CLPEX Chat Board

When a haematologist, microbiologist or a histologist looks through their microscopes and observe identify, the process is not that different to what fingerprint specialists do.

Biologists are able to analyze, compare and evaluate.

There is nothing new in the process. There seems to be a nonsensical notion out there, that we somehow can memorize all prints we have observed and by some magic, look at a latent print and decide 'hey presto' we have an identification!

Yes, sometimes a recidivist offender comes to our notice a few times and because we have analyzed their prints we are able to say "hey I've seen that print before" Kind of like when you see a close member of your family or friend, whom you haven't seen for a few years and you suddenly walk by them and a few seconds later, 'click!' If you saw your family member on the street how are you able to determine who they are? What makes you able to identify them? Walk up to them and talk to them then things fall into place:

Height, weight, facial features, voice or expressions that you have seen many times.

Now, if anyone is interested they can make the effort and go to this site or other web sites for current and past scholarly literature including medical journals and the current JFI for information. There are also journals and literature within other countries that are very good.

There is a reason why the fingerprint field has been around for as long it has and it's not because someone waved a magical wand and "PRESTO".

What is enough? We can only determine that when we have seen the latent print, compared it against the exemplar and evaluate all the matching detail. Determining and testifying to identity requires long training (not 2 weeks or six months of training).

I read an article in Scientific American regarding chess masters and it takes an average of 10,000 hours of active and challenging work to be an expert in their field. They must challenge themselves constantly to be at the top of their field.

I trained for five years before I could give evidence on identity. I am in my fourteenth year, bring on the next challenge!

There are a few of AFIS system companies in the world that have put millions into getting systems that try to mimic the human ace-v process. The non proprietary information they provide is very useful to anyone who wants to peer review them.

raybie wrote:
What is enough? We can only determine that when we have seen the latent print, compared it against the exemplar and evaluate all the matching detail. Determining and testifying to identity requires long training (not 2 weeks or six months of training).

This is where I disagree. The sufficiency of the latent print is an independent variable to be determined before any comparison is made. It is, furthermore, the most critical decision in the examination process as it sets the stage for making the ID/Exclusion decision. I would further submit that it is possible to establish selection criteria based on scientifically defensible methods.

Again, it is not a matter of what has been done in the past. It is solely an issue of what we are capable of achieving for the future. The first step is to abandon this notion that it isn't possible to do better. I see and hear, repeatedly, statements from examiners saying that it is not possible to capture the qualitative aspects of latent print comparison. No, it is not possible, at this time, to create a computer system or model that PERFECTLY mimics the brain's pattern matching ability. But this level of perfection is unnecessary. Early models will not be the holy epiphany that catapults latent print identification into the space age. Rather, much like many prototypes, they may seem clunky and weak. I bid you to have patience as successive iterations will be bigger, stronger, faster, and more comprehensive.

Kevin Wrote:
"'unique' is a term unto itself that i believe lends itself very well to FR analysis. Do I take it to mean what DNA terms it? Of course not. Should a jury member constantly have in the back of his or her mind, WWDNAD (What would DNA do!) when weiging my testimony on a FP analysis??"

I remember the days when DNA was being introduced as the new cutting edge technology for identification in criminal cases where biological evidence was discovered. They chose the term "DNA Fingerprint" if I recall correctly.....to bring valididty and wareness to its accuracy.

HI Peter
yes they sure did, your memory is correct, for at least untill 1997 the term was common place amongst forensic scientists involved in DNA though some were getting a bit fidgity about the term and as fingerprint officers were also not happy about it, as DNA was not as good as fingerprint identification as they could only come up with statistics to show a similar match and could not identify identical twins; I am sure they started to distance them-selves. We also must not forget OJ. But I think the new thread looks like it may take over from this one on this matter.