CLPEX Chat Board

I recently took an online course dealing with the fundamentals of latent print examination. In one unit of the course, they talk about ACE-V and the conclusions that examiners can reach during an examination. They are (not surprisingly): identification (or individualization), exclusion, and inconclusive as well as a FOURTH choice, inclusion (meaning, there's not enough to eliminate but can't identify). I know that you can find a definition in the Fingerprint Dictionary of inclusion but I didn't know that this was an acceptable conclusion. I'm not trying to criticize any program; I'm merely trying to ascertain how many examiners actually use 'inclusion' as a conclusion rather than inconclusive. Is this normal practice? I haven't been performing latent exams for that long (nine years) but this is the first time I've head of anyone using inclusion as a possible conclusion. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

It should be interesting to read some of the responses to your question on the “no identification/no elimination” conclusion under current guidelines. Yes, that phrase or something similar has been used.

There was a time (long, long ago) when an examiner’s examination and opinion was theirs and theirs alone. There was a time when no verification, no double-check (blind or double blind), no review (technical, administrative or otherwise), etc., etc., was a standard practice in some jurisdiction. You worked the case, you wrote the report and you were responsible for the testimony. If the level of professionalism was adequately and properly instilled in your training, you would seek assistance when faced with a difficult comparative examination. However, the end product was yours. Regarding the testimony, it has been written (somewhere) that the loneliest moment in the expert’s testimony is when you are asked to state your opinion. You are in the witness chair and there is NO ONE else.
Under certain conditions and circumstances, an examiner may not be able to provide anything other than “cannot identify and cannot eliminate”. The most common occurrence of this conclusion would be when record prints are not of sufficient quality or incomplete recording. However, if review procedures are in place, another examiner may not agree and the conclusion could be amended accordingly.

An interesting case, somewhere along these lines, occurred in my career. I reported a qualified conclusion because of the quality of the record prints and requested additional prints. The record prints submitted had been culled from a number of military records of individuals in a particular assignment location. I eliminated all except for those of “John C. Jones” (fictional, of course). Proper record prints of “John C. Jones” were directly taken and submitted. It was immediately noted that these record prints were not of the same “John C. Jones” previously submitted (these were still in my possession) and the latent print developed on the evidence (inside flap of a pilfered drug container) was made by the second “John C. Jones”. It seems as if there were two “John C. Jones” in the assignment location, but the investigator had only selected record prints from one of the records while the identification was made on the second individual. How close the case would have gone unsolved if I had eliminated all suspects!!

“An erroneous identification is a miscarriage OF justice. An erroneous elimination is a miscarriage TO justice”

Ernie

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the veiled inclusion call either. I think we once reffered that type of call as a "him but". In other words, "I think it's him but I would never want to take it to court". That type of call never left the office for fear of a subpeona to testify to it.

In modern times with the availability of the three calls I'm not sure there's a place for it. We now report inconclusives where perhaps we once did not and frankly, let's face it, inconclusive is the toughest call on the planet to make. You have to prove that you can't identify a source AND you have to prove you can't exclude a source. Then of course you have to get the evaluation verified.

The other problem I see with an inclusion call is the interpretation of it. If it were ever broadcast to an investigator they would instantly assume that you've identified the print and they would act on the information. At least with an inconclusive call you can explain to an investigator what it means in a way that they may understand. Also, the inability to exclude portion of an inconclusive call may be of value to an investigation where limited access my drop the candidates to a very few people.

Like Ernie, I'm looking forward to seeing other opinions on the subject.
Shane Turnidge

I don't like 'inclusion' for the same reasons that Shane outlined.

As I understand it, the 4 decisions are/should be: identified (or individualized - pick your poison), not identified or exclusion (depending on your agency policy), inconclusive (if your agency allows this finding), and NO VALUE.

I have personally never heard of any agency using this 'inclusion' option before.

I think expressing an opinion like 'inclusion' with the definition that josher89 gave is dangerous practice. But that is just my opinion.....

I think "inclusion" comes more from other comparison sciences. Footwear, for example, where the size and sole pattern are consistent, but a positive identification may not be possible due to lack of fine detail. You might "include" the suspect's shoes in the group of possible sources of the impression, say a size 12-D Nike of a certain model. Maybe a FW/TT examiner could comment more on that.

I have heard the belief by some that if we save latent prints "of value for comparison" that may not be of value for identification, but we save them because we might be able to exclude a suspect, then the two scientifically correct conclusions would be "exclusion" or "inclusion." I don't necessarily agree with that idea, either. I believe the correct choices in that case would be "exclude" and "inconclusive."

I suspect the online course Josher took was written by somebody other than a traditional latent print examiner. I suspect there was a lot of input from somebody with a broader theoretical scientific background. How about it, Josher -- Was the course accurate and good in other respects?

It might be possible that the course lists the "inclusion" conclusion (say that five times fast) because it may be referring to an examiner's choice to include the print for further analysis. Now I would agree that this is not a final conclusion but more of a sub-conclusion, a step that examiner's use to get to that final conclusion. Any thoughts?

I'm going to copy and paste the section of the coursework for all to see. Again, I'm not knocking the class or the institution; I have received very valuable training from this university across the country as well as through online courses--I'd be willing to bet the majority of you have either attended a class or taken an online class from this university. That being said, here's what is listed:

Evaluation: Inclusion
Evaluation is the third phase of ACE-V where “an examiner assesses the value of the details observed during the analysis and the comparison steps and reaches a conclusion” (SWGFAST). This means examiners should be reaching conclusions on the data. Confidence should come from rigorously applying a scientific method. The evaluation phase is conducted throughout the entire examination process. Examiners are constantly evaluating the pattern types, minutiae, and quality of the latent print.

Latent print examiners can reach one of four conclusions in the evaluation phase: inclusion, individualization, exclusion, and inconclusive. Note: different agencies may use different conclusions other than the ones listed here. It is important that the examiner follows her/her agency's protocols on this matter.

Inclusion: Inclusions are made in forensic science examinations when examiners see common class characteristics between evidence and need further examination. Latent print examiners make inclusions when a latent print concurs with the exemplar but there is not enough to individualize (Triplett). Another way to describe an inclusion is when the general pattern of the known print is the same general pattern as the latent print. Inclusions only occur during the evaluation of level 1 detail between the latent and known print. Latent print examiners can either include or exclude but never individualize a known print from level 1 detail. For example, a latent print may have a left slant loop pattern, which is the same pattern type as the known print. However, different minutiae in the latent print are used to form the pattern type. Therefore, when a latent print has the same general pattern as a known print, the known print is included for further examination. If the pattern of the known print does not match the pattern of the latent print, then the known print is excluded from further examination. This conclusion is often done during the Comparison phase of the ACE-V process, but it can be done in the Evaluation phase as well. For example, a small delta area with 4 points in common, but no additional detail to evaluate. In this case, there is not enough information to identify or exclude the latent print. In a way, this conclusion can be related to the Inconclusive conclusion, which is described in Section 13.

Every other aspect of the course was accurate. I guess in reality, this isn't even all that inaccurate, especially when dealing with the comparison phase and how our minds are already doing the evaluation right along with the comparison. It's just something that I wasn't familiar with and it seems like others in latent print examination aren't familiar with as well, when dealing with latent print comparisons. I think the last sentence basically sums up what I think about when I hear inclusion; it's really inconclusive at this point.

Also- The term inclusion appears in the NIST Human Factors report on latent print examination. You can decide if they adequately explored the complexity of reporting decisions this way...

Differentiating between ID and No-ID is difficult but workable. We've been doing it for a century. Splitting No-ID into exclusion and inconclusive decisions introduced another grey area where we have to struggle with the difference between exclusion and inconclusive.

Are we ready to have to differentiate between:
ID and Inconclusive
Excl and Inconclusive
ID and Inclusion
Excl and Inclusion
Inclusion and Inconclusive

???

K.I.S.S.

ER,

What I really like about you is that you are far too common sensical for the ASCLD/FQS/ISO era. You belong back in the 20th Century.

...where I can still rock out to really bad 80's music.

\m/ (>.<) \m/

..... 60's & 70's Country Western is the time machine narcotic I use to escape back to a simpler time in the lab. I wonder what Ernie plugs into his ears?

The course seems to be on track with the way things are going.

The LVMPD recently published our list of conclusions and how we have separated out the "Inconclusive" so that we are more descriptive.

We have Identified, Excluded, Incomplete (With or without detail in agreement), Can not Exclude (this would be your Inclusion) and Inconclusive.

By doing this we are reporting out our results and not masking any of this information from the detective or jury.

Qualified conclusions are OK people and there is nothing that say that we must have absolute certainty to testify in court about the evidence. No other discipline holds themselves to that standard.

As long as you are able to explain what each of your conclusions mean then there should not be a problem and you should not be afraid of your subpoenas.

We have Identified, Excluded, Incomplete (With or without detail in agreement), Can not Exclude (this would be your Inclusion) and Inconclusive.

Will you please clarify "Cannot Exclude", "Inconclusive", and "Incomplete (with or without detail in agreement)"? It seems to me if you cannot exclude it nor identify it then it is inconclusive. In what circumstance would you use one over the other? Also, please explain in what circumstance you would use incomplete (with or without detail in agreement).

The latest SWGFAST draft for comment on inconclusive describes each instance:
5.3.2.3.
Inconclusive
Inconclusive is the decision by an examiner that an unknown impression of comparison value can not be excluded or identified. The reason for each inconclusive conclusion must be documented and reported. Inconclusive conclusions do not apply to impressions determined to be of no value (see section5.1.1).

Reasons for inconclusive may include but not limited to:
5.3.2.3.1.
Lack of Comparable Areas (LCA)
This inconclusive conclusion results from a lack of complete and legible known prints. This means comparisons were made to the extent possible, however additional clear and completely recorded exemplars,to include the required anatomical areas, are needed for reexamination.
5.3.2.3.2.
Lack of Sufficiency for Individualization (LSI)
Corresponding features are observed but not sufficient to individualize. No substantive dissimilar features are observed.
5.3.2.3.3.
Lack of Sufficiency for Exclusion (LSE)
Dissimilar features are observed but not sufficient to exclude. No substantive correspondence is observed.
5.3.2.3.4.
There may be other instances where agencies have adopted procedures to report inconclusive conclusions. These are left to the administrative policies and procedures of the individual agency.
However, these policies and reporting procedures must be clearly defined by the agency