CLPEX Chat Board

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/15/1 ... itary.html

"Falsified lab tests could have contributed to criminals remaining free and innocent people being wrongfully convicted," wrote Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. "The failure to address these issues in a timely manner could damage the nation's trust in the military justice system."

That's not what Karl aka 'Big Popper' meant by falsifiable.....

Since no one has mentioned anything on the USACIL 'scandal', let's talk. A co-worker and I were discussing this statement, what say you?

Known as "missed identifications," Steffan's mistakes are an "inevitable part of forensic latent-print casework in all laboratories," the Army said in a statement. Military officials stressed that Steffan didn't make the more serious error in the murder case of misidentifying prints and a corrected report was issued before trial.

How inevitable is inevitable? If you're in a lab that does not verify exclusions, aren't you inviting more instances of missed identifications? Do you use inconclusive, and if so under what conditions?

When I used to work tech support for Mindspring, they used to throw out this statment as one of their core values and beliefs.

We insist on giving our best effort in everything we undertake. Furthermore, we see a huge difference between "good mistakes" (best effort, bad result) and "bad mistakes" (sloppiness or lack of effort).

The statement on inevitability seems to fly in the face of this sentiment.

What do you think? Are we doing all we can to prevent missed identifications, or can we do better? If so, how?

Boyd,

I like the statement of your previous employer! The one part I noticed is that it all relies on the first sentence, "We insist on giving our best effort in everything we undertake."

Is it a best effort not to verify exclusions? If an agency has procedures in place to diminish missed ID's then it could be considered an acceptable error (best effort, bad result) but if an agency doesn't have procedures in place then it could be considered an unacceptable error due to sloppiness on the agencies part (like the article mentions, systemic problems).

Does anyone know if the Army Crime Lab verifies exclusions? Does anyone know if the Army Crime Lab uses inconclusive to mean they couldn't arrive at a conclusion (vs. using inconclusive as 'incomplete - need better exemplars')?

In the article, it states that,

a latent fingerprint examiner has been found to have missed several fingerprints. The examiner isn't accused of misconduct, but her mistakes could cast doubt on the overall quality of the lab's work.

The way I read it, the defense attorney is trying to cast doubt on the fingerprint examiner because, as I infer from the article, she missed some identifications (erroneous inconclusives) that were caught on technical review and corrected in house.

It wasn't as if an outside lab caught these "erroneous inconclusives" that the Army crime lab was trying to cover up. The lab itself caught them and corrected the original report. Isn't that the way the system is supposed to work? I did not see anything that leads me to believe this was "erroneous exclusions," only "missed identifications." Is that something that should "case doubt on the quality of the lab's work?"

Show me an examiner who is out of training and doing independent casework who says they've never missed one and I will show you a person who is either a fool or a liar. And show me a lab that denies erroneous inconclusives have ever happened in the lab, and I'll show you a lab engaged in cover up.

I would submit that in spite of our "best efforts," we all miss one once in a while. According to the article, it is the Army's position that erroneous inconclusives are an "inevitable part of forensic latent-print casework in all laboratories." I believe that is a correct statement.

The DNA analyst and the firearms examiner appear to have committed unethical conduct. Nothing in the article indicates that the latent print examiner did. A defense attorney tried to impeach her because she missed an ident to his client. A reporter is trying to lump her in with a fraud and a dry labber to stir controversy. And a politician is trying to score some votes. We should cut her some slack.

I know of offices that never exclude. In these offices, I think it’s safe to say they have a significantly lower erroneous exclusion rate than other offices. Other offices I know of never use inconclusive. I would think that if an examiner is forced to conclude either ID or Exclusion then it may lead to a significantly higher erroneous exclusion rate. Since we all do thinks so differently, I don’t think we can generalize about the discipline. The best we can do is speculate on the pros and cons of different situations.

The article doesn’t give enough information to make any speculations about this lab. It just brings up some good topics for discussion.

In one office I know of, they either ID or state it wasn’t ID’d. Latents not ID’d aren’t misses because some of them are never compared. Due to time restraints, they may make a few ID’s and then report that if further work is needed, the detectives should send in another request.

In the article, it states that the second report was sent out after the first. If the misses were found during a technical review, is it typical that a report would be sent out before the technical review and then another one sent out afterwards?

Michele wrote:I would think that if an examiner is forced to conclude either ID or Exclusion then it may lead to a significantly higher erroneous exclusion rate.

I can definitely attest to that. In one lab where I previously worked, the technical supervisor one year put heavy pressure on all the examiners to either ID or exclude and keep inconclusives to a minimum. The result was a spate of erroneous exclusions. After the frequency of erroneous exclusions became embarrassing, he was finally forced to back off and allow a little more examiner discretion in using inconclusive as the final determination.

Michele wrote:Since we all do thinks so differently, I don’t think we can generalize about the discipline.

One of the most significant points to the new SWGFAST document "draft for comment" on "Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions" is the distinction between "Approach 1" and "Approach 2" discussed in 4.1.4.2 of that document. I have worked in both kinds of labs, but the distinction between those two approaches seems so very subtle that most examiners don't recognize the fact that if you are raised under one philosophy and think that is the way everybody works, you cannot truly comprehend the other approach. I have seen some heated debates between examiners arguing over inconclusives and exclusions who, in fact, were unaware that the basis for their argument was simply a failure to recognize each other's philosophical constraints in the workplace. If you work in a lab that uses "Approach 1," then the only reason for an inconclusive is the need for better quality exemplars. If you work in a lab that uses "Approach 2," then inconclusive can result from either poor quality exemplars or a latent with insufficient quantity and quality of detail to ever make the identification. The difference seems minor, but the implications are greater than they would seem. Failure to acknowledge the validity of both approaches results in major misunderstandings.

If you're in a lab that does not verify exclusions, aren't you inviting more instances of missed identifications?

Yes but are there any labs that currently undertake verification of all exclusions in all their casework?

Are we doing all we can to prevent missed identifications, or can we do better? If so, how?

How about a standardized training program? In some cases how about any training whatsoever?

Show me an examiner who is out of training and doing independent casework who says they've never missed one and I will show you a person who is either a fool or a liar

Is it that only people undertaking independent casework have “missed one?” Alternatively, is it that people undertaking independent casework, must be “out of training?” If the inference is that all lab/bureau people are “in training” and “says they've never missed one and I will show you a person who is either a fool or a liar” certainly comes into play.

And show me a lab that denies erroneous inconclusives have ever happened in the lab, and I'll show you a lab engaged in cover up.

Except when the erroneous conclusions may not as yet come to light.

How many labs undertake blind verifications of identifications/individualizations?
How many labs undertake blind verifications of all their casework to eliminate missed identifications?
How many labs that do undertake this have increased their staff levels to undertake the increased work load, or are we doing the usual of trying to get “a quart out of a pint pot?”
As Oliver Twist would say “please Sir I want more.” Do we accept the request but not provide additional resource to ensure Oliver’s bowl is always refilled with gruel?

The victim allegedly had shot himself in the right temple, but the hole in the hat was on the left side.

Every hear of wearing you hat backwards?

Graham F wrote:

If you're in a lab that does not verify exclusions, aren't you inviting more instances of missed identifications?

Yes but are there any labs that currently undertake verification of all exclusions in all their casework?

Yes

How many labs undertake blind verifications of all their casework to eliminate missed identifications?

Is their an assumption that blind verification will eliminate missed identifications?

Is their an assumption that blind verification will eliminate missed identifications?

No. Some will be eliminated & some will not. As in the verification phase of ACE-V, will the verification always be correct? We know that is not the case. The human factor is always an issue and I suspect will never be 100%, irrespective of whatever training, experience, skill, models etc., etc., are in play.
Error cannot be eliminated. If it was there would be no error (missed identification/wrong identifications).

Hi Graham
Sorry I can not agree with
"Error cannot be eliminated. If it was there would be no error (missed identification/wrong identifications)."
To start with why have you lumped together missed identification/wrong identifications into the same type of error. It is easy to miss an ident, I am not sure of your back ground but I suppose you have some experience in fingerprints, often the detail in a lift is not present in the 10 prints set, so there is a missed ident. How often have you seen a fingerprint that appears to be a loop but is an arch or a whorl in fact, often caused by movement or scaring occurring between the time frames? To suggest that is an error in the same way that making a wrong identification is an error is very misleading to say the least.

I would also suggest that missed identifications are as a result of work pressure, pushing the boundaries, insufficient training and lack of quality rechecking.

Here is one way to eliminate errors:-
"It is interesting that the Jewish scribes who copied the MT (Massoretic Text) of the Hebrew Bible scrolls paid the greatest attention to the minutiae of detail and such marks attached to each consonant throughout the entire text. They even numbered every letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, section, and scroll to insure that the total equalled that of the text being copied before allowing it to enter the holy synagogue."

And this artical is skimming the surface of what actually occured. Google Not One "Jot Or Tittle".

Neville

You seem to have gone off on a tangent with this.

You disagree that “Error cannot be eliminated,” so you must believe that it can. What is your fix to eliminate all error?

why have you lumped together missed identification/wrong identifications

The two terms were used generically for the people without experience who read this to understand. I am not stating that they are the same type of error, but either way, they are both errors with differing levels of gravity.

I assume from your response, “work pressure, pushing the boundaries, insufficient training and lack of quality rechecking,” it is your belief that a missed identification is not an error. Is that correct? These appear guided towards faults of others or the system, not the individual. How about the lack of skill employed by the individual that leads to the missed identification - this is indeed error. An error caused by the individual. Training & experience do not always = expertise if the person has no skill, or does not use it correctly.

Hi Graham

My mistake

I made the statement:-
"I would also suggest that missed identifications are as a result of work pressure, pushing the boundaries, insufficient training and lack of quality rechecking."

What I meant was, I would also suggest that wrong identifications are as a result of work pressure.......

NO quality Checkers you see!

Yes I do believe errors can be eliminated.

To go back to my example, for a scribe to use a wrong word (or letter) would cause the hole script to be thrown away; though if an extra line space between two chapters were found I doubt it would cause the hole script to be thrown away. I maybe wrong I am no expert nor even a student in that field, both maybe described as mistakes though I guess.

To make a wrong identification as an expert is in my belief a sackable offence, if it can be shown it is due to lack of training then the person was never an expert in the first place or there is some other very serious issue with the organisation and every case needs to be reviewed. I understand that in some offices underlings are expected to agree with their superiors in all ways and in that culture wrong identifications will always slip through and then will be covered up, that is a very dangerous situation. As rare as that maybe, the fact that such systems may still be in place (it appears to be so) is abhorrent and should be flushed out.

If you miss an identification that is subjective and I guess AFIS itself should be thrown out as it continually misses identifications including ten prints.

If as experts we use the term generically for the people without experience who read this to understand then we are being misleading. Surely it is up to us to explain the differences, not to pander to their CSI belief system.

You said "Training & experience do not always = expertise if the person has no skill, or does not use it correctly." I totally agree but isn't that the supervisors job, and if the person is working unsupervised that is an organisational problem.