CLPEX Chat Board

As best I can tell, this was the Cowans chart used in court

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/55890 ... TOPCONTENT

but I'm trying to confirm that with the reporter. Can anyone opine on what went wrong in Cowans and, if this is the image given to a defense attorney or investigator, what red flags might arise?

I had sent Ed German a couple of other images that Boston PD coughed up a year or two back -- one low quality image of the print in place on the drinking glass and one of Cowans exemplar prints, but I haven't found them on onin. If Kasey's interested, I can likely send them to him.

Nobody can tell me what's wrong with this match? Was Boston PD right all along?

I really don't think anyone's willing to try to say much from a pretty poor quality and poor resolution image. I took it to imaging software and played around with it, but I couldn't get much of anything that I would be willing to rely on. I saw some things that might have been suspicious when I altered the response curve, but since I started with a real low-range image, I don't know that they're meaningful. And that same lack of range and resolution makes it hard to make judgments about such things as the blotched areas. It certainly looks on this image like one of the charted points was just where a ridge impression ran into a blank unimpressed area, rather than the ending ridge in the other impression, but it would be going out on a limb to declare that with such a reproduction to work from. Given that it is reported to be an altered chart, it would take a very high quality image indeed to say much about what might look suspicious. It is poor beyond the limitations of typical resolution for image files intended for Web publication.

I have to assume that this was just a casual documentary photo found in the agency or prosecutor files or made along the way without much opportunity to do a better shot. I can't believe anyone had access to the original exhibit to photograph it during the preparation of the Smith report. They would have done a much better job. (I could be wrong. I assume it would have been in the custody of the clerk of the court and that BPD would not have been able to dictate what sort of access would be granted.)

And I don't think anyone would be eager to publicly say much without seeing a good image of the original latent and the elimination prints (reliable ones - not those in the case). And, from what this sounds like, I don't think anyone you'd believe in would care to pronounce without having access to the actual latent and actual inked record or good photos of them made by someone they could trust.

Now, knowing that it's a fishy case, I think it's safe to say that I would wonder about the convenient blank area in the record print where 10 is charted to an ending ridge. I think most people would have gone down to get a better record impression if I was going to be using a charted point right at that position. I'm sure it would have been easy to do. For that matter, I suspect they have plenty of Cowans' print records, since it was unlikely to have been "his first time in county." I find myself wondering if there's something I just can't see in the photo about #10 in the record. It just looks so blatant in the photo. Some of the points are associated with blotches. That can happen, but I always find myself asking what might be under those blotches. If you scatter enough of them around the impression, you leave a lot of room for hidden features. There are some places on some ridges that appear thicker and darker than the rest of the ridge. That can happen, too, and can be exaggerated in a photo, but more than one of these is associated with charted details. None of that is to say that they would all raise suspicions, just that, if I were told, "This one has serious problems, including fabrication. What strikes you?", that's what strikes me. But it would all be qualified as meaning little without better images.

BUT, if you were defending, would you not demand access to the physical evidence, not just the demonstrative exhibit? You would want to answer two different questions: Do the latent and record justify the conclusion? and Does the exhibit accurately represent those objects? The examination "red flags" would be in the original pieces. But I think "what went wrong," beyond those snippets from the report, will have to wait for more information to become public. There's more to this one than McKie or Mayfield, or even the Lotz murder.

I agree with Gerald...it's a pretty poor quality photo. I, too, tried to mess with it in Photoshop, but only made it worse. I am suspicious about the V-shaped big black lines around the edge of the latent print. It looks like they may obscure some ridge detail. I also wonder what all the splotching is throughout the latent print? There are some very convenient splotches just where you might expect a ridge ending or bifucation. I agree about marking #10--who knows if it's really there? I really would have to see a clearer photo than this one to say one way or the other.

Thanks. I'm trying to get a better quality image from the reporter, but so far no response. If it helps, the latent was allegedly lifted from a drinking glass. I've got a picture, also not great quality, of it in place which I can try to email to Kasey.

I think the crux of your question, Lisa, is what should defense attorneys do to verify that a fingerprint match is correct, or to know they should challenge it? And, the answer is one that I've suggested before, but that seems to be difficult because of budgetary issues - have someone trained in fingerprint comparison look at every case. I understand that hiring a full-time examiner can greatly impact the budget in even a mid-size public defender's office, but what about sending a few paralegals to get some training? The paralegals can verify the true matches, and can flag those that don't seem right to them - and a fingerprint examiner can then be retained on those. I'd bet any public defenders office would have several of their personnel volunteer for this training, and be happy to put aside a percentage of their time to review prints.

George

That's an option, but not one that will help in a place like Mass, where the bulk of the public defender work is done by private attorneys who accept assignments from the counterpart to a public defender's office, or states that have large, decentralized units.

And I expect that in the vast majority of cases, the match is going to be straightforward -- it may not be a good investment of time and money. (Don't forget there's also screening to do in firearms ID, DNA, hair/fiber, toolmarks, and all sorts of other areas.)

For my last training conference, I put together a "red flag" list of things that might lead a defense attorney to inquire further. I'm certainly open to suggestions for changes.

Red Flags
Evidence
Original latent print not available where feasible to preserve
No photograph or even sketch of latent in place before lift taken
Chain of custody for surface where print obtained unclear
Charted enlargements look "odd"
Position/location of print doesn’t make sense
Science
Heavy reliance on Pores/Ridge Edges (Lvl) 3 details
Unusual methods for processing or comparing
Expert
Abnormally high case load (FBI is 40 cases per examiner)
No proficiency testing, certification, or lab accreditation
Little or no training outside unit / Does not keep up with field
Procedure
Poor quality latent print
Inadequate explanation for difference/discrepancies
Expert had context biasing information at time of examination
Pressure on examiner/police to solve case
Close relationship between examiner and verifier, culture of conformity
Non-blind verification
Single IAFIS match

I've seen the picture of the drinking glass but I don't see any portion that resembles the area from the chart enlargement (no CA pattern that resembles this outline and no area that has the V shape). It's also such a low quality image that any attempt to enlarge an area just creates distortion.

I guess you really have to think about "red flags" in terms of what different sorts of things might lead you to think about. I would think about them as being in one or more of three categories:

1. Things that are departures from best practices that do not directly suggest an examination problem but that represent omissions of information that would provide for reliable evaluation of the overall value of the evidence by an expert whose knowledge extends to crime scene protocols.

2. Things that suggest that the examination was complex or required advanced or unusual techniques and that additional expert review is required for counsel to be appropriately effective and diligent. This includes things that justify a suspicion that the identification is erroneous without suggesting deliberate fraud and might prompt review by a select expert.

3. Things that suggest a higher level of suspicion of manipulation or other tampering that justify consideration of review by a carefully selected expert.

So, you're really asking if the evidence was documented and collected properly, if the examination was reliable, and if the demonstrative exhibits accurately represent the evidence and examinations. The practical question is what can reasonably be judged by an attorney who is somewhat familiar with latent print evidence. What could you tell an attorney who has some experience but is not so active a follower of examples and events as Ms. Steele? And that kind of leads to the question of what would constitute minimal training to allow an attorney to make rational judgments without either alerting on every case or accepting too much on faith. And I make a distinction between actual concerns about examinations and a checklist of things to consider in crafting legal attacks. Some of the things you list seem to me to be secondary issues, things to start looking at to explain a problem, rather than things you could expect to know from the reports. Things like internal relationships, pressure to solve, and caseload are not going to appear in the file and don't in themselves raise suspicion about any particular examination. They could be used in trying to explain a difference of opinion, but they really aren't "red flags." Some of those are just going to be endemic in one or another jurisdiction, so you still have to go back to what you see that might make you suspect there was a identification problem.

When I go through your list, I see that the core problem for an attorney who is looking at fingerprint evidence is addressed by items that require specific knowledge. For example: What is a "poor latent?" What is an "unusual" method? What looks "odd" in a chart? How would one know if a single AFIS hit was significant? (A lavish latent might well produce the single hit, right on target.) So what you really end up with here is an idea of what you would want to know about latent print evidence to have some confidence in your ability to spot potential problems, quite aside from a general coverage of how to examine witnesses and how to conduct hearings on latent evidence, and how you would train them.

And I would add to the list:

An identification that will, if valid, prove or very strongly suggest guilt, when other evidence or circumstances counsel believes to be reliable in fact and effect would exclude the defendant as a person who could be the source of the latent.

It's the lesson of van der Vyver that winning lottery tickets are rare, but you'll never win if you assume you'll always lose.

Michele wrote:I've seen the picture of the drinking glass but I don't see any portion that resembles the area from the chart enlargement (no CA pattern that resembles this outline and no area that has the V shape). It's also such a low quality image that any attempt to enlarge an area just creates distortion.

I've consistently heard this described as a "mug," and both people here who say they've seen a photo call it a "drinking glass." I don't think many people would interchange "mug" and "drinking glass." Is the mug description just something that got started and carried on to describe a common glass, or are we talking about different objects, or just something not quite a plain glass and not quite a handled beer-type mug?

I really wouldn't call it either...I think of it as a Lynchberg Lemonade type of glass (a canning type of jar with a handle on it). For me, what I call it would depend on what's in it.

Okay. That explains it.

Yup, that's the kind of drinking vessel. The image is not great quality -- its a scan of a copy of a picture the Mass AG's office disclosed at one point. I've been trying off and on to get a better quality image for a while, but no luck. (Anyone happen to know the Boston PD case number for Cowans -- their PR person says they can't find the exhibits without it.)

The red flags list certainly could be differently organized. I like GC's idea of pairing it up on the slide with a meaning -- either by text or color coding. That one was set up for a presentation to Mass attorneys and was designed to pick up some of the organizational red flags we may have missed from Boston P.D. before Cowans -- one may learn in case A about how the unit is organized (which may lead to questions about verification, relationship between verifiers/examiner, etc.) and either share that with other attorneys or keep a note for the next time a case comes out of the same department. Mass and CT are small enough that I recognize most of the names I see in transcripts -- and I expect attorneys see the same handful of experts over and over.

The evidence red flags are partly to pick up warning signs of fabrication -- the original latent surface is missing (Pat W's SA case, Mayfield), there's no sketch or photo of the latent in place (same), chain of custody issues (same), position of print (same). The charted enlargments is Cowans, tho I'm not sure how to quantify "odd" -- that "V" chart looks unusual to me, which would set off at least a yellow flag to ask why.

The science flags are for advanced methods -- the OIG's Mayfield report talks about a need for more study on Lvl 3. The unusual methods is a reminder of Patterson (simultaneous impressions) and other places where I've heard interesting testimony from examiners (clearest impression on high traffic surface was left by last person who touched it). These are places where one needs to dig deeper to see if the method/theory is valid and was done right.

The expert issues are partly Cowans flags -- overloaded people, not keeping up with training, no outside testing/certification/accreditation.

The procedure flags are a grab-bag. Poor quality is subjective as heck, particularly to someone who doesn't know much about prints, but meant to distinguish the burglar who took out the pane of glass with his bare hands and left 10 nice clear prints from a Mayfield.

To some extent, the attorney can likey tell when a case is high-profile and suspect at that point some pressures were put on the police/labs to get results. (Whether this had any effect is a whole different question) That gets back to the Stacey report and issues of context bias, internal relationships between examiners and verifiers, and the non-blind verification issue. Standing by itself, non-blind verification is not a red flag, but it is a yellow one to see if there are more flags to dig deeper.

The single IAFIS match is its own item.

L.J.Steele wrote:(Anyone happen to know the Boston PD case number for Cowans -- their PR person says they can't find the exhibits without it.)

That's a red flag! It may be true for the property room, but I find it hard to believe there would be no cross-reference index for victim and/or suspect names in the records section.
Regards, RLT

L.J.Steele wrote:Yup, that's the kind of drinking vessel. The image is not great quality -- its a scan of a copy of a picture the Mass AG's office disclosed at one point. I've been trying off and on to get a better quality image for a while, but no luck. (Anyone happen to know the Boston PD case number for Cowans -- their PR person says they can't find the exhibits without it.)

And I doubt that shot is the one we would even be interested in. Remember the old Johnny Carson Swami mentalist routine on the Tonight Show? He would put the envelope up to his forehead and speak that answer to a question. Such an "answer" might be, "A red marker." Then he would tear the envelope open and reveal the "question," like, "What would create a line over a developed latent print that would let the ridges show through?" I doubt he could divine the answer to the question, "What would allow the ridges to show through and would also remove the rest of the impression on the other side of the line?"