CLPEX Chat Board

Just in case some people missed here is a quote from the hearing this mornining.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing entitled "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States"
Wednesday, September 9, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.

(Time stamp 134)
In response to question from Senator Sessions about training centers or where people get training to become a forensic analyst or fingerprint analyst. Harold Hurtt (Chief of Police , Houston Police Department , Houston, TX) made the following comments:

Harold Hurtt: “I listen to the conversation about war… I guess about training, fingerprints, trace evidence, firearms to ensure we are doing a good job identifying suspects. In my 40 plus years in of law enforcement I have found DNA to be the best source, or dependable source of identifying the suspect in criminal cases.
Last year myself and…”


Senator Sessions: If you have it and the science, the scientific analysis is good, reliable.


Harold Hurtt: “Yes I think that major cities, counties, state labs and FBI labs, small jurisdictions should have access to DNA. If they have to send it the federal or a state lab or to one of the major cities, there should be access to DNA.

Last year myself and several of my staff members made a trip to the UK to visit their crime lab as far as DNA and also to visit New Scotland Yard. And at Scotland Yard they have used DNA for the identification of property suspects, burglary suspects. They have used skin cells and also information that they gain because the person left prints at the scene. Whether its fluids or skin cells. And their detection rate of suspects increased from 15% to 50%.

Now, is it a good investment of our time to continue to train people in being able to do fingerprint identification or should we move the practice toward using DNA or touch DNA to solve problems or property crimes. I would submit that the best process would be move toward using DNA to solve property crimes as well as violent crimes.”


Senator Sessions: “Good point.”

Comments?

Sounds like he's got it all figured out

Figured out eh?? I don't think so!!

What was not mentioned was the need for sterile labs to process evidence before it is even assessed for DNA, the need for sterile examination techniques, the cost of about $400 per item submitted to labs for DNA analysis and the fact that some people believe low copy anaylsis is too sensitive to be trusted. Add that to the fact that DNA cannot differentiate between twins and provides misleading accuracies around siblings and family members plus the fact that DNA should never be used as the sole evidence in any criminal investigation and will still need fingerprints in any event, then you can see just what a blindingly stunning assessment of the situation around DNA this was.

Ho hum!

cheers

Dave

Hello,

I agree. I do believe that DNA is a wonderful form of induvidualizing evidence. However, as was stated, it does not distiguish between identical twins, fingerprints do. In my department, we do touch DNA swabbing on most cases, with a few exceptions. The DNA analysis from evidence is a valuable tool, however it is not always a positive result. Low count copy techniques have made strides, but do not always stand alone. In my limited experience, I would want all forensic evidence, especially those with induvidualizing power, to be found in a case. Time and cost are obvious concerns as far as analytical determinations go, but as scientists, are we not compelled to use all available means? Fingerprints have been used longer for identification purposes than DNA. I believe they should be used in conjuction within our profession.... Just my 2 cents.

Every sort of physical evidence matters. I see very few presentations on the state of forensics in the U.S. that recognize the realities of bringing the forensic sciences appropriately to bear on criminal investigation. Projections of lab facility needs tends to be based on current demands. But the other factor in applying the sciences to crime is to secure evidence in the first place. Law enforcement in the U.S. is most accurately characterized as small agencies with limited resources for training, limited technology, and few specialists. Most reports and scene work will be done by patrol officers, often with limited experience and very little training in detecting, preserving, and using physical evidence. If you want to bring forensics to bear on all important crimes where physical evidence is likely to be useful (important, not "major"), you will need a far more active training effort early in the experience of the officers who will be controlling whether or not evidence is considered and detected. If you make that effort, the demands on labs will increase rapidly. Obviously, the analytical facilities development has to lead, but if there is really a goal of making use of what's available, there must be a very long view of things, decades, at least.

The reality is that fingerprints have been around for generations, but we're not yet using that old science to anything like its potential. It's fine to hear from criminal justice management from very large agencies. But if one really wants to gain a perspective on how well we're utilizing physical evidence on the ground in most of the geographical areas of the U.S., bring in the small agency heads. The chiefs of 12-officer police departments and the sheriffs of counties under 50,000 population. They will tell you that what they need is first-responding officer training and a lab somewhere that can deal with their evidence and return results in some reasonable time. There's a forensic science gap that widens with every advance.

My agency pays $600 each time a DNA test done at a private lab, unless they want to get in line for the state to do it. It still needs to go to the state to be entered into CODIS as the private lab can not do that. We rarely are able to afford replacement of worn our equipment, no one is sent to schools anymore, cost of living raises are a thing of the past. According to what I am hearing Mr. Hurtt say, we should stop training latent print examiners and focus on DNA. I am guessing he expects that every stolen bicycle case on up to the Homicide cases will be going out for DNA, or should be. Do these folks live in the same world as the rest of us or do they rely on tv to get their information. The idea of things working hand-in-hand with each other never seems to occur to them. It is always "all or nothing" and we end up paying a huge price on many different levels. DNA has its spot, but like anything else, it has its limitations. Does the idea of DNA being a complement to latent prints never ever occur to them? There is no one magic wand to fix it all but by using all the "tools" we have available, we can do a darn good job. I guess Mr. Hurtt is looking to purchase the magic wand, but I haven't seen one available yet myself. Guess I should watch e-bay more closely.

The chief's remarks on DNA solving property crimes is interesting as there were some articles out in the pulp journals about a 50% solve rate on property crimes. I know one of the agencies invovled in that and was able to talk to the DNA supervisor. When I commented that 50% was very good but that I was not aware that the CSU were collecting that much 'Touch' DNA. The DNA supervisor responded very quickly and stated that they did not use 'Touch' DNA but only those cases where items were left that were known to have been left by the offender---a blood droplet----a hat---a beer can. In other words they were doing specific and SELECTIVE evidence processing. I then asked how many cases had they worked and the supervisor responded over the periord of a year they had investigated 50 cases and solved 50% so they had solved 25 cases over the period of a year.

So when you see a statement like "DNA solves 50% of the property crimes it investigates" that is not a incorrect statement but it does hide the truth.

I do not think that solving 25 property crimes over the period of a year is not somthing to jump up and down on and especially when it is selective evidence.

Let me select which cases, which evidence to process and I bet I can get my results up and above 50%.

Hi Guys
I agree with all that has been posted. The last time I look at the stats here in NZ DNA got less in a year nationally than fingerprints got in a month in just Auckland alone!!! We also know that the % game used here in NZ (which follows the British model) is very selective; hence my cynical approach in previous postings.

Let's face it if you get 10 idents a month on DNA it is very easy to get a 50% increase. Give DNA another 100 years and let's see what happens!

I bumped this one because i was wondering - is Hurtt the same HPD as the previous thread?? (City Council Balks at HPD's $4 Million Cost for Fingerprint Fix)

In light of those comments i don't think they are going to get their $$$ unfortunately...

Yup same one.