CLPEX Chat Board

"Ferrara told jurors she found latent, or readily visible, prints belonging to Hebert on the tablet she allegedly used to write suicide notes to her husband and her ex-husband’s mother, Judy Hebert.
Ferrara also discovered latent and patent prints – those discovered through physical and chemical methods – matching Hebert on two knives, she told jurors."

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20090 ... tells-jury

Just remember where the quotes come from; a journalist that quite possibly thought he heard one thing, did a little internet search, and printed the wrong information. I don't trust what the media quotes unless I hear it from the "horse's mouth". All too often they think that becuase they've covered a few trials or watched Marg Helgenberger on the boob tube, they are forensic experts and will misquote a real expert. Now, if Ferrara really did say that, then shame-shame.

This mis-quote or error (take your pick -- hopefully a misquote) seems to be symptomatic of recent "expert" testimony of a few latent print examiners in recent court cases. One can only wonder how easily our discipline is discredited, not so much by questionable results but by inexperienced testimony. Are we not teaching this aspect of our jobs adequately, or are overbearing defense attorneys creating misspoken errors? Why does it always seem that high profile cases belong to inexperienced examiners? Or perhaps examiner inexperience is inversely proportional to the ultimate profile level .........

I think it was Piers Anthony who wrote, "The perversity of the universe tends towards the maximum." I find that the most trivial or unsubstantiated claims I deal with in appeals tend to take the most work. The ones with decent arguments are relatively easier.

Of course, we don't make it easy with "latent" and "patent." Pity the uninitiated when the witness doesn't clarify well. When I look up "latent" in a dictionary, it means what? But, by "latent," we actually mean... So is that "patent," "latent," or a "patent latent."?