CLPEX Chat Board

I have been asked by my employer to conduct some research around the 3 check verification practice that is currently in place in the UK.

Although there is substantial documentation around standards, there is very little mention of the verification procedure and when key decisions were made.

The earliest reference I have is from the National Conference of Fingerprint Experts in 1975 recommending 2 verification checks.

I would be grateful if anyone has any info. I am also very keen to know how many verification checks are required internationally before an identification can be released to officers?

Regards,

Richard Case

Hello Richard.

It is our procedure to have each latent identification verified by one other qualified member of the Unit. (A member becomes qualified upon two years of training and the passing of a series of written tests.) Once verified, the investigator is notified and the identification is passed on to the Forensic Identification Services officer who attended the scene (or to the SOCO Case Manager if the scene was attended by a SOCO - 'Scenes of Crime Officer' - a uniformed officer who attends crime scenes, photographs it, gathers evidence and latent impressions but is not a full-time forensics officer).

The FIS officer/SOCO Case Manager also verify the identification, since they are the ones who will testify to the identification in court.

Cindy

For clarification are all your Forensic Identification Services officers and SOCO Case Managers, qualified/considered as fingerprint identification experts?
If so, are your latent print crime scene retrieval ratios from these personnel better (or worse), then retrieval ratios from scenes examined by officers who are not qualified as experts?

Dear RM

When identifications are made in my Section it then goes to another LPE (civillian) for review or verification.

Once the latent print has been verified the original LPE will write a report detailing the results of their examination.

Although the case will go through Admin and/or Technicial Review the identification is not examined by a 3rd examiner.

On some rare ocassions when a LPE is faced with a real border line latent print the entire section may review the latent print and offer their conclusions. This happened yesterday with a difficult palm print ID.

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your response.

I was wondering if your section has the same policy as other US fingerprint departments. I.e. Are there any national guidelines from SWGFAST on verification specifying how many LPE's would be required to check an identification and whether any of these LPE's would need to be certified?

Given your scenario of getting everyone in your unit to review a different mark, which I know is a very common occurrence. Does your unit document every persons opinion, and also would you need to disclose these if evidence was ever required?

In the UK, that kind of review would need to be disclosed to the defense council.

Dear Richard,

For what it's worth, my observation is that the more verifications required, i.e., the greater the number of people who are required to confirm an identification, the more the individual responsibility is diluted in the minds of the verifiers. In other words, nothing is gained by requiring three verifications instead of one and, in fact, the three verifiers may each be less cautious because they rely on each other to catch the mistakes rather than taking full personal responsibility.

I like the Dutch system. Twelve or more points (not just lines and numbers to points only the "expert" can see) and a single verification is required. But if the number of clear points drops below twelve, the verification goes to a committee of three senior experts. They discuss the identification as a committee, pointing out to each other the things that match and the things that don't. The verification has to be made by a unanimous vote of the three. Any one of them has veto power if he is uncomfortable with the identification. Caution is the order of the day, not peer pressure to verify.

I can think of several recent cases in which multiple verifications did not prevent an erroneous identification. The Brandon Mayfield case comes to mind, among others.

I would believe it better to have a single verification with the clear understanding that the verifier's career is on the line with each verification. That way caution rules and there is nobody else to point the finger at.

I thought I should add another reply on this subject, to see whether there are any more opinions out there..... Thank you for all of the opinions expressed so far, which have been very helpful.

The original posting was to find some international response on verification, and was done to inform the piece of work being conducted by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which has been referred to in a recent post by Taggart. I have already personally replied to Taggart so that he / she is able to get the answers to the questions posed. It is certainly not a secret project, and the forces in the UK have (or should have) been kept updated on its progress. The final report / recommendations will be published in the coming weeks; but this may also need to be informed by any recommendations arising from The Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry and The Forensic Regulator.

A number of years ago I sent out a similar inquiry and found it interesting that in Hong Kong they employ an Identication verification panel of 5 experts.

Thanks David. I do find that quite amazing.

Is that for routine casework, or is it an arbitration panel for disputed marks?

What was the purpose for you requesting that information.... and did you find out any more information that you would be willing to share?

In my early years in the discipline there was no verification ‘requirement’ in agencies I worked for, but the option for conscientious examiners for a “what you think about this” to another examiner was always available. Later, when a verification policy became a requirement, I implemented a procedure in which one member of the unit was designated a primary verifier for all latent identifications during a specified period, say one week. There was also a designated secondary verifier in the event the primary verifier was not available (leave, out of office, illnesses, etc.). This was set up so an examiner could not go to their favorite/preferred verifier time-after-time. Of course, a unit with a sufficient number of examiners is necessary for such implementation.

If there was a difference of opinion between examiner and verifier, the comparison would be given to the section supervisor for a decision. That is where it would end. There would be no farming out or ‘committee’ review. The old adage, “the buck stops here”, would apply.

Of course, in those assignments in which the section supervisor is technically competent, the final case review and approval SHOULD include an assessment of any verified identification. So, it may be a single verification case policy, but there could be that ‘review’ verification (double?).

Hi Richard and Pat,

Firstly my Police organisation in Australia uses a system of verification where if first ident is done by an expert then verification by one expert is required prior to notification to case officer. If first ident is done by technician, then two experts will verify. This system is generally used across Australia with extra verifications done in some states when a court report is prepared and issued. In Australia we have a national accreditation of experts generally following a five year program and supported by external studies in science. The fingerprint identification standard is no set number with two experts agreeing.

The other issue is the preference for the Dutch system relying on twelve features in agreement. I can understand your view Pat with regard to the rationale the Dutch use of protecting the lowest common denominator alongwith the diversity of training standards applied in the USA. It is also a convenient number to defend based on the history of our science. I guess the point I'd like to make is if the materials used in your Ridgeology course were given to a broad selection of Dutch experts how reluctant would they be to commit to genuine identifications (your course levels 13 to 16) that required application of Ridgeology understanding. To complete your course within the time frames allowed requires knowing how/when to apply Ridgeology, there is no provision for forming a committee of experts to resolve an examination with less than twelve features. On a science basis the twelve feature standard is not valid as per Neurum declaration. Pat if you were fishing for a response I guess I took the bait but it is always enjoyable jousting over a posting as I learn so much more. Cheers from oz. Les

I found the following two papers interesting as they look at the number of expert checks in the UK and also looks at the procedures in Australia.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

Maybe Richard can confirm if the Fingerprint Quality Standards Specialist Group (FQSSP) is any way working alongside the NPIA with their pilot as both appear to be examining the same issues.

I thank Richard for his private communications and wonder if he would be so kind as to fully explain to the readers why the NPIA two-check pilot was delayed. I suspect the vast majority of readers will be fascinated as to the reasons.

Les Bush wrote:Pat if you were fishing for a response I guess I took the bait but it is always enjoyable jousting over a posting as I learn so much more. Cheers from oz. Les

Hi Les

It's great comparing the variation between agencies, isn't it?

But no, I wasn't fishing (at least not this time). I was simply remarking on two observations:

First, I do not believe that requiring more verifiers automatically makes the process more reliable. It is possible more verifiers may even make the process less reliable. If each verifier has the notion that if something is wrong and he misses it, somebody else will catch it, then each verifier may be less careful in his own review. In that situation, I believe it is easy to see how adding more verifiers may backfire.

Second, it does not seem unreasonable that as a quality control measure, a stronger verification scheme might be prescribed for latent prints with a lower quality and/or quantity of corresponding detail. As Lisa Steele has pointed out, she is not worried about the easy prints, she is worried about the borderline prints. In the Netherlands, the "borderline" is defined as 12 points. Arie Zeelenberg presents good arguments for the use of 12 points as the boundary below which greater care is justified in verification. The number is not purely arbitrary.

A more robust verification scheme for borderline latent prints would seem to make the process more reliable. I guess the problem is determining what is really more robust.

But if you design a more robust verification scheme, do you then need to extend that more robust scheme to all latents, even the "easy" ones?

Copy that Pat,

I agree Arie would present a good argument to support the pragmatic position behind justifying a 12 point standard. His presentation at the Fingerprint Inquiry shows he has a very good handle on the business of fingerprint identification. Studies of skin are also well advanced such that the principles of fingerprint patterns of detail being both unique and permanent are often overlooked when arguing about the reliability of the science of identification. Studies of human competency to undertake identification examinations are available through courses such as your own. I'm confident your team would have already stored those valuable international results away in safe keeping. The 12point standard compensates for the diversity of expert ability and imposes a human factor against the scientific principles. No two humans have the same fingerprints. This premise is falsifiable every time we do either a TP or an UL examination, happening globally as you would appreciate. My focus is firmly on the study of the uniqueness of fingerprints and their use for personal identification. If we focus on the practical aspects of implementing a standard we perform a technical function only. Are we technicians or experts on fingerprints? What is the cumulative value of our training,knowledge and experience?

Les Bush wrote:Are we technicians or experts on fingerprints?

G'day Les

As you know, that little question is one of several that our critics use to imply we are doing something wrong. The truth is that the question itself is improper. Why can we not be both technicians and experts? Why can the discipline not encompass a little of both functions? Why must it be one or the other?

Q: Mr. Fingerprint Witness, are you a technician or an expert?
A: I'm a little of both. As a fingerprint examiner, I perform numerous technical tasks in carrying out my duties. But by virtue of my training, experience, and proficiency testing, I am qualified as an expert in the subject matter.

Or this one:

Q: Ms. Fingerprint Expert, is fingerprint comparison a science or an art?
A: It's a little of both. Comparison indeed has an element of art to it, but it is based on sound scientific principles.

And so on. I would opine that the vast majority of "either, or" questions asked of us are improper on their face. If you consider them carefully, the answer is almost always, "Both!"