CLPEX Chat Board

Now that I have poked a finger in the eyes of a few fingerprint examiners (sorry folks, it was just to get your attention), let’s realign our sights to the scientists out there. The National Institute for Justice has awarded grants for research in the science of fingerprints. One such grant, titled “Quantitative Assessment of the Individuality of Friction Ridge Patterns” asks the researchers to increase understanding of the discriminative power of friction ridge patterns. One of the study’s goals is to examine the issue of quantity and quality of friction ridge data that need to be present for matching, e.g., how does the number and combinations of minutiae present affect individualization.

How would you design an experiment to address this issue?

Can science address an absolute or create a formula which can deal with infinite variety?

What sample size would you use?

How is your proposed experiment superior to the empirical evidence which already exists?

Would you use computerized matching techniques (AFIS) or a more discriminating device (human LPE’s)?

Once again, thanks for your considered opinions.

Guest, try this for size.

Scientist argues fingerprint evidence can never be 100 per cent accurate
A leading lecturer in psychology at the University of Southampton is casting doubt on the commonly-held belief that fingerprint analysis is infallible.

Dr Itiel Dror has worked with more than seventy fingerprint experts from the UK, USA, Netherlands, Australia and Israel over the last two years to test his theory that mistakes can occur because of the way the human brain processes information.

The issue hit the headlines when an American Muslim from Oregon was wrongly identified as one of the Madrid bombers after his prints appeared to match those taken at the crime scene.

'The mind is not a camera,' says Dr Dror. 'It is a dynamic machine which can distort what it sees, not a passive recorder of visual information. Perception is far from perfection.'

He argues that forensic scientists, along with everyone else, cannot avoid the risks of subjective bias. Frequently they have to use their skill and expertise to decide whether a fragment of a fingerprint left at a crime scene matches a precise impression given by a suspect in a police station.

Research by Dr Dror and his students at Southampton Dave Charlton and Ailsa Peron has tested whether experts can be affected by outside influences. Five examiners were tested with examples of prints that they had previously identified as positive matches in court five years earlier. In the new external context only one of the experts agreed with his/her previous decision. Three contradicted their previous judgement and now decided that the prints are a no-match and the fourth wasn't sure. The findings will be presented at the Biometrics 2005 conference on 20 October.

Notes for editors:
The University of Southampton is a leading UK teaching and research institution with a global reputation for leading-edge research and scholarship. The University has around 20,000 students and 5,000 staff. Its annual turnover is in the region of £274 million.


For further information:
Dr Dror's home page: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/
Dr Dror's biometric website: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/biometrics.html


Dr Itiel Dror, School of Psychology, University of Southampton,
tel. 023 8059 4519, fax. 023 8059 45198, email: id@ecs.soton.ac.uk

Karen Woods, Media Relations, University of Southampton,
tel. 023 8059 3212, email: press@soton.ac.uk



Media Relations
Corporate and Marketing Services,
University of Southampton,
SOUTHAMPTON
SO17 1BJ
Telephone: +44 (0)23 8059 3212
Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3285
Email: press@soton.ac.uk

By the way, I hope that many of you know me as a latent print examiner first, and a research scientist second. But I cannot ignore my own research. There is something going on out there that does not sit easy with my perception of identifcation reliability that was drilled into me as a young trainee.

Want to know more? Contact me offsite at:

david.charlton97@btopenworld.com

Only through open and honest dialogue can we do proper good science. Otherwise we are doomed to continue to skirt the edges of latent print examination, for ever to be consigned to the 'art' bin as opposed to the 'science' bin.

I don't know who you are guest, but I for one salute you for asking perfectly reasonable questions of our profession. It is up to us to try and provide a few answers.

cheers

Dave Charlton
Editor Fingerprint Whorld