CLPEX Chat Board

radarmoose,

When you go to the Ga. Division site, click on newsletter and when the list of their newsletters come up click on the May 2007 issue. It is hi-lighted with "New". The issue the article is in is the May 2007 issue and I believe it is titled something like Using Analysis on Fabricated or Forged Prints. Page 5 of the May 2007 issue.

Back to the point on Duplicate Lifts I saw one yesterday that a LPE here showed me.

They are the same latent, with the same background clutter on two different lift cards. One is labeled as "Outside Patio Glass Door" and the other one is labeled as "Inside Patio Glass Door". They are the same latent lifted twice but not marked as duplicate lifts but with a little difference in location (hey---they got patio door the same).

How does one report that??? OR Should they even report it at all and just go with "Calls It As It Is Written" and hopes no one else notices.

What would you do??

Hey. The examiner could end up having to testify in answer to the question, "Did you reach a conclusion about the identity of the person whose fingerprint was found on the inside/outside of the patio door glass?" I don't think I could answer that one. There's an obvious labeling problem that would have to be reported, with the reports on the two latents cross-referenced. Knowing the kind of mistakes officers and techs can make when they try to be efficient and lay out the lifts from an area without labeling all of them until they finish, I'd be kind of suspicious of the labeling on any other lifts labeled as being from the door glass.

Gerald, you are right a definite labeling problem.

On a little different path---the CSU SOP's state they are to make a diagram where the latent print came from on what I call the 'reverse' of the lift card. Several were in the office yesterday evening and they were asking me what is the best way to draw the diagrams. It seems there are two or three methods being employed (specific, combined, and overall) and they wanted to know which one would be the best for the LP Office. My response was---anyway you want to do it. They responded that they really wanted to know which way was best. I then asked them the question "what purpose/objective does the diagram have"? (I love MBO). They said to document where the latent print came from. I said "No--it is placed on the card so you can remember where it came from" (OK--so I was being pedantic with them). I then went on to say that LPE do not use that information but very very rarely (or at least I do). One you cannot trust some of it---you may see arrows pointing but pointing to what 'Up', 'Down', 'Left or Right', 'front of car'. It is hard to look at orientation marks and be confident on what information they are trying to convey.

Diagrams and orientation marks---few LPE I know use them with any cofidence and no one I know will indicate those in a report---just the descriptor information on where the lift came from. I trust my judgement on orientation than on some I have seen.

I have seen orientation marks on duplicate lifts pointing in different directions.

I am with Gayle Peters most of the time "I call them as they are written" but on some cases there is the "Exception to the Rule".

The critics will love that-----another standard that is not followed 100% of the time each and every time. Oh well critics do what they do best---be critical.

That's kind of what I told ours. You should be able, from your labels, sketches, photographs, and reports, to put that lift card back on the object in exactly the position you lifted it and the object in the position and orientation you found it. I told them that if it was hard to show the lift position with a diagram, take a photograph of the tape or whatever before you lift. Also, don't just use an arrow and "UP". Does that mean toward the sky or toward the top of the vase lying on the floor? Sketch the object and drawn in the lift card position on the object and put an arrow in the sketched card that corresponds with the arrow on the actual card. (I actually like better using an elongated "T" or something else, rather than an arrow, since the arrow is used for North and other things in sketches.) Paper's cheap. If you have to attach a larger sketch to a latent card, so what? I liked them to use photographs and made sure they understood the complimentary roles of photos and sketches. I wanted a lot of documentation, 'cause guess who is going to be asked how the prints show the hammer/vase/knife was held when they were made.

If they ask what sort of sketch method to use to document a lift, I would ask what sort of sketching and photography do they use to document other evidence in a scene. They'll answer rightly that they use everything from an overall views down to details. Is print evidence in a scene any different? And why would they consider documenting the position of a bunch of spent casings on the floor down to the fraction of an inch and not approach something that may well be much more telling evidence differently.

Gerald Said

'cause guess who is going to be asked how the prints show the hammer/vase/knife was held when they were made.

I have been asked that question a few times. Most of the time the prosecutors will discuss it before hand because they want to know what I am going to say. I can remember being asked once by a defense attorney and I am not too sure he liked my answer.

But to take this in another direction (and I debated whether or not to make a new thread or post it here), but I am preparing for a presentation and I came across something that is interesting to me.

Where I have worked before we never listed what finger or palm the latent prints were identified with and the following is a quote from booklet titled "Management and Opeation of a Latent Fingerprint Section" by Robert J. Hazen and was published in 1983.

p. 36 When listing the identifications effected in the report, it is not necessary to list which particular finger or palm was identified. (e.g. right thumb, right index, right palm, left palm, etc.) It makes no difference which finger or palm has been identified, and the preparation of the report will be much easier.

Now at the last two jobs I have had it was required that the report list which particular finger or palm was identified. When I asked them here why they did that the response was "The DA wants to know" or "We have always done it that way" or "the state does it that way".

Now the vast majority of our reports never get to court and those that did I have on a few ocassions asked the ADA if they needed it in the report and there response is "what report" (just kidding) there response has been not really as long as you have it documented elsewhere.

My question is: What good purpose does it show to have in the official report which particular area was identified? And my second question to those reading: How many of you put in your reports which particular area was identified?

Color me curious.

I don't report a particular area that was identified, although there is a clue by default. My reports read something like this:

The latent impression was made by the person whose inked fingerprints appear on the card marked John Doe.

(If it's a palm print, I will write ...whose inked palm prints..., so by default there is a clue to the particular area).

I don't believe it shows any purpose to put that information in the report. I have the information in my notes. I can speculate about what the reproduction of a particular area means about how someone held/touched an item, but I can't say for certain. IMHO, attorneys like to tell stories about what happened and it helps them if an expert can back up their story.

On the other hand, I am a minimalist, and most of my coworkers' reports have all kinds of information about the type of impressions they found (fingerprints, tip prints, joint prints, palm prints, ad infinitum). They do not usually include this information when talking about their identifications, though.

The agency I work for does not normally specify in the report which finger or palm made an impression. I have had an officer call me after receiving the report and asked to know that information. I believe I had made roughly 20 id's to the same person and most to the right thumb. I'm still not sure why he cared. My thought at the time was that maybe the officer wanted to imply the subject was right handed.

The agencies I have worked for generally required both the item/surface the latent print came from & which finger/palm it was identified to.

I recall one murder case that I think is especially relevant to the subject. An eldery railroad retiree living in a small rural town was missing. He had recently met & married a 20 something woman on a drunken weekend in Las Vegas. His new wife of a few weeks had left the town, & his bank accounts were found to have been drained.

His modest home was exceptionally clean, and processing for latent prints developed relatively few, although signs of liquid droplets (indicating a recent cleaning) were abundant, as well as traces of possible gloveprints. One of the prints developed was a very small partial print developed on the painted headboard of the master bedroom bed. In addition, although the mattress had been cleaned, cutting it open revealed significant blood stains inside.

I eventually identified the print as having been made by the right ring finger of a boyfriend of the victim's 'wife', & he was charged with murder. After direct testimony at trial, the defense questioned me closely about the exact portion & positioning of the finger that was identified. The attorney then consulted with the defendant, and asked for a recess, but requested that I remain in the courtroom after the jury was removed.

The purpose turned out to be that the defendant was changing his plea to guilty, but had a request to speak to me directly. The defendant proceeded to tell me that he thought he was being railroaded, because he was wearing rubber kitchen gloves when he had very thoroughly cleaned throughout the house, including the headboard, after killing the old man. However, he was aware of a small hole in the right ring finger of the gloves right in the area that I had identified, and my testimony had convinced him that I had done a good job, and the evidence was valid.

That information had not been made available to this defendant prior to trial. My point is that knowing what finger or palm has been identified may be important in ways that we can't foresee, and in some instances may even prevent the necessity of a trial.
Regards, RLT

RL Said

The agencies I have worked for generally required both the item/surface the latent print came from & which finger/palm it was identified to.

RL I agree that where the latent print came from item/surface is a most definite must in the supplementary report.

RL Said

My point is that knowing what finger or palm has been identified may be important in ways that we can't foresee, and in some instances may even prevent the necessity of a trial.

You are correct in that it may be important and most definitely be documented in the notes and on the latent lift card/photo as we do. But my inner debate is whether to put the finger or palm location in the supplemental report.

If a LPE has not testified yet as to how the finger or hand was positioned when it came in contact with a surface they probably will at sometime in the future. From my expeience those type of questions generally will arise in respect to a weapon, or bottle possibly used as a weapon. Also in some cases with burglaries on how an item was handled for the latent print to be in that position. No disagreement there, just should it be in the report. (I have not testified in a burglary case in over 4 years-----In 1979 I was testifying to 1 a month)

Amy Hart Said

The latent impression was made by the person whose inked fingerprints appear on the card marked John Doe.

That is interesting and as side bar most agencies I know now use something like "the card marked John Doe" or "the card associated with John Doe" or "the card bearing the name of John Doe". It did not use to be that way, but over time several other agencies I know got pinned down because the LPE was testifying that the print was identified with John Doe and got taken to task because how did they know absolutely that the card was John Doe's. In one case that comes to mind it just so happened that the card the examiner had in their possession had the wrong name on it. It took a couple of court recesses for that to get straightened out.

With live scan now and no signatues on the cards and no information on the print outs I keep a copy of each exemplar I use because I do not want someone coming back to me and said I compared the wrong person because some clerk in a CRS changed the name on entry or punched the wrong number in number block.

Just call me paranoid but I have come a long way without screwing the pooch and I would like to get out of this business with my skin intact and certification still in place. Old Age Will Do That To You. It might make a person more wiser (sometimes--no guarantee) but also more cautious.

Anybody else out there want to comment on putting finger and/or palm location in the supplemental or primary report. Come on jump in and say what you think.

Good morning Charles,

This is the old dinosaur speaking. I would like to address a question you asked a bit back first, Charles. I had a case with duplicate lifts, and the officer who took them labeled them differently. I sent them back through his sergeant with a memo attached. In it, I basically said that the duplicate lifts which I had paper-clipped together were marked as coming from two different sources. Because of the debris lifted with the prints, I knew that the latent images came from outside. Now, I added, either the officer accidently mismarked the two lifts, or he deliberately did so; in which case I had no other alternative than to report my findings to my supervisor. The lifts were sent back to me corrected. It may have seemed a little strong, but it was a serious mistake, and I believe in handling such things directly to the point.

Now, as to your last statement on this thread. It has always been the policy at this department to label which finger/palmprint in which the latent is a match. All I have done is to change the way it was originally written. Instead of marking it as #3 finger or whatever, I spell it out. It was a match with the left ring finger on an inked suspect ten-print card bearing the name of Joe Doe; or whatever the name is. If it is an elimination identification, I make that distinction, as well. Even in Pat Wertheim's Advanced Ridgeology Class, he required that the finger/palmprint be labeled as coming from which finger and which card. If it comes from a Major Case Print card, the distinction is marked in the supplement. I also quote, exactly, from where the latent mark was lifted. I use the person's own words from the back of the card. If there is a grammatical error, then that is marked as [sic] to show that it was from the original source and not my error.

I attempt to be as accruate as possible in my supplements as that assists the investigator in charge of the case, as well as the ADA who may have to prosecute the case. The location of the from which the marks were lifted can play a very important part in how a case is handled after my identification. That is why I write down what I did, to whom I made the comparison/identification, from whence it was lifted, searched through AFIS, whatever. Again, accuracy in a supplement and full disclosure are very important aspects of our profession. Of course, the last time that I had to testify in Circuit Court was in 2006 on a homicide case. I receive several supeonas a year; however, I never have to appear to testify. The majority of these cases are, of course, burglaries to homes, to cars, stolen cars, and a few robberies. My job is not to make things mysterious by not putting them in writing, but to enlighten the investigator, ADA, and the defense; thereby keeping things simplified for them, and in the long run, for myself. Over the past 26 years in latent comparisons, I have only changed the verbiage and the amount of information, in the supplement. It is very important to remember that we work for the people. Honesty and character are two things that I truly believe must always stay with us. Otherwise, we could end up at the onin.com's bum ident page, or even worse, be compared to the Boston PD's old indentification unit.

Well, again, I have had my say as to what I write, and the reasons behind why I do so in that particular manner. It can be so easy to start thinking in the wrong way or to keep people in the dark as to a person's findings in a report. In this science, we cannont afford to be anything but honest, forthright, and always above-board. If we do not, then we can very easily become what so many of the detractors of this science believe that we are: dishonest, trying to hide errors, liars, and people who easily get sidetracked, or influenced by outside sources. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of my department.

Keeping this short...

I cannot imagine reporting an identification without reporting the precise source of the mark. I can't make a real convincing argument that I allow a fatal factual flaw by not being specific, but it certainly feels distinctly like leaving out a piece of non-trivial information that I possessed, and I can't think of a reason for leaving it out. AND - I think it's quite the sort of thing any layperson would consider should be reported. Among those laypersons are attorneys who I want to believe it's a lock. I'm not sure how logical my reaction is, and it may grow out of having been responsible for reporting the whole scene where decisions on what to note and report are made with the view that if it could be of interest, put it in.

Just for your informal survey, Charles. We always tell what finger or palm was identified and what surface it was on (according to what was written on the back of the lift card).

It seems that I may have lost a person or two. I am not suggesting that the source location of the latent print (Bedroom Patio Window, Interior Rear View Mirror, Left Side of Browning 9mm pistol SN123456, etc.) but what I am asking is how many of us put in our outgoing report that the latent print was identified with the right index finger of John Doe, and how many do not.

i.e.

Item 32 which was submitted by P. Griffin #333 and reported to have been obtained from the "exterior drivers side front window of a Jaguar XE, Lic. Number 65432" was identified with the right thumb on the fingerprint card bearing the name of John Doe.

Item 32 which was submitted by P. Griffin #333 and reported to have been obtained from the "exterior drivers side front window of a Jaguar XE, Lic. Number 65432" was identified to a fingerprint on the card bearing the name of John Doe.

I do not see how a detective would gain any information by knowing it was the right thumb on the exterior of the window or some other finger for that matter.

Now the above example seems kind of insignificant when you look at both of them and say Parker we are only dealing with 11-12 letters difference. Put the finger or palm location in the report. And I would have to agree with you. But it gets a little different when you have multiple subjects and 25-30 identifications made on one case.

ETR (Exception to the rule) as noted before the exact location can in some instances can be very important. The information is documented in your work notes or work sheet or analysis sheet or ACE Sheet, or whatever you might be calling it. How many of us put the exact location of the finger or palm that the latent print was identified to in our outgoing report and how many of us do not?

So far it looks like the ones who do put specific information of the known source location outnumber the ones that do not at 2 to 1.

I would just make a point that seems to me to be related to some fundamental philosophy. Factually, it's not particularly common for the source finger to be important, but we have kind of made an issue of starting an examination without assuming too much. Mainly, of course, we have in mind the suspect status of the person to whom we are comparing. Assuming the finger number isn't important or won't become important isn't warranted. It's something we can conclude with certainty that might, just might, be useful. It might not be useful to know other conclusions about substrate and medium and other features, but we sure report them. Granted, unlike our justification for admonishing scene techs and officers to carefully locate and orient the lift, we can produce the finger information later, but I can tell you that sometimes it's something small in a report that makes the light come on for the detective.