CLPEX Chat Board

Ronan,

I am on vacation, but was e-mailed with your response. I'm a little slow on the comeback, so I started a new thread.

I took your advise and re-reviewed your original letter for content and substance. You mentioned several things in your letter, and I was only addressing a few of them. I did not address the IAI's position, and am not going to discuss it in this forum.

I also took your advise and did some research on Simon Cole, and frankly I was not impressed. He was never a latent print examiner, and does fancy himself as a bit of a historian. I looked and looked, but I did not find the part where he debunked the science of fingerprints. It seems that his whole rasion d ^etra ( sorry, I don't have a dictionary with me.) is to attempt to spread reasonable doubt, and I venture, to help defense attorneys increase their billable hours.

You are correct in that I should be more aware of people like Simon Cole, but I am more concerned with my own local defense "experts," who I actually go up against. Simon Cole's testimony on the stand, and your over-reaction to his importance, is just so much mental masturbation. ( Sorry again, you called it contemporary argument didn't you.)

I am a simple man, and as such I look to the crux of the case / argument. The victim was burglarized. The defendant's latent impression was lifted from a cashbox at the scene. You identified the print and had it verified. You testified to the identification. Simon Cole blew some smoke up the juries collective skirt. He did not say that the impression on the cash box was not the defendant's. The defense did not debunk the science, and they did not have their own expert compare the impressions. I wonder if your victim felt as if he/she had been victimized twice.

I also reviewed how you described me in your letter. Let the passive-aggression begin.

Penchant for missing the point is manifest.
Condescending redundancies. ( Did you think I had worked for the department of redunandancy department ?)
Peculiar analogies.
Strident tone.
Fingerwagging sermonizing. (My personal favorite.)
More an apologist than a realist.
Blithe interpretation.
Insulting and juvenile. ( Okay, I'll give you that one.)
Apparent lack of understanding.
Your ignorance.
Cobwebbed professional standing. (Hey buddy.)
Your self-congratulatory belief.

I bet after writing this, your pocket protector was about to catch fire. You struck a blow against all of those tough kids who used to beat you up and steal your lunch money. (Don't go lowest basal denominator with me Ronan, you will lose.)

I could take the high road at this point, but what would be the fun in that for our readers.

Are you trying to insult me Ronan? I didn't see anything in there about my mom, my Harley, my pickup truck, my huntin' dawg, or my single-wide trailer, so maybe you wasn't tryin' to insult me with all that there fancy talk.

I am not insulted. I think you are a riot. Have you ever owned a sense of humor, or ever been close to one ? Lighten up Francis!!! You and I are just polar opposites.

Say what you mean Ronan, and say it like a real person. People on juries are real people, and some of them are simple folks, just like me. Do you get my drift?

Don't give someone a disingenuous half-hearted compliment in one sentence, and insult them in the next. It confuses people.

I will end now. I never thought that I would ever quote Ronald Reagan, but...well...Ronan...there you go again.

You invited me to re-review your original letter, which I did. I invite you to re-review the letter you wrote to the Southern California Association of Fingerprint Officers, and their response to you via their editor. (The Print; November / December 2002, volume 18, issue 6. www.scafo.org)

Sorry, I won't say "get over it" anymore. Get over yourself.

paultruedson@aol.com

Paul,

I have reviewed your latest submission and am sorry to report that it is a resounding negative.
The background noise and distortion aspects were significant, rendering any meaningful detail unuseable. A high degree of smearing, combined with overlapping contributions, resulted in this offering being almost discarded.
However, as elimination carries equal weight as inclusion, I persisted with my objective examination.
Level three was non-existent.
Level two was minimal, being countless details short by even the most forgiving standard of interpretation.
Ultimately, the elimination of this comparison was easily accomplished by what was left of the discernable Level one artifact.
This comparison is complete.
File for your records.
Sincerely,
Ronan

Ronan,

Stop helping me make my point. It's taken all of the fun outta this. We must stop this latent print cat-fight before Kasey kicks us both off of the message board. Having said that....all options are on the table.

Do your ever watch the old re-runs of Seinfeld ? " Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere ?"

When Alan Greenspan retires, you and he can go into business together, and travel around the country confusing juries with your non-sensical testifications. As for me, my future in latent print standup needs some polishing. ( Maybe if I whine to the IAI, they'll let me open at the next conference for Ashbaugh or Wertheim.)

" Next time, when you tell a story...have a point. It makes it so much more interesting to the reader. "

If you feel we must continue this battle, let's do it like real men, personal e-mail to personal e-mail. Or, if I may be so bold, face to face.
" I miss the days when you could challenge somebody to a duel."

4X magnifyers or print brushes. I am a gentleman, so I will let you chose.

If I don't return your correspondence straight away, it's because I am babysitting my grand-daughter, and she has just informed me that it is of the upmost importance that we go to the Zoo. Ah...back to reality.

Paul