CLPEX Chat Board

It's been a while since I visited this site. There are some fascinating exhibits posted here, to say the least. He even calls out Ken Martin by name.

http://www.rgchristopher.com/cfdb/exhibits_view.php

Click the button that says "Show All" to see everything on one page.

Here is a quote from one of the exhibit images on the page:

The FBI says the average fignerprint has anywhere from 75 to 175 points of individualization on each print. The print shown here has 114 such points. The bottom line with those figures is that the average in-court-identification will be demonstrated by marking eight to twelve points! Under that rubric, the average identification is done with only about seven percent of the individualization characteristics. One might extrapolate therefrom that there is a potential 93% error rate!

Steve Everist wrote:Here is a quote from one of the exhibit images on the page:

RG Christopher wrote:One might extrapolate therefrom that there is a potential 93% error rate!

A 93% error rate in fingerprint identification? Maybe he should be on the working group that wrote this one:
http://www.swgfast.org/documents/error/ ... FT_1.1.pdf
But somehow I think your Mr. Christopher uses a slightly different mathematical formula than SWGFAST.

Having looked on his website at all of the identifications he has reviewed as a defense "expert" and which he has exposed as "errors," I wonder what Mr. Christopher's error rate is?

He clearly does not know squat about fingerprint examination.

Oh, come on now fellas...lighten up! He's got a certificate from Sirchie for crying out loud! 40 hours on Henry Class. makes you an expert, right? (insert extreme sarcasm here)

He recently testified in Boston as a defense expert. He's well known around here. Unfortunate he's still around and he's able to spend taxpayers money for his "fingerprint expert" show. I expect he will fade with the time.
He is like a virus that we have to live with it, but with proper medication we can keep it under control.

Ioan T.

ioan_truta wrote:He recently testified in Boston as a defense expert. . . .He is like a virus that we have to live with it, but with proper medication we can keep it under control.

Dear Ioan,

Perhaps it would be amusing, next time Mr. Christopher is disclosed as a witness, for the prosecutor to subpoena Mr. Johnny Leonard, CLPE, as a rebuttal witness to explore Mr. Christopher's qualifications. After all, Mr. Leonard signed the training certificate, so presumably he would have training records and know something of Mr. Christopher's test scores and knowledge of the subject. As a CLPE himself, Mr. Leonard would also be bound by the IAI Code of Ethics to tell the truth. If Mr. Christopher testifies to his training at Sirchie, then certainly he has opened the door to admit Mr. Leonard's testimony as his trainer. It would be interesting to test whether Mr. Leonard, as Mr. Christopher's trainer, agrees that the week's training qualifies Mr. Christopher as an expert, or indeed whether Mr. Leonard agrees with Mr. Christopher's conclusions regarding the images posted on Mr. Christopher's website.

If I am not mistaken, a trainer can be called to testify regarding a student's training and qualifications if the student uses that training in his credentials to qualify.

The inked print comparison where he claims fabrication is a real hoot. The image on the left looks like it was scanned into AFIS (maybe originally a live scan capture) and then printed out of AFIS on a tenprint template (explaining the cropped appearance). The differences he points out in ridge detail are well within tolerance in my experience (20+ years). I'd say his comparison skills are novice-level at best.

He was excluded as a forensic document examiner in Montgomery v Jackson in Suffolk County, Mass., 2006, based on (a) not being qualified based on published FDE training standards, and (b) not being able to produce a conclusive opinion. I have the ruling and a transcript if there is a way to post it here, or if anyone wants a copy.