CLPEX Chat Board

Hi all,

My lab is one that currently follows the "of value for comparison" approach. We annotate ("claim") any latent print that is of value for both identification and exclusion, even if the latent has value for exclusion only. Some of the labs in our area are moving to a somewhat hybrid approach in that they will state in their reports that there are latent prints in the case that were deemed to be of exclusionary value only and those were not compared at this time. Unless specifically requested, these labs will analyze and annotate latent prints that are of value for identification only.

We were wondering if there are other labs that are performing casework in this way. Having taken Penny Dechant and Eric Ray's class on erroneous exclusions, there are certainly reasons supporting the utilization of this approach.

Does your lab analyze latent prints of value for ID or for comparison? Do you or would you use this hybrid approach? Can anyone think of a reason that this approach would not work?

Thanks!

Hi Heather,
I analyze all prints to determine their suitability for identification only. As far as annotation, I'll annotate any print that is or could be suitable for identification. Sometimes during the annotation phase I determine, in the end, the print isn't suitable. The only prints I don't annotate are those that are obviously not suitable.

I don't compare prints that I suspect might be suitable for exclusion only. I'll compare only those that, in my opinion, are identifiable.

Hope that answers your questions.

Cindy

I prefer the "suitable for comparison" approach. It is more logical and leaves room for any conclusion. I don't like boxing myself in during analysis to say something is suitable for individualization or suitable for exclusion only when you really won't know the outcome until you've made a comparison. Plus most of the suitable for exclusion only comparisons end up with a "cannot be excluded" conclusion which is truly an "Inconclusive". I feel the "cannot be excluded" conclusion can be misleading when reported if care isn't taken to explain your limitations.

In the end it depends on what you consider a suitable for exclusion only print. I know some will keep any print where it appears to show a particular pattern only or with very minimal and questionable Level 2. I for one don't trust pattern only impressions or feel that reliable conclusions can be drawn. If it is so distorted you don't see reliable Level 2 then how will you ever know the pattern isn't an artifact of distortion. We've all seen those pattern tricks occur in clearer impressions but you're able to catch them because they have more information in them (look at the FIGS as examples).