CLPEX Chat Board

It is disingenuous for Dave Charlaton to attempt linking the McKie identification with Mayfield misidentification. e.g. In contrast to the Mayfield case where the error has been acknowledged,
The McKie identification was part of a routine examination of prints of police officers who were attached to an investigation. There may have been an expectation of
a) some contamination (of the crime scene) having taken place and
b) if there was, it would be no big deal.

No one at SCRO would have any idea of who’s prints were supplied and certainly no knowledge that one of the officers concerned had been warned explicitly not to enter the crime scene (or why?)

It is intuitively obvious that people in any profession are more likely to make errors under certain conditions. That is why identifications are checked then double-checked. Several SCRO FP experts declined to take part in the infamous Blind Test because it took place at the end of their shift.

I also wonder, why it was felt necessary to offer the thirteen experienced fingerprint examiners anonymity?

I wonder if there is a clue amongst the sources you have used which include, inter alia, Triplett M, Ashbaugh DR, Wertheim P, Langenburg G, and Zeelenburg A?

Daktari,

I can tell you that I'm not one of the 13 examiners in this study. I have never been involved in one of their studies, in fact, I don't ever recall seeing a request for research participants (for this study or for any other studies they've done). If anyone can tell me when or where this was requested, I'd appreciate seeing it.

I haven't read the most research study, I’m still trying to get answers about their last studies. Until I understand bias 101, there’s no point in me signing up for bias 401. I think all research has value but until I know the parameters of the research, I can’t say how much value it should have. I’m sorry I’m not able to see the value just because people tell me how valuable it is. I’m kind of dense and need a little more information. Below are the questions I’ve asked about for the other studies but haven’t gotten any replies. If anyone was a research participant in a Dror study, maybe they’d be able to fill me in.

I should also point out that I agree that people can be biased, I just wonder if it was bias that lead these examiners to change their conclusions. I think it's possible that it was bias but it's also possible that it was due to changing tolerance levels over time, or maybe a lack of a specific standard for when an identification is reached.

Michele

Should years of experience qualify someone as an expert? Are there people with 1 year of experience 20 times over (20 years of employment)?

Mayfield was the biggest thing to happen in the fingerprint discipline in a 100 years. Should people unfamiliar with those images be considered as 'experts'? They surely weren't keeping current in their own field.

Were these 5 certified by anyone?

With regard to the pool of volunteers, you may have a pool from 5 countries but that doesn't mean that the examiners came from 5 countries, did they? If they all came from the same office or same country then this may be valuable information in why the conclusions came out the way they did.

You stated the information was given to the experts in the 'original format'. Does that mean it was the original material? How would you give someone the original exemplars with a name different than Mayfield's? If you gave them pictures of the exemplars, instead of the originals, then it's possible the difference in the conclusion was due to degraded reproductions. With comparisons of low quantity and low quality, even a slight amount of degradation could make the difference between an ID and an inconclusive conclusion. What was the original format of the latent prints? Lift cards, pictures, or something else?

You stated the comparisons were first verified. Does that guarantee a match? Verification in the Mayfield case didn't guarantee it was a match. What version of verification were the verifiers using? Were they trying to confirm the conclusion or trying to falsify it? Was this even asked?

In the subsequent study, it's great that the examiners were considered effective and competent by their management and that none of them had poor competency reviews but does this establish expertise? You stated these 6 were certified. What are the different certification programs in these countries and how should it be determined if any certification program is adequate? I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just asking the question.

You stated the examiners in the second study had a minimum of 5 years experience. Later you stated they were 'highly experienced'. I wonder how examiners with 10 or more years of experience would look back and judge their level at 5 years. I think most are competent but 'highly experienced' may be an over exaggeration.

[ also wonder, why it was felt necessary to offer the thirteen experienced fingerprint examiners anonymity?

I wonder if there is a clue amongst the sources you have used which include, inter alia, Triplett M, Ashbaugh DR, Wertheim P, Langenburg G, and Zeelenburg A?]

Daktari,

Hold on. I have to clarify this. Are you seriously suggesting that BECAUSE the works of Triplett, Zeelenberg, Wertheim, Ashbaugh, etc. were CITED as literature references, that Charlton is protecting them through anonymity because they participated in this study?

???

I just have to hope it's a bizarre syntax thing that is misleading me here. I have just misunderstood you, correct? I mean, by that logic the remaining 8 examiners are Simon Cole, Michael Saks, JJKoehler, William Thompson, some psychologists, and probably Dave and Itiel (interviewing each other of course).

Besides it's patently obvious that most, if not all, the interviewees are your Countrymen, or at least on the same Isle...c'mon: "mark", "pub", and other obvious British vernacular.

g.

It is disingenuous for Dave Charlaton to attempt linking the McKie identification with Mayfield misidentification. e.g. In contrast to the Mayfield case where the error has been acknowledged,
The McKie identification was part of a routine examination of prints of police officers who were attached to an investigation. There may have been an expectation of
a) some contamination (of the crime scene) having taken place and
b) if there was, it would be no big deal.

I am sorry...what is the question? By the way..it is Charlton, not Charlatan. I know it is deliberate on your part as you have done this before..please show some respect

No one at SCRO would have any idea of who’s prints were supplied and certainly no knowledge that one of the officers concerned had been warned explicitly not to enter the crime scene (or why?)

I am sorry...what is the question?

It is intuitively obvious that people in any profession are more likely to make errors under certain conditions. That is why identifications are checked then double-checked. Several SCRO FP experts declined to take part in the infamous Blind Test because it took place at the end of their shift.

That is the problem with the fingerprint profession and science. Everything is intuitive, nothing is empirically measured..that includes the error rates of humans. Until we wake up and smell the coffee then this will result in continued challenges and accusations

I also wonder, why it was felt necessary to offer the thirteen experienced fingerprint examiners anonymity?

I keep saying this...anonymity is offered as part of the conditions of participation, otherwise we would never get any volunteers.

I wonder if there is a clue amongst the sources you have used which include, inter alia, Triplett M, Ashbaugh DR, Wertheim P, Langenburg G, and Zeelenburg A?Should years of experience qualify someone as an expert? Are there people with 1 year of experience 20 times over (20 years of employment)?

I will leave others to decide..but 'g' is reflecting a ground truth me thinks.

In response to Michele,

Mayfield was the biggest thing to happen in the fingerprint discipline in a 100 years. Should people unfamiliar with those images be considered as 'experts'? They surely weren't keeping current in their own field.

Its a fair argument, but the reality is that many many experts around the world still have no idea on many many issues..that is the reality of our discipline at this time.

Were these 5 certified by anyone?

They were accredited in their countries of operations yes

With regard to the pool of volunteers, you may have a pool from 5 countries but that doesn't mean that the examiners came from 5 countries, did they? If they all came from the same office or same country then this may be valuable information in why the conclusions came out the way they did.

Again..I will not and cannot divulge this detail.

You stated the information was given to the experts in the 'original format'. Does that mean it was the original material? How would you give someone the original exemplars with a name different than Mayfield's? If you gave them pictures of the exemplars, instead of the originals, then it's possible the difference in the conclusion was due to degraded reproductions. With comparisons of low quantity and low quality, even a slight amount of degradation could make the difference between an ID and an inconclusive conclusion. What was the original format of the latent prints? Lift cards, pictures, or something else?

The material was first generation copies of the evidence they would have originally seen...there would have been absolutely no degradation of the evidence used.The exemplars were clear and of a good quality and would not have impacted upon the results or have been a factor.

You stated the comparisons were first verified. Does that guarantee a match? Verification in the Mayfield case didn't guarantee it was a match. What version of verification were the verifiers using? Were they trying to confirm the conclusion or trying to falsify it? Was this even asked?

These questions were not asked because in an operational environment we would not have asked these questions. You are right that a verification does not gurantee a match...but then again we have no ground truth in fingerprints period, so we have to start from a position of assumed knowledge...in good faith the matches were confirmed as correct...that is all we can do for a study of this kind.

In the subsequent study, it's great that the examiners were considered effective and competent by their management and that none of them had poor competency reviews but does this establish expertise? You stated these 6 were certified. What are the different certification programs in these countries and how should it be determined if any certification program is adequate? I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just asking the question.

Certification of the participants was of the highest standards..trust me.Each would have gone through literally years of intense training and examination with peer reviewed mentoring and assessment

You stated the examiners in the second study had a minimum of 5 years experience. Later you stated they were 'highly experienced'. I wonder how examiners with 10 or more years of experience would look back and judge their level at 5 years. I think most are competent but 'highly experienced' may be an over exaggeration.

You highlight one variable and this could be studied in future research

Michelle asks some very interesting and salient scientific questions which I am happy to engage in. Science is a journey Michelle and we are all on it together. Answers are rarely quickly and easily found to questions. Each study raises more questions than answers...you are testiment to that Michelle. Daktari on the other hand, you are as confused and defensive in your thinking as anyone can be. You ask questions that ramble and have no sense of what you want to ask...you are not a scientist if you cannot ask appropriate questions. Also, there is no place for personal abuse...do not call me Charlatan again.

I said;
It is disingenuous for Dave Charlaton to attempt linking the McKie identification with Mayfield misidentification

By the way..it is Charlton, not Charlatan.

do not call me Charlatan again.

Isn't attention to detail everything?

The McKie identification was part of a routine examination of prints of police officers who were attached to an investigation. There may have been an expectation of
a) some contamination (of the crime scene) having taken place and
b) if there was, it would be no big deal.

I am sorry...what is the question?

you are not a scientist if you cannot ask appropriate questions

There is no question, it’s a statement.

there is no place for personal abuse

Daktari .... you are as confused and defensive in your thinking as anyone can be

See you at Maryhill Community Centre?

Sorry Daktari.....I already have a full agenda of vacations and business trips for this year so will have to take a rain check. Maybe some other time ;.))