CLPEX Chat Board

Hello Fellow Latent Print Examiners,

This is an invitation to participate in a research study for the latent print analysis - Recognition of Fabricated Latent Prints.

The identity of the participants will remain anonymous.

Purpose: The fabrication of latent prints does not happen often, however, there are a reasonable number of well known cases published which makes us believe that most of the cases of latent print fabrication are unknown.

The main purpose of the test is to find out if latent print examiners are aware of the possibility of this event and how well prepared they are to prevent it.

Eligibility: This test is for latent print examiners and requires analysis of 20 latent prints. Some of them are real ridge detail and some are fabricated impressions.

Testing implementation: You have to analyze 20 latent prints and then fill out a form with your answers, choosing between “Real” or “Fake” for each latent print.
The form is a PDF file. After it is complete you have to press the “Submit Form” button in the right top corner, or the “Submit by email” in the right bottom corner of the form. Some of the fields are required (marked with red) so if they are not filled out you cannot submit the form.

There is a text field on each latent print answer for comments if you have any. You can also add your comments, suggestions and thoughts about this survey at the end of the form.

You may fill out a fictional email or name in the fields after you press the “Submit Form” button since the form will automatically be submitted back with the data, regardless of what is written in these fields. This will keep the participation anonymous. After you submit the form you should get a message like this: “your response was successfully sent”. Please do not push the button more then once since it will be sent again. In case of an error message (if the form cannot be submitted automatically) you can save it, print, and then either email me back (ioan_truta@hotmail.com) with the PDF form attached, or fax it to 617-343-6024.

You can also use a nick name in Name Field. This way I can track the duplicates.

The deadline for participation is February 15th, 2011.


You can download the images of the latents as a compressed (.zip) folder. You have to extract the images from the zip folder on your computer.
http://cid-07873a73cad56d0a.office.live ... 20L-20.zip

Another way to see and download the latents is from this link:
https://cid-07873a73cad56d0a.skydrive.l ... nbH1nq4%24

Download the PDF form (answer sheet) regarding the analysis of latents:
http://cid-07873a73cad56d0a.office.live ... ibuted.pdf
It looks like I cannot create a link for PDF form, so please just copy and paste the following link directly to address bar in Internet explorer or any other internet browsers.
http://cid-07873a73cad56d0a.office.live ... ibuted.pdf

Please let me know if you have any problems downloading or accessing the files.

Thank you for your participation in this survey.

Ioan Truta , CLPE
Sr. Criminalist
Boston Police Department
Latent Print Unit
One Schroeder Plaza
Boston, MA 02120
Phone: 617-343-6084
Fax: 617-343-6024
Trutai.bpd@cityofboston.gov

I need a little clarification on the study. The title indicates that you’d like the examiner to determine if the prints are fabricated but the answer sheet asks if they are fake. These seem to be two different things. I’m more familiar with a fabricated print as being a print that is taken off one object but intentionally stated as coming off another as to implicate someone in the crime. I don’t see that you have included a surface with the images you are giving so I’m presuming you are defining fabricated prints differently. Do you have definitions of what a fabricated or fake print is?

Hi Michele,

Great point. Thanks for bring it up.
All fake latent prints in the test were created by couples of dummy finger obtained from mold of real fingers. This is one of the methods of latent fabrication, and it was used for this test. All latent prints were place on the same surface (white backing card) powder with black magnetic powder, then lift with clear hinge lift and transfer back to a white backing card. Most latent prints are high QQ, but there are couple with low quality as well.

Ioan T.

As Michele, I am uncertain what you are trying to determine. "Fake" is a vague term not used in a meaningful context when it comes to fingerprints. "Forged" has one very specific meaning, whereas "fabricated" has a very specific meaning totally unrelated to "forged."

"Forged" prints actually exist on the surface where they are found. They are planted by criminals intent on some act of fraud. The number of known cases in the history of fingerprints could be counted on one hand. The chances an LPE will see a "forged" print in her/his career is very small.

"Fabricated" prints never existed on the surface from where they are represented as having come. "Fabricated" prints are made by police personnel trying to secure a confession or a conviction. "Fabricated" prints would include those such as David Harding made from items in a suspect's garbage, then labelled as having come from a crime scene. Or such as Herm Wiggins made by taking lifts from the hood of his police car where he patted suspects down, then later dusted the hood of his car and labelled the lifts as having come from scenes of crimes. When I did a talk at the IAI in the mid 1990s on fabrication, I asked if anyone in the room had actually had fabricated lifts submitted to them for comparison -- not just heard of it, but actually held a fabricated lift submitted by someone else for examination. Of approximately 125 people in the room, 25 raised their hands. I have to conclude that the chance of seeing fabricated evidence is great if you work in a lab that accepts outside submissions.

In the spring, 2010, CTS latent print proficiency test, the lifts were represented as having come from either a desk or a cash box. At least two of the lifts came from curved glass surfaces, perhaps a laboratory beaker. A number of examiners failed to make the identification because of substrate analysis. In some of their comments, the word "fabrication" was used. I was more concerned that a number of examiners actually made the identification without even realizing the lift could NOT have come from a desk or cash box. In the final grading, CTS threw that latent out. Hopefully, in the future, they will pay more attention to ensuring their latents fit the scenario they propose. But the problem of not recognizing substrate was very concerning. If a dishonest police officer had submitted that lift from a curved surface, say a beer bottle, as having come from a flat surface such as a desk or a cash box, the majority of LPEs taking the test would have blindly made the ident and implicated a possibly innocent person.

"Fake" could include both concepts, but what's the point? "Forged" prints are exceedingly rare. "Fabricated" prints are, unfortunately, not so rare. The methods of forgery and fabrication are completely different. The methods of detection are completely different. Understanding "fake" without being able to differentiate between "forged" and "fabricated" would be pointless.

Please tell me you are researching "fabrication" in an attempt to develop a program to recognize fabricated latent print evidence. That would be a very worthwhile project.

ioan_truta wrote:All fake latent prints in the test were created by couples of dummy finger obtained from mold of real fingers. This is one of the methods of latent fabrication, and it was used for this test.

Dear Ioan,

You posted while I was typing my reply. What you describe with "dummy fingers" is, in fact, forgery. Saying it is one of the methods of fabrication perpetuates confusion of the definitions of the two terms. Please go back and read George Bonebrake's 1976 paper in Identification News and Pat Wertheim's 1994 paper in the Journal of Forensic Identification.

It appears that this study is actually looking to see if examiners can recognize forged prints, not fabricated prints.

I don’t mean to throw a wrench in your research but, if you don’t mind me suggesting, I’d pull the study for now and put it out again with specific instructions and definitions, otherwise the results of your research could be meaningless. I’d hate to see your time wasted when it could be easily rectified now.

I’ve seen several research studies that, when complete, state ‘the data shows…’. The truth is that very rarely does ‘the data show’ anything. It’s really our interpretation of the data. Our interpretation can be way off base if we don’t consider some very basic elements (like the instructions to the practitioners… how the research was conducted, what was considered and what wasn’t).

The value of recognizing problems in research studies is that the problems can be fixed so the conclusions of the research are the best possible.

A continuation to my last post...

Someone emailed me with a good point that I thought I’d share. This person thought the words fabrication and forged easily get confused because they don’t indicate what is really going on. I’d have to agree!!

I think this research is the perfect time to fix this problem and start using words that are better indications of our meaning. As for forged prints, the best I can come up with is ‘planted prints’ but I’m sure some of you can give better suggestions.

For fabricated prints, it doesn’t seem like the prints are really fabricated, rather the location they came from. This seems to be more about falsifying evidence. If anyone has some words for Ioan to consider, it seems like this is the perfect opportunity.

Dear Pat,

Your explanation are very valuable and based on definition this is a method of forgery.

My reason for call the title as "fabrication" and not "forged" was probable just because I considered that any person involved into an investigation, if they have knowledge, beside the methods of fabrication they can as well use all three methods of forgery. I don't know how to call this situation but in theory at least is possible. What will retain a person involved in investigation that already decided to fabricate a latent print from using one of the methods of forgery?

I think the mold method gives the best results (that's way I choose this method), but as well on the other hand it's the hardest to obtain.

In my scenario I tried to reproduce (fabricate) the best fake latent prints, best to my knowledge, and then try to found out how well the LPE are prepared for this type of possible events. I think it's a good training and it will make examiners to refresh their memory about forgery and fabrication of latents.

I wish to explore more this field, that's way I did this survey-test.

I appreciate your reply.

Dear Michele,

Your are helpful as always.

Thanks,

Ioan T.

Michele wrote:
It appears that this study is actually looking to see if examiners can recognize forged prints, not fabricated prints.

I don’t mean to throw a wrench in your research but, if you don’t mind me suggesting, I’d pull the study for now and put it out again with specific instructions and definitions, otherwise the results of your research could be meaningless. I’d hate to see your time wasted when it could be easily rectified now.

I’ve seen several research studies that, when complete, state ‘the data shows…’. The truth is that very rarely does ‘the data show’ anything. It’s really our interpretation of the data. Our interpretation can be way off base if we don’t consider some very basic elements (like the instructions to the practitioners… how the research was conducted, what was considered and what wasn’t).

The value of recognizing problems in research studies is that the problems can be fixed so the conclusions of the research are the best possible.

I agree with Michele and Pat and I decided to pull out the survey - test for now. As Pat said the forged prints are very rare and the chance to see one in our carer is very small. I'd rather concentrate on develop a program to recognize fabricated latent print evidence as are defined in George Bonebrake's 1976 paper in Identification News and Pat Wertheim's 1994 paper in the Journal of Forensic Identification.

This survey test will be renamed as "Recognition of Forge Latent Print".

Thanks Michele and Pat,

Ioan T.

The following are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the thoughts or ideas of an organization either government or professional.

First I really admire the work done on this topic by Bonebrake, Balshy, Hessing, and Pat Wertheim. They all have contributed over the years.

But like Michelle I am not too keen on the word Fabrication as it seems to me that when you fabricate something you make something. The situations that are most associated with fabrication come from the perpetrator “Falsifying” where the prints came from. To fabricate something would be to make or manufacture a mold or cast of yours or someone’s else’s finger (or palm) to leave somewhere for nefarious purposes.

I think the terms Forgery or Fabrication prints is sometimes confusing to new examiners. I prefer to teach Forgery or Falsified prints: Forgeries to be fabricated from molds or casts while Falsified are a product of the incorrect information being stated.

With Falsified most are intentional falsifications while a few are accidental such as the one discussed on this forum from Texas. I am aware of two that I would consider accidental falsifications and not intentional in this state. I do not think intentional or accidental would work very well with Fabrications.

As for the people putting this study together and I would agree with Pat that for Forgeries you can count all of those on one hand. Perhaps stepping back and looking at the study objectives would be a good thing.

My two cents from an old dinosaur.

PS from the last posting I see they are doing that.

Charles Parker wrote:I think the terms Forgery or Fabrication prints is sometimes confusing to new examiners.

Hi Charles

Most fields of science have specialized definitions for common terms. A term that has one meaning or a generalized meaning to a layperson may also have a specific meaning or a more precise definition in a specialized field.

The terms "forgery" and "fabrication" with the definitions I cited above can be found in the fingerprint literature dating back to the 1930s or earlier. It is quite understandable that a person who has not read the earlier articles and books would not use the precise definitions in the way latent print examiners who have studied and researched the field use them.

Perhaps Michele is right. Maybe there are terms better suited to describe the two concepts. But guys much older than Charles couldn't think of them in the 1920s and 1930s (at least, I think those guys were older than Charles) and I haven't seen better words suggested in the literature.

Think of a forged painting: The painting actually exists. It hangs on the wall. It can be viewed by anyone. It might be accepted as a legitimate painting by a non-expert. Consider a "forged" fingerprint. It actually exists on the surface where it can be developed or viewed by any fingerprint examiner, or may even be visible to a layperson. Even a fingerprint examiner not an expert in forgery may accept it as a genuine latent print and identify the person whose print it represents. And yet the person whose fingerprint it represents never touched the surface or deposited the fingerprint in question.

Just as the attributed artist's brush never touched the forged painting, the attributed person's finger tip never touched the surface where the forged fingerprint is found.

Now consider fabrication. Charles' definition is good:

Charles Parker wrote: . . . when you fabricate something you make something.

That pretty well sums it up. Think of "Fabricated Evidence," a common subject for fiction writers as plot devices, and a concept unfortunately not uncommon in real life. "Fabricated fingerprints" are a special kind of "fabricated evidence."

If the problem is as Charles states,

Charles Parker wrote:I think the terms Forgery or Fabrication prints is sometimes confusing to new examiners.

Perhaps the solution is to educate new examiners in all of the specialized terminology that we use in this field. We talk in great detail about the difference between "identification" and "individualization," both of which we use in a manner not totally familiar to a layperson. (Did you pause at the way I used "attributed" instead of "identification" regard to the source of a forged fingerprint a few paragraphs ago? Simon Cole, a layperson when it comes to fingerprints, speaks not of "identifications" but of "attributions" and "misattributions." Should we adopt his terminology, or should we expect him to adopt ours if he is holding forth on fingerprint "identifications" and "erroneous identifications?")

Should we not also train new examiners in the time honored use of other terms that have long standing definitions, such as "fingerprint forgery" and "fingerprint fabrication?" And should we as senior experts not know the terms and use them correctly ourselves in order to avoid misunderstandings?

Does anybody know of a good fingerprint dictionary?

Pat,

In early literature, are they using the word 'fabricated' as 'fabricated evidence' or 'fabricated print'? I agree it's fabricated evidence but the print itself isn't fabricated.

I think a forged print could be considered a form of fabricated evidence as well (a specific subset of fabricated evidence).

Michele

Michele,

The most notable early use of "forged" was in the book, Finger-Prints Can Be Forged, by Albert Wehde in 1924. He describes a method that clearly fits into forgery as described earlier in this thread and as proposed by Ioan in the survey test that is the subject of this thread.

I cannot recall the first mention of the term "fabrication." I know George Bonebrake, then head of the latent print division of the FBI, defined the term and used it in a presentation to the IAI in 1976. (Maybe Charles was there, but I was back home on duty processing crime scenes that week.) Bonebrake's 1976 transcript of that IAI presentation, which was published as an article in Identification News that year, puts the precise definition into print in what was the official organ of the International Association for Identification. Bonebrake does not claim to have coined the term, but as I recall, the implication is that the term "fabrication" was used in the manner he described for many years prior to his presentation and article.

Michele wrote:I agree it's fabricated evidence but the print itself isn't fabricated.

That is true if you are using the general definition of the term. My point is that if you are using a latent print specific term that has been defined and used extensively in the literature, then "fabrication" is the correct term to use when the latent print never existed on the surface from which it is represented as having come.

In practical application, "forged" refers to a latent print planted by the real criminal in an attempt to mislead the police. "Fabricated" means falsified by the police themselves.

If you can think of better terms and believe it would be advantageous to change long-established terminology because it is misunderstood by some latent print examiners, then I say "Go for it!"

From Pat

The terms ‘forgery’ and ‘fabrication’ with the definitions I cited above can be found in the fingerprint literature dating back to the 1930’s or earlier.

I may not have studied and researched the field as much as Mr. Wertheim but I really do not remember the term ‘fabrication’ that early. Forgery yes it goes way back but I decided to pull my limited resources and take a look.

Bridges book from 1942 list forgery, counterfeits, simulation and transplants but not ‘Fabrication’. Cummins and Midlo from 1943 do not address the subject. Moenssens from 1971 (Fingerprint Techniques) lists forgery, Counterfeits, stamped, transferred, planted, and transferred powdered lift. The actual first time I could find it listed was in G. Bonebrake’s article of 1976 and then in Mr. Wertheim’s article of 1994. However the term “Falsified’ did not disappear and by scanning down his references I see the following titles: “A False Impression” Author Unknown, Fingerprint Whorld, 1983. “Falsified Latent Prints” K. Ellsworth, Identification News, September 1981. “Falsification of Fingerprint Evidence” by Bill Leo, SCAFO Meeting Notes April 1992. “Fraudulent Fingerprints” by R.W. Johnson, Police Product News, October 1984. (Is Fraudulent closer to Fabricated or Falsified??) and then one from my own collection “Forged or Falsified Fingerprints” by James E. Hessing that was published in the 28th session of the AALF School in 1988 and was used as a training handout with the Texas DPS for a number of years.

I cannot find one source before 1976 that lists fabricated, but I will be glad to look at any if they are produced.

Pat Said:

Perhaps the solution is to educate new examiners in all of the specialized terminology …..
…….Should we not also train new examiners in the time honored use of other terms that have long standing definitions …..should we as senior experts not know the terms and use them correctly ourselves to avoid misunderstandings.

Yes, but I also prefer to teach the old and the new to give the student different concepts.

Charles' list of references is newer than mine, although I do have the books he mentioned. My library of references is a bit older. Of course, some of these references would not be considered juried, scholarly journals. It seemed "forgery" was the word of choice starting in the 1920s.

Kathy


Blank, Joseph P, “The Fingerprint That Lied,” The Reader’s Digest, September, 1975, pp 119-123

Bonebreak, George G., “Fabricating Fingerprint Evidence,” Identification News, October 1976, pp 3-13

Carmody, Charles C., “Wehde’s Forgery Claims Exposed by Investigation,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September 1928, pp 5, 31

Cooke, T. G., “The Forgery Issue,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September, 1928, pp 2-3 [includes a letter: Mr. Harry H. Caldwell’s (IAI President) opinion on so-called finger print forgeries]

Cummins, Harold, “Attempts to Alter and Obliterate Finger-Prints,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1934, Vol. 25, pp 982-991

Cummins, Harold, “Counterfeit Finger-Prints,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1934, Vol. 25, pp 666-671

Cummins, Harold, “Finger Print Forgery,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, April, 1944, pp 16-18

Duncan, Dr. J. G., “Impressions of Finger-Print Men and Their Exploits the World Over,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September 1928, pp 9-10

“Fingerprints Do Not Lie,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 1969, pp 20-21

Gargher, George A., “Confessions of a Finger Print Forger!” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September, 1928, pp. 6-8

Harper, William W., “Fingerprint ‘Forgery’ – Transferred Latent Fingerprints,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1938, Vol. 28, pp 573-580

Holik, Wilfried, “Latent Print Forgery,” Identification News, September 1979, pp 8-9

Hoover, J. Edgar, “FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover Denies Print Forgery Story,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, November, 1957, pp 15-16

Keyes, Robert, “Forgery of Finger Prints,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, February, 1967, pp 3-7, 13-17

Lee, C. D., “Easy to Detect Finger Print Forgeries,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September, 1928, pp 16-18

Lee, C. D., “Finger-Prints Can Be Forged,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1934, Vol. 25, pp 671-674

Sandburg, Fred, “If You are in Doubt About Finger Print Forgery Read This!” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September 1928, pp 4

Sandburg, Fred and R. I. Miles, “More Opinions on Forgeries by Experts,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, September 1928, pp 15, 31

Srp, Ladislav L., “Finger Print Forgeries,” Finger Print and Identification Magazine, June, 1949, pp 3-4

Van Der Meulen, Louis, “False Fingerprints – A New Aspect,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1955, Vol. 46, pp 122-128