CLPEX Chat Board

Can you reach the conclusion of individuality with out comparing FRD to something else?

Hopefully otherwise you end up in a circular logic of "because a latent and a known match that makes them individual..." even with out a known there there can be enought information in a latent to individualize it.

For example the VIN and Licence plate of my car individualize it to the exclusion of all other Honda Civics on the planet but am I individualising it when I read the numbers or was that done before?


Les you say that identify can only be used for class but that again couldnt you identify a class of one? It is all in how you qualify the identification. You can readily say that I have identified the branch as an olive branch, or I have identified the branch as belonging to Jon Doe's tree third from the right on the north side of his farm. There would have to be factors to individualize the olive branch to do this but you still identify it whether it be to a general class or a class of one.

The two terms individuality and identification when used in the context of fingerprint examinations are interdependent. When we report the identification of a known source it comes about by our decision that individuality has been achieved. If we commence an examination and find that the degree of detail only permits classification then we rely upon the rarety of that detail and not its power to fully differentiate. Ofcourse we accept that a source can be excluded from an examination based on that detail. The olive tree branch can only come from that species but the same branch that physically joins back with source tree is exclusive.

Another two terms that often provide meaningful discussion are the subjective and objective decision making processes involved in a fingerprint examination. My view is that we follow an objective methodology that culminates in a subjective conclusion. Once again the two terms are interdependent and our understanding of how they apply is another issue requiring general consensus.

I prefer the term Identify, Identification in reports. I have seen DNA Analysts and Chemist use the term Individulization.

However in court my testimony would be:

"The latent print on the card marked as exhibit 6 and the right index on the fingerprint card attributed to John Doe were both made from the same source"

I do not think the jury would be confused with that statement. If the prosecutor is, then they can ask me to elaborate.

Gotta kick this one to the top of the page with the other one on the same topic.

Gotta kick this one back to the top of the page.