CLPEX Chat Board

Don't quite agree with all you say but there is merit.

Surely the discussion can follow and all can be shared after the decisions?

Unfortunately I am not at liberty to say too much about our procedures but I will say that we do not employ blind testing/verifications and this to me is a concern FROM MY PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW...

Please see my disclaimer below.

I would think before the debat on Blind Verification takes off, that it needs to be described.

What does constitute for Blind Verification. In talking with some agencies who say they are doing blind verifications after describing their protocol, in my POV they are not doing Blind Verifications. They are scared out of their BJeebers because some one might ask them in court if they do blind verification and if they answer no, then how come they are not since the FBI is doing it. Do they think they are better than the FBI. So what they are doing is calling it Blind Verification----but I don't think so.

How can taking the single latent print with the single exemplar to someone and asking them to look at it is blind verification.

The trouble from my POV is that no one has come out and described exactly how to perform it. You have a little glue here, a little gum there, some twine over there (in Texas it is bailing wire---almost as valuable as duct tape) and this hodg podge of different ways it is being done.

If we are going to do it, then fine let's get off the pot and set some standards, protocols, principles, SOP's and do it.

From my PPOV I think Blind Verification is a crap shoot. It is supposed to stop Bias----please someone show me that study. No one will go out on a limb and say it will stop all errors. They know it will not because it has the same problems that verification does today. It is operated and run by human beings----and God forgive me but Human Beings sometimes make mistakes. I know that is a crush for some of you----but it is true. The other thing is no one can say how many cases are effected by Bias----100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 5%, 1% 0.000000000000000000001 of 1%. Come on some one out there take a SWAG at it and tell me how many cases are effected by BIAS.

All right enough of my PPOV Rant. Back to the problem.

Describe the operation of a truely Blind Verification Operation.

Charles,

GASP!!! You're suggesting to the Old Dinosaur that he's not perfect? That in reality, he's only human? Whoa is me. All this time I thought differently; only to proven that I am only human. My, my what is the world coming to. Where will it all end?

Seriously, Charles, I happen to agree that blind-verification will have to be tested over the regular version of verification for a long time before it can be proven to me that it is better and works better. As you said, regardless of whether a department/federal agency uses blind-verification or the normal verification standards, humans are still involved; because of this, mistakes/errors will still be made; especially, if it is an important case with a great deal of outside influence. That can affect the out-come of the comparison and verification regardless if you use blind-verification, or not. Besides, many departments may not have the people trained up to certification standards; perhaps only one person has the qualifications to verify any type of comparison; blind or not. He may have to take it to another agency; who knows if they will do a blind-verification. Besides all of this, as someone said earlier about submitting more than the one ten-print card with the latent, how many print cards will you have to include with the latent mark to make it a true blind-verification. Finally, I believe that most of this is a knee-jerk reaction because of the Mayfield case and other high-profile cases whereby an erroneous identification/verification was made. No long-term testing has been done; there have no peer-reviewed papers on the subject, either. Before, we all get our shorts in a knot, let's take the time to be rational about this situation. Let's get some serious objective testing done on it.

Is there really such a thing as genuinely blind verification? If I work in a unit using blind verification (double-blind, really, since that's the only defensible scientific "blindness"), the fact that I know some of my jobs will be verifications makes my work, in some way, different from both known first examinations and known verifications. You can't just drop blind verification into the process and say you have added only that step without changing the rest of the process. Every lesser form introduces even more influence. If I know it's a verification and that they are done for all conclusions, I know this one has been done by another examiner. If they are done for all individualizations, I know that.

Unless someone somewhere is doing it with the above rigor, no examinations are really blind, neither first nor second. That would only be accomplished by the absurdity of mixing real case latents with random sample latents. That's okay. True blind is pretty rare in any field, and then only in particular instances. I think the interest in blind verification is being driven by Daubert admissibility concerns, rather than accuracy concerns. I think we make too much of the value of blind verification as validation of our "science grounding." We are not "doing science." We are not extending fundamental knowledge. Double-blind study may be a real concern in an undertaking that breaks new ground and sets the direction of future inquiry. That's what "science" does. It seeks an answer to the question, "What's the next question?" It's important in scientific inquiry to avoid going off onto more mistaken paths than necessary. But in latent print issues, everyone, including "science experts," throw the term blind verification around as if it conveys scientific rigor. That's simply not true. You can't blind most scientific research. A common mode is to presuppose a theory that expects a particular outcome suggested by prior research and then to see if your prediction is correct. That is, in fact, the antithesis of how we approach examinations.

It is my rather firm belief that the legal situation grows entirely out of our history of which the two features, unprovable presumption of uniqueness and "I examined - I concluded" reporting and testimony, set up the target. Revealed errors in complex print cases fueled the fire, but we would have been under fire without them. Blind verification loses much of its punch when you aren't asking that conclusions be taken on faith.

Even assuming one is doing double-blind verification that is truly blinded, shouldn't we think about whether we are giving up something valuable, maybe more valuable, if we are replacing standard verification. There are a lot of assumptions that have over the years gone into what accepted wisdom in latent print examination. Collaborative examination, verification of the frank "look at this and tell me if I'm wrong" kind, and no doubt other modes cannot be dismissed simply because it sounded good in response to issues in the way things were done at the time. Blind verification is NOT an enhanced form of verification. They are different things.

Disclaimer: The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy exist.

Question – Exclusions:
How did you determine the latent print wasn’t made by this person?

Possible Answers:
a) The pattern type wasn’t the same as any of the exemplars from this person.
b) The ridge flow wasn’t the same so I didn’t need to look any further.
c) I looked for a specific target group and this target group didn’t exist in any of the fingers of this person. Then I looked for a second target group as a quality assurance measure.

Discussion:

Answers a and b: Due to the flexibility of the skin, there are times when the ridge flow (level 1detail) appears different but the ridge paths (level 2 details) are consistent. If there’s a sufficient amount of level 2 details then the difference in ridge flow may still be within tolerance for an individualization to be possible. Excluding based on pattern type alone is risky and my result in an erroneous exclusion.

Answer c: This is the best answer because it follows scientific protocols of testing a conclusion prior to arriving at a conclusion.

Disclaimer: The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy exist.

Question – Verification –Exclusions:
Why don’t you verify exclusions?

Possible Answers:
a) We’ve always done it this way.
b) That’s our office policy.
c) We don’t have the manpower to do this.
d) Erroneous exclusions don’t have the same hazards as erroneous individualizations. Nobody will be falsely imprisoned due to an erroneous exclusion. We verify individualizations as a quality assurance measure. This measure isn’t needed for exclusions.
e) If the examiner is competent and they say it’s not an ID then it’s not an ID.
f) We don’t exclude people from leaving a latent print. Our agency either individualizes a latent print or states that no individualization was effected.
g) Our agency verifies all conclusions.

Discussion:

Answers a and b: “We’ve always done it this way” and “It’s our office policy” is never a good answer. People should know why policies exist and be able to communicate the reasons to other people.

Answer c: A lack of manpower is never an adequate reason for not doing something that should be done. This sounds more like an excuse than a valid reason. Another topic for discussion regarding this answer is the use of the term ‘ID’ vs using the term ‘individualization’ (but that’s a topic for another discussion).

Answer d: This is a valid reason for not verifying exclusions but examiners should remember that erroneous exclusions can have serious effects. If someone is erroneously excluded from leaving a latent print then this may leave a guilty person in the community to commit more crimes.

Answer e: This sounds reasonable but agencies that verify all conclusions know that even competent examiners may not be able to orient or locate all latent prints. The accuracy of a conclusion is in the justification behind the conclusion and not in the competence of the examiner.

Answers f and g: If either of these answers are your office policy then I see nothing wrong with these conclusion.

clpexco wrote: d) Erroneous exclusions don’t have the same hazards as erroneous individualizations. Nobody will be falsely imprisoned due to an erroneous exclusion. We verify individualizations as a quality assurance measure. This measure isn’t needed for exclusions.

Answer d: This is a valid reason for not verifying exclusions but examiners should remember that erroneous exclusions can have serious effects. If someone is erroneously excluded from leaving a latent print then this may leave a guilty person in the community to commit more crimes.

I'm not clear on how it can be both a valid reason and still be mindful of potential serious effects. Fingerprint evidence is powerful. It can carry weight beyond what it would be limited to by purely logical argument. We know that absent particular circumstances, we cannot say when an impression was made. But a print identified to the defendant carries weight, even when it's shown that he could have deposited it prior to the crime. If it goes before the jury, no amount of counter-argument that he could have left it a month prior to the crime will entirely do away with its effect. Any mistaken exclusion that rules out another known suspect who would not have had legitimate access is about as serious as it can get. It can present an alternate actor, and even if matched to an innocent party, it can demonstrate a latency period. And, as pointed out, erroneous exclusions can cost valuable evidence of guilt. We can't be judging the effect and value of evidences during the investigation.

If we hold to the binary conclusions set of individualization/exclusion, an error in either value implies the fact of the inverse conclusion. Every error of either conclusion is just that, an erroneous conclusion of fact made by examination of an impression with sufficient detail to identify. ("Inconclusive" being a conclusion conditioned on the examiner's capabilities or the quality of the impression, not a statement of fact as to the source.) If we hold that verification is a necessary condition of individualization, we cannot, in any general way, consider verification not a condition of exclusion. And if we start making the decision on verification of exclusions by examining the circumstances of the scene, we're getting a bit close to using the same kind of logic on verification of individualizations. There were a lot of impressions in a place of public access, so we expect a lot of exclusions and don't verify. So if an eyewitness says the suspect was using the tire iron, do we not verify identification of his print? How do you answer the question, "So you verify only the conclusions that suit the case against the defendant?"

There are two areas in this "exclusion" scenario: (1) failure to correctly identify a latent print to a suspect and (2) failure to identify a latent print to an elimination individual. The verification of conclusions in the second example would be a reworking of the latent comparison phrase by another examiner, a not-so desired case productivity measure. Also, as stated, that failure to exclude in #2 is a "no foul-no harm" in most cases.

Number 1, failure to correctly identify a latent print to a suspect, can be more serious in consequences, examples which have been stated. I have a saying in other areas of comparative examination in which I practiced, "An erroneous identification is a miscarriage of justice – An erroneous elimination is a miscarriage to justice". You should strive to avoid either.

However, in regards to "verification of exclusions: yes or no" in example 1, that should already be part of your quality control measures. I left public service many years ago, but not before QC measures were being implemented. One emerging requirement was that cases undergo technical and administrative review before conclusions were released. I was a bench-working supervisor up until the date I terminated and such reviews of all my examiner's cases were my responsibility. A requirement in completed cases in which known suspect prints were submitted was that the known record prints be included with the latent photographs for the tech/admin review. The results/conclusions would then be subject to "verification" by the reviewer, both any identifications (even those verified by a second examiner per protocol) and non-identifications.

It did not happen often in the thousands of reviews, but there were occasions when this "verification" procedure resulted in changes in reports. A case would be returned to the examiner with a note like, 'check unidentified latent X to number 2 of suspect Y'. If you have been doing latent examinations for enough time, you know that "misses" can, and will, occur for any number of reasons.

Verification of exclusions should already be part of your protocol as they relate to suspect comparisons.

Back to the tar pit.

Charles Parker wrote:I would think before the debat on Blind Verification takes off, that it needs to be described.

What does constitute for Blind Verification. In talking with some agencies who say they are doing blind verifications after describing their protocol, in my POV they are not doing Blind Verifications. They are scared out of their BJeebers because some one might ask them in court if they do blind verification and if they answer no, then how come they are not since the FBI is doing it. Do they think they are better than the FBI. So what they are doing is calling it Blind Verification----but I don't think so.

How can taking the single latent print with the single exemplar to someone and asking them to look at it is blind verification.

The trouble from my POV is that no one has come out and described exactly how to perform it. You have a little glue here, a little gum there, some twine over there (in Texas it is bailing wire---almost as valuable as duct tape) and this hodg podge of different ways it is being done.

If we are going to do it, then fine let's get off the pot and set some standards, protocols, principles, SOP's and do it.

From my PPOV I think Blind Verification is a crap shoot. It is supposed to stop Bias----please someone show me that study. No one will go out on a limb and say it will stop all errors. They know it will not because it has the same problems that verification does today. It is operated and run by human beings----and God forgive me but Human Beings sometimes make mistakes. I know that is a crush for some of you----but it is true. The other thing is no one can say how many cases are effected by Bias----100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 5%, 1% 0.000000000000000000001 of 1%. Come on some one out there take a SWAG at it and tell me how many cases are effected by BIAS.

All right enough of my PPOV Rant. Back to the problem.

Describe the operation of a truely Blind Verification Operation.

Very valid points there Charles.

Double blind verifications are the ultimate test but I can see how it can be a tricky thing to achieve constantly. Is it even possible to do these within your own agency or should neighbouring agencies or offices be involved. If we truly want to eliminate all possible bias in the process we need to have a proper SOP in place which is practical and demonstrable.

Maybe I should go and post a new dedicated thread on this for this purpose.

Disclaimer: The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy exist.

Question – Accreditation:
Are you accredited?

Possible Answers:
a) No
b) Yes, by ASCLD
c) Yes, by ASCLD/LAB
d) Yes, we’re accredited by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
e) Yes, we’re accredited by International Standards Organization (ISO)

Discussion:
Using acronyms is always discouraged because the people you’re trying to educate (the courts) don’t know what these acronyms stand for.

Answer a: Stating that your lab isn’t accredited may be the correct answer but it leaves the courts feeling like you aren’t meeting the responsibilities that you should be meeting. If your lab isn’t accredited but you feel that it is meeting the responsibilities that it should then perhaps you could say, “No, my lab isn’t accredited but we do have quality assurance measure in place and we follow the guidelines set by SWGFAST (The Scientific Working Group for Friction Skin Analysis, Study, and Technology)”.

Answers b and c: ASCLD/LAB is one of the organizations that offer accreditation to agencies. If you are accredited by ASCLD/LAB you should use the complete name in court, American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation Board. Forensic Quality Services (FQS) is another company that accredits forensic laboratories. It should be noted that ASCLD is different than ASCLD/LAB. ASCLD does not accredit agencies.

Answers d: ASCLD/LAB has two accreditation programs, Legacy and International. The ASCLD/LAB International program and the FQS program both adhere to the ISO standards, but ISO doesn’t directly accredit laboratories.

Answer e: ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization. Stating the wrong words for an acronym will lower the value of your entire testimony.

by Michele Triplett, King County Sheriff's Office

Disclaimer: The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy exist.
 
Question – Terminology – Permanence or Persistence:
Can you please describe fingerprint permanence to the court.
 
Possible Answers:
a) The friction ridge arrangements on the skin are formed during fetal formation and remain the same until after death and decomposition starts.
b) The friction ridge arrangements on the skin are formed during fetal formation and are permanent until after death and decomposition starts.
c) The friction ridge arrangements on the skin are formed during fetal formation and are persistent until after death and decomposition starts. Persistent means that they do change in size and can be different due to the flexibility of the skin but the characteristics themselves do not change.

I thought there was some discussion awhile back that "SOMEONE" said that pores may not be permanent as thought OR was it that because they fill wilh debris that may cause some small problem.

I still believe that they are permanent just that when you need them they are not around and when you do not need them they are all over the place.

Can someone direct me to the discussion that perhaps???????? they are not as permanent as once thought--------or is that an urban legend that was started by some miscreaent.

This is a bump-up to keep this one close to the top until such time as I have had to read most of it.

Charles Parker wrote:I thought there was some discussion awhile back that "SOMEONE" said that pores may not be permanent as thought OR was it that because they fill wilh debris that may cause some small problem.

I still believe that they are permanent just that when you need them they are not around and when you do not need them they are all over the place.

Can someone direct me to the discussion that perhaps???????? they are not as permanent as once thought--------or is that an urban legend that was started by some miscreaent.

If this is indeed the thread you are referring to, please find the link to the thread here:

http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f= ... &sk=t&sd=a

I await your further comment.