to the formation and existence of FRD. This has been well articulated in research and by numerous Daubert presentations, particularly well by Steve Meagher in court and Kasey Wertheim in his work. What is at issue here it seems is whether or not we should, for the sake of grammar or convention and historical context, adapt one wording over another when describing the subjective interpretations and conclusions (based on scientific FRD) that rely on human cognition and intuitive reasoning. Changing terminology in a 100 year old science risks invalidating still-active reports made using existing terminology. If we concede that "identify" (sharing the root word with "identical" when addressing the image source) is incorrect, improper or (God forbid) inaccurate, by switching to a "more scientific term" in an effort to more fully validate the "making (of) observations, interpretations and forming conclusions that rely on cognitive and intuitive reasoning", then we may stand to risk the validity of thousands of finished cases on a grammatical technicality.

My point is that the conventionally-accepted wording in latent print reporting is clearly communicated to anyone in the law enforcement community, and to attorneys and judges in general. It ain't broke (yet). If I now switch my wording to "individualize", I invite the potential for confusion for those who may not be grammarians or who don't have a dictionary handy while reading the report.

I invite a link to the Tuthill research if it's available online. In the meantime, I know what I mean; and my submitting agencies and attorneys have known what I have meant for 15 years. As I stated before, if SWGFAST insists on forcing that change, and the legal community jumps on that bandwagon, I'll comply.

My two postings relating to identification versus individualise should have the desired effect of calming the waters and not stirring the pot. Based on the process of reaching identification through the use of individualisation we dont have to change how we report our conclusions. We do identify a persons fingerprints both exemplar and latent and what Ive written hopefully explains the three stages of any fingerprint examination.

From Webseter's New World Dictionary 2nd College Edition

Identity 1). The condition or fact of being the same or exactly alike; same; oneness 2a). The condition or fact of being a specific person or thing; individuality. 2b) the condition of being the same as a person or thing described or claimed.

Identical 1). The very same 2). Exactly alike or equal

Identification 1). An identifying or being identified 2). Anything by which a person or thing can be identified [the use of fingerprint for identification]

Identify 1). To make identical; consider or treat as the same 2). To recognize as being or show to be the very person or thing known, described , or claimed; fix the identity of.

Individual 1). Original, not divisible; not separable 2). Existing as a single, separate thing or being; single, separate, particular 3). Of, for, or by a single person or thing 4). Relating to or characteristic of a single person or thing 5). Distinguished from others by special characteristics; of a unique or striking character.

Individualize 1). To make individual; mark as different from other persons or things 2). To suit to the use taste, requirement, etc of a particular individual 3). To consider individually; specify; particularize

Fraternity 1).the state or quality of being brothers; fraternal relationship or spirit; brotherliness 2) a group of men (or, rarely, women) joined together by common interests for fellowship 3). A group of people with the same beliefs, interests, work, etc. (the medical fraternity).

Dogma 1). A doctrine; tenet; belief 2). Doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively 3). A positive, arrogant assertion of opinion.

Dogmatic 1). Of or like dogma; doctrinal 2) asserted a priori or without proof 3) stating opinion in a positive or arrogant manner

From my POV it does not matter to me whether someone uses the word that is more accurate but the meaning may be obscure from lack of common usage or the word that is less accurate but the meaning is common. The bigger issue from my view is how the LPE articulates that word to the investigators, courts or the juries. Articulation is the primary key on this issue not the words.

As a side bar and of no importance I do think we are a fraternity.

As a second side bar I think that Tuthill pulled most of that work from the earlier work of Dr. Paul L. Kirk who wrote about the identification/individulization on several occassions. Some nice words but I think most of it was a priori.

Identify 1). To make identical; consider or treat as the same 2). To recognize as being or show to be the very person or thing known, described , or claimed; fix the identity of.

Right, so if we accept this definition then what we are doing when we determine the source of a latent is identification not individualization...

Individualization took place in the womb when the fingerprint was "marked as different from other persons or things" When doing an examination you determine the source but you are not doing anything to the latent to individualize it.

Just look at the #2 of Identify "2). To recognize as being or show to be the very person or thing known, described , or claimed; fix the identity of.

That is what we do in our examination right? We fix the identity of an unknown latent.

Using these definitions I can individualize a latent card by putting a case number and my initials and the lift number on it but I do not individualize the latent. I identify it by showing it to be the very thing that is know ie John Does right thumb.

It may be semantics but I don't believe that individualization is a more scientific term in any way.

David, so what you are saying is that the individulization starts with the formation of the friction ridge skin and it is the original area of friction ridge skin that speaks of individulization. But since we are working with less than perfect reproductions of that individuality we are only able to identify a latent print to a representative of the original source. We are not adding to the individulization but only identifying two items as having the same source.

I never thought of it that way before. I LIKE IT.

What shall we call it: The David Johnson Tenent on Identification.

It makes sense to me. So how do we package and sell this Paradigm Shift?

David Johnson wrote:Identify 1). To make identical; consider or treat as the same 2). To recognize as being or show to be the very person or thing known, described , or claimed; fix the identity of.

Right, so if we accept this definition then what we are doing when we determine the source of a latent is identification not individualization...

Individualization took place in the womb when the fingerprint was "marked as different from other persons or things" When doing an examination you determine the source but you are not doing anything to the latent to individualize it.

Just look at the #2 of Identify "2). To recognize as being or show to be the very person or thing known, described , or claimed; fix the identity of.

That is what we do in our examination right? We fix the identity of an unknown latent.

Using these definitions I can individualize a latent card by putting a case number and my initials and the lift number on it but I do not individualize the latent. I identify it by showing it to be the very thing that is know ie John Does right thumb.

It may be semantics but I don't believe that individualization is a more scientific term in any way.

I think this is excellent.

Choosing a reference dictionary needs careful consideration as to who was the intended reader. Being part of a scientific community requires understanding of the knowledge that enables the science to function, including terminology. The biologicial development of each individual has more than one organ system which enables identification sciences to detect the individuality of a person. The determined source of a latent fingerprint (FRD) is a conclusion we reach about the individuality of the FRD to the exclusion of all others and all other parts of the same person. We are reporting the recognition of that individuality and we do so by identifying to the court the name of the person who possesses the FRD. Its not about changing or adding to the persons individuality its about discovering sufficient FRD to enable the reporting of the persons identity.
SWGFAST recommends that we understand Individualisation to occur when a competent examiner determines that two friction ridge impressions originated from the same source to the exclusion of all others. I agree.

to enable the reporting of the persons identity

Identity. There's that word again. Perhaps we should report a person's individualization when we recognize them in a crowd?

Though it may be at odds with some definitions, the term "individualize" has the connotation that we are being pro-active in "making" something individual or unique by virtue of something we are doing, i.e. "calling" an ID. This would be at odds with the passive, hopefully unbiased act of trying to see if two objects (impressions) shared a common source. (See the above excellent posts by Johnson and Parker).

To "identify" something seems to be the more passive act of observing and being able to articulate an identity, i.e. "recognizing" an ID for what it is, and not making it something of our own calling.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the quantity and quality of information present in a latent or known would be what individualizes the Friction Ridge skin. If there is enough information to individualize the latent, it is "of value for identification" so to say.

The details themselves, not the examiner individualize the FRD (while it does take a trained examiner to recognize this) and then an examiner can go on to identify the common source.

How would that play out in verbage? Well maybe you could say something to the effect of...

"The quality and quantity of 1st, 2nd and 3rd level detail present in the latent print is sufficent to individualize it. I then identified the latent as the right thumb of Mr. John Doe."

The science has room for both terms and they just work together to answer seperate questions.

Choosing a reference dictionary needs careful consideration as to who was the intended reader

I generally do not like quoting dictionaries as they are for public consumption and not tailored to any specialized endeavor (sports, politics, religion, science, business, etc) but did so on this one as in Tuthill's book he goes into root word and my intention was to expand on that. The intended reader are those that read this forum. If what was quoted is incorrect, please let me know.

Being part of a scientific community requires understanding of the knowledge that enables the science to function, including terminology.

I agree, but the catch is whose terminology. Since SWGFAST is mandated to set standards and guidelines then we all must abide by their decision. However I do not think SWGFAST intends to limit discussion but would think they would encourage it so they could determine other concepts and ideas that they may not have encountered. And if a consensus of the discipline wants a change I would think that they would comply.

The determined source of a latent fingerprint (FRD) is a conclusion we reach about the individuality of the FRD to the exclusion of all others and all other parts of the same person. We are reporting the recognition of that individuality and we do so by identifying to the court the name of the person who possesses the FRD. Its not about changing or adding to the persons individuality its about discovering sufficient FRD to enable the reporting of the persons identity.

I generally agree (the little differences are not worth debating). But you just interchanged individuality, identity, and identifying. If a LPE was allwowed to interchange the words as you just did that would go a long way in ending this discussion. By mandating one word and one word only (individulization) needs to be taken under careful consideration and creates confusion not for the courts as Dr. Kirk believed but for the very discipline that it is intended to help.

SWGFAST recommends that we understand Individualisation to occur when a competent examiner determines that two friction ridge impressions originated from the same source to the exclusion of all others.

I wonder why SWGFAST only recommends it instead of requiring it?

The competent examiner thing has always stumped me. Who is competent and who is not? Is there a test for competency? Are only Certified examiner competent? Are those that only work for the Feds competent? How about only those that meet or exceed all SWGFAST guidelines the only ones competent? By not being able to say who is competent or not; is not very scientific. DNA has a set educational level, set training program, set standards, set testing, set proficiencies etc. We as a discipline have none of those (well mostly, I suppose I could backpedal on standards).

I think until such time as some group with authority can sit down and determine what a LPE really is then the issue of who can do it, who cannot not, who should do, and who should not will be a cut that will never heal.

Of course that comment is open to debate, criticism, or down right slap down. What is competency, who has it and who does not? An opening for another thread.

Les, I agree with most of what you say, but for me and me alone, I would love the choice of being able to use Identification or Individulization when I thought it best for the audience I was appearing in front of and not have a pain in the back of my head that I was not complying with SWGFAST or someone pointing to me and saying no, no, no. Choice in terminology for the topic at hand I believe is scientific protocol, UNLESS someone goes overboard and creates their own Kligon language. But I honestly do not think that anyone out there reading this has no understanding of what Identification means when said in the context of the analysis being presented.

Take care down under from a SOT--I am done with this thread.

The analogy of recognising a person in a crowd is a good example of reaching a conclusion about individuality and then using our confidence to name the person to the exclusion of all others. But what if we didnt have a name? In Taxonomy the scientific classification of a tree branch would identify it as being from an olive tree to the exclusion of all other trees. If further detail was available then the same branch by physical fit reconstruction would be the olive tree from John Does farm to the exclusion of all other olive trees. The difference being as Tuthill proposed is that identity refers to a group or species with the same classification while individualisation is to one only within that group/species. In Fingerprint science we conduct examinations that similarly result in the use of both terms. We identify the latent mark as a human fingerprint, then individualise it to a single area of FRD and then report identity of the person who has that FRD. Cheers from oz.

We identify the latent mark as a human fingerprint, then individualise it to a single area of FRD and then report identity of the person who has that FRD.

In reporting the identity, we identify, do we not? Individualization, then, is an intermediate or transitional stage in the process of identification, if I understand the post.

I agree, enough is enough. The term "individualization" is fraught with ambiguity until we re-educate our target audience and universally agree with which term we adopt.