CLPEX Chat Board

Boy, I would sure like to know what Sandra Birks training in examining LATENT prints was. It sounded like she was a 10-print Tech and then got kicked upstairs...and started making bad ID's immediately.

And the agency is re-hiring someone Birks fired for "not making enough difficult ID's?" Hmmmmm "Enough"?

My very first job was taking over for someone who had made a LOT of bad ID's and was fired. They hired me right out of college. They sent me the FBI's Basic Fingerprints and Advanced Latent Print Techniques classes (the road classes) and within a day after I got back, they were asking for identifications.

My supervisor was a sworn officer who knew NOTHING about latent prints and couldn't understand what the problem was. "After all," he said, "(my predecessor) made ID's ALL THE TIME!!!"

What does not kill us, makes us strong.

You may want to read this article (the newest one out) prior to reading my thoughts on it:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-prin ... -headlines

It’s hard to know exactly what happened in this case but knowing that the examiner was certified does tell me that she had a certain level of competence and knowledge about fingerprints. The Sheriff, the supervisor, and the media can all say what they like but I tend to doubt some of the statements I’ve seen. I really wonder why Birk, “….has absolutely no credibility as a latent-print examiner”, yet the FBI examiners could overcome the Mayfield situation??

This article says, “The mess created by a fingerprint analyst…”

Even if the examiner made an erroneous ID, the department needs to take some of the responsibility for “this mess”. Why did they let it happen? Didn’t they have any Quality Assurance measures in place? At least the FBI realized that besides dealing with the examiners they also had to change some of their procedures. I think it’s awful that this Sheriff’s solution is to completely blame the examiner. Why should all the responsibility be on Birk when her agency supported her actions? Some of the articles make it sound like Williamson’s written complaint wasn’t the first complaint. I wonder if previous complaints fell on def ears and the problem was only taken seriously once the complaint was put in writing?? If this is the case then I’d think the Sheriff should step up and admit that ultimately the problem was due to lax policies, favoritism towards certain employees, and bad management.

This article mentions that the Sheriff is, “… closing the barn door before any more horses get out.” Does hiring two people with years of experience do this? I remember previous posts where it’s been mentioned that 20 years of experience could mean that someone has 1 year of experience 20 times over. I hope the Sheriff has a few more aces up his sleeve.

The best advice this article gives is “Make sure your own houses are in order”. It sounds like good advice to me.

Additionally, which relates to some discussions Michele and I had on the situation a little while back, Cabral was fired for (as Sharon pointed out) "not making enough matches on hard-to-read prints". My thoughts were it sounded like she was using sound judgement in doing her job - she wasn't allowing the peer pressure of another examiner to sway her conclusion. And now she's being rehired. They're probably lucky that she's coming back as opposed to filing a pretty large lawsuit.

Regarding Williamson, it says that she was demoted for making a bad print identification and verifying Birks' bad calls. On the surface, that reads like an erroneous ID and verifying other erroneous ID's. But, it could be that she called prints that were determined (by FDLE) as inconclusive and verified prints that were also determined to be inconclusive. If I'm remembering earlier articles, it sounds like Williamson received her training with Seminole County. I'm assuming that she was trained in a system where Donna Birks was her trainer? If so, the whole situation could provide some insight as to issues she may have had. She could have been trained in a situation where limits were expected to be pushed and she didn't have the experience and knowledge that Cabral appeared to have to stand her ground. Instead she may have verified prints that were beyond her level, even in the cases that were reviewed and were technically correct, because she was taught that prints such as those were both able to be ID'd and expected to be ID'd to remain employed. Essentially, she never stood a chance in this system.

I would respectfully submit that too little is known about this situation to speculate without being unfair to some of the parties involved. Maybe latent prints were of no value for identification for anybody, or maybe some people have higher thresholds for making an identification. Maybe there are politics and animosities at play. Maybe the reporters have given inaccurate information or stirred controversy where none should exist. I have not seen a single one of the prints involved. But I would be glad to hear from someone who has. Anybody?

Thomas Taylor wrote:I would be glad to hear from someone who has [seen the prints]. Anybody?

... and silence for a day.

I think you nailed it, Thomas... too many unknowns. Hypothetically, on one end of the spectrum (close to the spin of the sheriff's office) Birks was a wreckless examiner who made 7 bad calls, one of which was erroneous and 6 of which should never have been identified by anyone. On the other end of the spectrum FDLE found the erroneous ident and went on a witch hunt, calling the toughest 6 of Donna's good idents "inconclusive". Reality probably lies somewhere in between - she made a bum ID, was found to have pushed the envelope in some high profile cases, but I bet that at least one of those 6 "inconclusive" prints is a good match. But it's all hypothetical speculation until (and if) the prints are released.

The truth is, whether you take one extreme, the other extreme, or the middle road, you align yourself against someone or some agency. This is a tough case that appears to be extremely politically charged.

Anybody want to draft a CLPEX letter of request for the images as training aide's to further define sufficiency for identification? Here we have 6 comparisons that by their very nature are on the border of ident/inconclusive. To not have these images to help the community develop better standards would be the real travesty.

I thought "I'd have to see the print" was common response from any of us.

This is a tough case that appears to be extremely politically charged.

At the risk of being buried by a majority, isn't this a prime example of why forensic work should be done by disinterested 3rd parties, labs or LE agencies? That's not to suggest that the overwhelming majority of examiners are not ethical, honest and accurate, but it eliminates most of the potential for political bias and pressure. Can an examiner work directly for a sheriff or chief, both political appointees, and remain honest at the risk of losing a job? Sure, but the exceptions are showing up at a very small but alarming rate in recent years. The expensive but increasingly mandatory solution is to require all examiners to work for accredited laboratories which are inspected frequently.

I honestly don't think that there are any "disinterested" third parties. If you get paid you aren't disinterested. There are many examiners out there that don't fall to the pressure, regardless of their employer.

I agree with Michelle that the agency is partly responsible. Too many agencies for too long have let examiners cut corners or hired people with no experience or no aptitude, instead of staffing the unit properly. Their only goal is to increase productivity with no regard to the quality of the work. That's not justice.

"We" as a profession need to find a way to help examiners and agencies prevent situations like this from happening, instead of just talking about it on chat boards.

I think there are many different levels to this. As Kasey mentioned, Thomas is right - too little is known. So at this point all we can do is speculate based on news stories. Those of us who have worked on cases that made the evening news know all too well how accurate that these stories can be.

But who is it that are reading these articles and taking them at face value - the people who will likely be sitting on our juries and deciding whether or not we're credible and whether or not latent print comparisons are credible. And they are the ones that are potentially being misled.

Those of us in the field are doing our best effort to figure things out with limited information, which is all that we have for now. Maybe someone with the FDLE or close to the situation knows if there will be some sort of formal report on the situation giving an explanation of the problem, the cause(s), what needs to be done to avoid them in the future, and what changes are to be made in Seminole County (essentially something similar as to what happened with the FBI).

It sounds like a lot of responsibility falls on the agency. They didn't have management in place that could create guidelines or somehow define what is to be considered of value for their agency. Instead they allowed one of their examiners to define it for them through casework. Kasey's right though; there could very possibly be prints that, having gone through another agency or examiners, could have been properly individualized. But by the FDLE's definition they were inconclusive. Since they've been the ones tasked with overseeing the investigation, then their definition should stand in this case. I don't really have a problem with that since we testify that it's our individual experience, talent, training, etc... that allows us to come to our conclusions. These will differ not only amongst examiners from different agencies, but also within the same agencies. And that's when it's the agency's responsibility to define their acceptable conclusions, and what will be done for those that are approaching that gray area.

Now how do we go about doing this? The first step is likely through training. Unfortunately training is one of the first things to get cut when budgets are tight - and when was the last time that you heard of people from an agency discuss how loose their budget was? Also many smaller agencies can't even afford their own team of examiners, and training is likely a luxury for those who work on the forensics side of things as part of their duties too. Unfortunately one of the better free options - FBI In-service training - has pretty much disappeared in this field over the last few years. Bob Moran taught his last Administrative Latent course in January of 2004. He, and that three-week course, were never replaced. Additionally, Mike Brooks is leaving the FBI in a month and who knows if his series of four Forensic Photography courses and one Police Photography course will be replaced? If we go by recent past practice, I'm guessing that it won't. That leaves Bob May's Latent Print Photo and two Forensic Digital Imaging courses, and it probably wouldn't surprise anyone if Bob was to leave tomorrow or any time thereafter. This year, after a couple of years of postponements, the Daubert preparation course was finally held. Hopefully it will come back again next year and some of the recent hearings will help shape its future.

lpexaminer wrote: "We" as a profession need to find a way to help examiners and agencies prevent situations like this from happening, instead of just talking about it on chat boards.

Talking about it in an online forum may not seem all that helpful, but for some it may be all they've got. And the contacts and discussions that spin off from these postings may be helpful for them. I know many of us burn a lot of emails and phone calls based on the discussions that occur here. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the lectures taking place at the yearly IAI conferences taking place locally and internationally don't come from these same topics - since they're often what's on the examiners' minds.

I honestly don't think that there are any "disinterested" third parties. If you get paid you aren't disinterested. There are many examiners out there that don't fall to the pressure, regardless of their employer.

By "3rd party" I mean that it would look much better to the court system if forensic scientists and examiners were "one level removed" from the agency that is bringing charges against the defendent. We all know that most of us, scientists or not, are well aware of the expectations to remain as objective as humanly possible when filing reports. If charges are brought by a municipality, a county or state lab would be less likely to be pressured for "favorable" results than a lab run and funded by the municipality pressing charges. Those upper level labs are also more likely to be accredited and closely monitored and audited than smaller labs or in-house fingerprint work. It should be obvious why defense attorneys see an in-house examiner as a "fox in the henhouse."

It is, of course, impossible to find any examiners who aren't paid for their work. The question is "who is paying for what and what expectations and control go with that pay?" Those of us on the LE side are often critical of the "hired guns" paid exorbitant fees by the defense. Many of these "experts" fail in court for that very reason, yet are we not straining our own credibility when we do the same on the other side?

It is, of course, impossible to find any examiners who aren't paid for their work. The question is "who is paying for what and what expectations and control go with that pay?"

I suppose it depends on your perspective. You could look at it as "I work for the police, therefore I want to catch criminals and my opinion is biased and suspect." I try not to look at it that way. I don't work for the District Attorney's office. My job is not to assure their convictions. I happen to be employed by the same people as the DA -- the taxpayers. The way I look at it, I work for the City, or the State, or whatever. Therefore, my clear duty is to the people, not to a particular office, or agenda. The people are best served by justice, not by convictions or acquittals, per se. So I really do look at it that my job is to do my work and tell what I found, regardless of which side it "helps."

I think that my attitude can be evidenced and believed by a jury just based on my tone and body language on the stand. I don't act or feel hostile towards the defense -- why should I? I have no vested interest in the outcome and if I've done my job properly, I have nothing to fear from either side. Tell what you did and let the results speak for themselves.

I've often had colleagues or people at trainings and conferences ask me questions that amount to: "but if you tell them X, won't they spin it like Y?" My response is "That's the lawyers' jobs to sort out. That's why we have an adversarial law system. My job is to present what I know. Their job is to convince the jury what to make of it." In my opinion, this both makes my job much less stressful, and provides the impartial service that the taxpayers deserve.

Just my $0.02...