CLPEX Chat Board

By clarifying that I felt there was a difference between identification and individualization I chose to define something that at this point still remains undefined by SWGFAST.

Josh,

SWGFAST has defined these terms, they are listed in the section titled “Glossary” and are defined as:

IDENTIFICATION
See Individualization.

INDIVIDUALIZATION
The determination that corresponding areas of friction ridge impressions originated from the same source to the exclusion of all others (identification).

If people don’t agree with these definitions then they should testify that they don’t follow SWGFAST and explain why. They should also write to SWGFAST asking for changes and explain why the definitions should be changed. Stating that you follow SWGFAST when you don’t lacks the transparency element that many are striving for.

I’m curious, do your own SOP’s define these words or is each examiner able to define them for themselves?

Hi Michele,

You are correct that at the time of testimony in HULL the SWGFAST definitions were as published in their documents. What those 'definitions' will be in the future and how they are permitted to be interpreted is apparently still on the agenda at SWGFAST. If I had the opportunity to influence any decision about the two terms Id like to see them separated on the basis of their significance. According to Tuthill/Huber 'identification' or to 'identify' means to place in a small group such as your name Michele Triplett where the understanding is that you are significant until other Michele Tripletts appear. The same authors propose that 'individualisation' means exclusiveness with the significance being of one kind only, unique. The left index finger of Michele Triplett means that the combination of pattern, detail and other anatomical features are hers alone to the exclusion of all others. We apply this principle very well with regard to separation of all persons using our ten print collections so why is there an apparent problem when applying it to latents? Cheers from oz. les

I've been working on a little piece on validation, and it strikes me that the Identification/Individualization conundrum is directly a symptom of the lack of validation studies referred to in commentaries on the forensic sciences. One input to a validation study of the basis for one or another sort of conclusion of uniqueness is a clear threshold of conclusion. When the combination of theory, observed data, threshold, and conclusion is validated, arguments over different meanings of identify and individualize dwindle to subtle semantics that have no practical effect.

I really think that's already the case. I understand the proposed difference. But I think it's in the nature of the "But you haven't examined the prints of every person on Earth." observation. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it for the longer essay.