CLPEX Chat Board

I have received an e-mail from the Prosecutor on a case I worked in April of this year. He has sent 9 questions from the defense as a "Non-Standard Motion for Discovery and Inspection"

There are two that make me go MMMMMM. I though I would pass them by ya'll (not a native Texan, but have adopted the lingo).

Questions 1, 8 and 9 refer to making copies and disposal issues. I will not repeat them here. Questions 6 and 7 are the ones that make me ponder. I posted the rest of the question, with responses, to provide background information.

Question 2) Was the fingerprint comparison done using Respondent’s original inked print?

The comparison was conducted using a copy of the inked prints for XXXXXXXX, printed from the State archive. A database maintained by XXXXXXXX Texas.

Question 3) Was the fingerprint comparison done using the original impression found at the crime scene?

Of the XX identifications; XX were made using the original lift cards and XX were conducted using Photoshop.

Question 4) If the fingerprint comparison was not done using the original impression found at the crime scene, how did the police obtain or generate the image that was compared.

The original impressions on the latent lift cards marked as items XX and XX were scanned into Photoshop, to adjust the contrast. A chart was generated showing the corresponding points used in the comparison to document the analysis.

The original impressions on latent lift cards marked as items XX, XX, XX and XX were used for the analysis.

Question 5) If the image was created by computer, which software was used to produce the image. (I'm assuming they mean Photoshop and not AFIS)

The charts for item XX and XX were created using the software “Photoshop CS3”


Question 6) What research has been done to validate the accuracy of that software program?

(This is my big question; how would you answer this one)

Question 7) In applying the procedure, did the police observe the guidelines recommended by the Association of Information and Image Management (AIIM)?

SWGIT Guidelines were used.

I'm fix'n to be gone the rest of the week. See ya'll Monday.

Thank you,

Sandy

[quote="S. Siegel"]
Question 6) What research has been done to validate the accuracy of that software program?

(This is my big question; how would you answer this one)[/i]

They don't know quite what they're asking about. I wold take the position that the question is meaningless as stated and reply that there is no "accuracy" to evaluate, since the software merely adjusted contrast to the degree that allowed me to better differentiate among densities, not to any precise ratio, something that could as easily have been done by adjusting the monitor hardware controls. So accuracy and validation do not apply to the contrast function, the only software function I used.

If they want to play games with whether or not contrast, however adjusted for viewing, somehow alters the way the impression appears to portray the characteristics of the source skin, they're going to have to try to tackle that one in court. If that's what they wanted to ask, they should have asked it that way. For all I know, they're laboring under the sadly typical confusion between AFIS searching and examination.

I hope you intend to take an un-enhanced photograph with you not subjected to Photoshop.

I'd suggest that the answers to both of these questions are that you don't know. I'd suggest leaving them at that and saving more thorough answers for testimony.

The more thorough answer to #6 is that AIIM is not recognized by the forensics community. You can expand on that as much as you like, listing all of the organizations and peer reviewed journals that don't recognize AIIM, you can even name other groups that aren't recognized by the forensics community, etc. Basically, it would be fairly easy to show that AIIM has no relevance to forensics, never did, and really doesn't even attempt to work within our community.

The more thorough answer to #7 is that Adobe has been publicly and commercially available since 1990, is currently in version 11 (CS4), has sold millions of copies, has a staff of software engineers, and hundreds of beta testers who test it for every release. This amounts to tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions) of hours of beta testing, plus millions of hours of testing by users, etc. - but that a more precise answer could come from one of the Adobe Photoshop Product Managers.

G

I am on the FLOOR laughing about this. I'd love to see the whole list, but think I have a copy of it sitting around here somewhere as the wording you wrote, if quoted directly, is EXACTLY the same wording as a similar motion we received here last year.

Our response was to answer what we knew and for the studies of the software to ask for clarification and to just say "no" about the AIIM question. I boned up on my responses to these, if I was gonna need them, to whit: AIIM does not dictate standards in the forensic field outside of their own desire to do so and to also explain a la George (hi George!) all about Adobe and what adjusting contrast means (ie: same as having a flashbulb on a camera, etc.). Turns out that is the last we heard of the case, guy pled.

Fear not, they are just fishin'.

Our QD people get something like this for their stuff routinely. "Yawn" is the best response.

sandra wiese wrote:I am on the FLOOR laughing about this. I'd love to see the whole list, but think I have a copy of it sitting around here somewhere as the wording you wrote, if quoted directly, is EXACTLY the same wording as a similar motion we received here last year.

This request surfaces every once in a while. For those not aware, it is a result of an article published in the NACDL's Champion in 2003, written by Michael Cherry and Edward Imwinkelried. The article is titled The Myth of Fingerprints.

You can see the article at: http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/698c98d ... enDocument

I think it was the Wisconsin Crime Lab that acquired copies of the different AIIM standards (which cost a couple of hundred dollars). I think Bob Sanders was the one where I heard this many years back, and he may have more information. From what I remember, the AIIM standards were most directly relevant to the microfilm industry.