IAI resolution 2010-18 (The Detail #462, 26/07/10)

[Taggart]

The first question I must ask is what is the definition of a ‘close non matching’ print? By all accounts the print which is being referred to here appears to fall into that category only because of the prior information given i.e. it was part of a test and therefore we can exclude the individual from having left the print. It strikes me, given the admission that the

latent from the tester would have been very very difficult to tell apart from the known in AFIS and probably would have generated erroneous Identifications in many cases.

that without the prior information it could well have been wrongly identified. In this case the print would not have been a ‘close non matching’ print but would in fact have been deemed an identification.

Maybe I am being naïve but I would have thought a print would or could be deemed to be ‘close non matching’ print based purely on the examination of the actual prints. It seems this is not the case.

I believe this ties in with what Dr Dror and David Charlton have been working on. I suspect both 16 points and David Johnson were given some information when they both viewed the prints, and did not carry out an independent unbiased examination by which they both concluded there were 15 points in close agreement with none in disagreement.

I previously asked on what basis the original examiner was able to positively exclude the donor as being he same person who’s prints appear on the AFIS system. The only answer I appear to have is because the examiner had prior knowledge who actually gave the donor print and it was not the individual with which it shares 15 points in close agreement.

Can I conclude from this there was no actual scientific basis on which the donor could be excluded other than the prior knowledge?

Why seriously concerns me is this. What if the police officer who gave the donor print is assisting in an enquiry down the line? Say a homicide. And they inadvertently leave their print at a crime scene or inadvertently touch an item. The print is searched on the AFIS system. Can everyone see the concern? An innocent person could well be ‘identified’ as being the donor. 15 points in close agreement with none in disagreement? How many police officers would genuinely believe this individual who claims their innocence? Let me guess, none!

I am still staggered that if such a print exists, and it looks more and more likely it could (a) why have these prints never been highlighted before, and (b) how on earth could anyone claim there is no cause for concern, and why all the fuss?

Perhaps 16 points or David Johnson could help alleviate my concerns by answering as simply as possible the following:

Given you have both seen two prints from differing sources which have 15 close characteristics in common with none in disagreement, how can identifications which disclose say 10 or 12 characteristics in common ever be led in evidence as being unique?

If in fact if two prints exist which share 15 points in close agreement and none in disagreement does this alone not potentially question every single identification made which has 15 or less points in agreement?

Let us not forget this is a public forum which could be read by defence agents or journalists worldwide. I personally do not think such a print can continue to be suppressed any further. Clearly both 16 points and his distinguished colleague are both members of the IAI given the prints were being circulated at an IAI lecture. I agree with Iain Mckie that perhaps the IAI has a commitment to investigate the claims being made on here by a member. If nothing else to dispel or indeed to verify the findings.

[Les Bush]

Hi David Johnson,

As I said in the opening sentence sometimes the message can be interpreted differently to the intention. In response to using the expressions 'sound reasoning and logic' I guess that should be expanded using the conditions 'in my view'. I also dont know what camp you are coming from and whether you and 16 points are part of a team with an agenda. The camp that I would identify with are those who have witnessed the arrangements of details in fingerprints over many years and seen many configurations or 'patterns' that are very similar. My training started in a generation pre-computer database so the fingerprints examined where inked impressions. Computerisation as a conversion of an inked impression or nowadays with live scan is a representation that must be considered in light of the technology involved. It is no longer a direct stamp of the ridged skin it has been assembled on the basis of computer programming. Having seen many instances of where the computer image is 'off' from the direct print I have learnt to be tolerant about the features in a database image. Given this background against the claim by 16 point and now yourself it seems there is a problem comparing an inked set with a computer set. You are comparing two different processes so that is not reasonable. You have stated in your posting that the differences in the two prints were measurable and if so that becomes illogical that they can be the same or considered the same source. Ofcourse if we are using the argument that an untrained examiner or an expert of little training could be fooled by the two fingerprints that is both reasonable and logical. This site is about Certified latent print examiners or their equivalent so lets keep it at that level. I have had a quick look over my shoulder David and the camp around here is pretty empty but the sunny Queensland weather is great.

Cheers from oz. Les

[Taggart]

Les,

As always good to read your postings.

I have thought long and hard as to what I believe the way forward with this 15 point close non-match should be. You are correct when you point out that any expert with suitable training and experience ‘should’ be able to exclude the donor as being the same individual whose prints appear on the AFIS system based on the tolerance of the prints.

Or so you would hope.

I cannot help but think back to Shirley’s case whereby several senior SCRO experts, employed in what they themselves perceived to be the Best Bureau in the World, not only ignored clear differences in tolerances in the print Y7 they they also chose to ‘ignore’ clear discrepancies.

Add to this three ‘eminent’ Experts (Swann, Berry and Leadbetter) also ignored these clear warning signs.

In that case there was a clear agenda by the experts not to see the obvious but instead desperately finding justification to ‘explain’ the differences in tolerance and dissimilarities. Fiona McBride, Editor of the Fingerprint Whorld openly admits to simply ignoring these dissimilarities. Add to this a claim that the print is in fact twisted 66 degrees.

My real fear Les is that if a print with 15 points in close agreement, with no points in obvious disagreement were examined experts would ignore these intolerances and wrongly claim it as an identification. Whilst there are experts like your self who are clearly able to evaluate each and every print on its own merit, there are others who will be unable to do so.

Again going back to the Mckie case let us not forget that experts who are still currently working within the Scottish Fingerprint Service (Geddes, Foley and Bruce) have been provided with overwhelming evidence from the likes of Pat Wertheim and Arie Zeelenberg, all available in the public domain, but still they refuse to accept they were wrong. Time after time it has been demonstrated to them why they are wrong but they are still prepared to adhere to their incorrect conclusions.

I had hoped that the print being highlighted on here should be made publicly available. However I have altered my view on this. I believe it should be sourced and independently verified. Then it should be included in a future competency test given to experts worldwide.

The results would be truly fascinating Les.

[David Johnson]

Taggart-
In this case you could tell that the two prints were from different sources. Once you got out of the region of agreement "the 15 points" thing fell apart. That is why I say that a latent from one person would be hard to tell from the known of the other. The latent by chance could only contain that area of 15 points.
In many tests that have been run on examiners recently we have found that people do make mistakes. The black box study that was shown at the last IAI conference highlighted this. It is my belief that is this particular set were included, a latent from one person and the known of the other we would see a higher than average rate of errors.
I am fine with IDs on 10-12 points because they are not based on the points but on a subjective weighting of all the data. The point play a role but that is not all that goes into it. The 15 point latent was in an area of pattern force and it was out of a large database search. Most of the details were unremarkable. Now granted I do not have perfect recall and I do not have the prints sitting in front of me today but it does make me reevaluate my thresholds when looking at prints. Seeing that sort of thing make you more cautious and reminds you to look at more than just the points.

And Taggart there are prints like it on this website - captain close. I don’t think any quite get to 15-16 but there are examples of prints that are very close and are circulated.

Les - Not to be disparaging but just because someone disagrees with you does not mean I have an agenda. This is not some secret plot to take down fingerprint ID's.
Les we look at latent/ink to the “computer image”/livescan every day. The livescan images I get back from AFIS are sometimes better than the standards I pull to do the manual comparison. We search prints in AFIS and a hit comes back. In this case someone searched a known persons inked print (with only selected points ploted) and they wanted to see what came back. It turned out that in a pattern force region you could get respondents that looked very similar.
Les by your camp I meant those that want to simply dismiss the idea as impossible. That we just must be making it up. IAFIS is a very large database with millions of records (not sure on the exact count) and I am sure that if you were to attempt the same thing it would not take long before you were able to find fingers that were close.
I would not say that this site is solely for certified examiner and being certified does not make you immune from making bad calls.
Back to the posts main thread a stat model could help us by crunching the number as letting us know how rare an event a like the 15 point match is. Or would the computer disagree and think that the points were too far out of tolerance and therefore did not come from the same person.
It will be interesting to see how this type of situation plays out once the stat models become available.