FDIAI Presentation
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:18 am
I wasn't unable to attend the FDIAI but the presentations looked very interesting. I was able to get a copy of one of the presentations and I thought I'd post it here for others who are interested. Since this is on a chat board, the pictures that go with it are gone. If anyone would like the document with the pictures, feel free to email me and I'll send you a copy.
Michele
michele.triplett@metrokc.gov
FRICTION RIDGE LEVELS OF DETAIL: BANE OR BOON?
Ernest D. Hamm
Educational Conference of the Florida and Georgia Divisions of the IAI
November 7, 2005
bane n. – a cause of death, destruction, or ruin
boon n. – something beneficial or pleasant that is bestowed
The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company
Friction Ridge Levels of Detail: Bane or Boon?
In the past number of years, the terms Level 1 Detail, Level 2 Detail and Level 3 Detail have crept into discussions associated with the identification of individuals through friction ridge characteristics. These ‘levels’ have also been expressed in different formats; Level I, II and III and First Level, Second Level and Third Level. However, there are concerns relating to these terms and an understanding of their importance in the identification process for both the professional ranks and the general public.
It must be understood that there are two distinct applications involved in friction ridge visualizations. There is the deliberate and controlled recording of a fingerprint and other friction skin areas through the use of transferring mediums and prepared substrates. This recording is intended to obtain a complete and clear representation of the entire friction ridge skin area of interest, such as the end joint of a finger. The second application is the latent print. This ‘print’ is not deliberate or controlled and usually must be made visible by the application of physical and chemical properties on a variety of substrates. It is rarely a complete representation of the entire area and may only reveal a small area of something like a fingerprint. These differences play an important part in understanding problems associated with the use of ‘levels of detail’.
Level One Detail (L1D) is defined by the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST) as, “friction ridge flow and general morphological information”. “General morphological information” is further described by SWGFAST as ‘incipient ridges’ and ‘overall size’.[1] However, incipient ridges and overall size should be more associated with physiological ridge formation and not associated with to ridge flow or pattern arrangement. David Ashbaugh, whose articles on ridgeology initiated ‘levels of detail’, described L1D as, ‘pattern or ridge configuration which is a class characteristic.” [2] L1D has generally been accepted as ridge flow and pattern arrangement.
While ridge flow and pattern arrangement can readily be seen in deliberate recordings, it is not always clearly recognized in many latent print situations. The chance nature of latent prints can easily result in distorted fingerprints to the extent that even those with an apparent pattern definition may not favorably compare to a deliberate recording of the same digit. A skilled latent print practitioner may be able to resolve pattern appearance differences and continue to a successful comparative examination [3], but an untrained individual will not recognize or acknowledge any association between the record and the latent. There have been countless occurrences of these ‘dissimilar’ prints and this illustration is just one example. [4]
There was, and still may be, a sort of form test for latent examiners centered about pattern similarity recognition. The ‘test’ consisted of a page of single record styled fingerprints that also had duplicates on the page. The applicant was to match the fingerprints one to the other, or not. This was usually applied as a screening tool to evaluate a person’s aptitude for conducting comparative examinations. This test involved straight forward pattern images with no attempt to trick or deceive the viewer and yet some individuals can not adequately complete this test. There are individuals that, regardless of their background, education and initiative, just do not have that innate ability to ‘match’ images such as those found in fingerprint comparisons. Also, no amount of training for some individuals can correct this area of cognitive reasoning to the extent they could be considered competent.
On the other side are proficiency tests that are used in training stages and also to periodically evaluate and validate the skill level of examiners. There are probably many, many instances in which the latent prints chosen by a committee or a supervising individual may be part of the testing BECAUSE there are differences in general pattern appearance and ridge flow from that appearing in a record print. These latent prints are purposely included in the test to mislead the examiner and serve as an example to not necessarily accept L1D in the comparative stage.
L1D can be a very valuable screening and orientation tool in a comparison, but is very weak in the identification process. The current attention in understanding and applying L1D features is reflective of the changing technology in fingerprint activities from years past. The movement from the use of the Henry System of classification with extensions and modifications to the NCIC codes and then to the use of electronic scanning of fingerprints and automated classification systems has changed the background experience for prospective latent print examiners. The professional career transition of latent print examiners from traditional classifiers to latent print examiners meant that ‘new’ examiners had many, many hours of looking at and understanding patterns and ridge flow from countless hours of viewing thousands of fingerprints. However, that experience and exposure to inked fingerprints is waning in this era of automated systems and new examiners are receiving minimal training in understanding and appreciating L1D, which was a basic ingredient in the education and experience of fingerprint examiners.
The initial screening of a latent print as being of value for identification should concentrate on the clarity and appearance of individual ridge characteristics. If this preliminary examination deems the latent of value for a comparative examination to a known print, the examiner will mentally note a particular arrangement of individual characteristics, perhaps only two or three depending on the distinctiveness of the arrangement. The L1D may then be employed while evaluating the record print, but the examiner still has the ‘mentally stored’ image of a specific arrangement of individual characteristics as a point of reference.[3] These individual characteristics are considered Level Two Detail.
Level Two Detail (L2D) is defined by SWGFAST as, “individual friction ridge paths and friction ridge events, e.g., bifurcations, ending ridges, dots”. [1] The Galton details that were established over 100 years ago and whose arrangement and positioning serve as the definitive method in establishing an association of a fingerprint, or other area of friction ridge skin, to an individual person. Ashbaugh described L2D as, “type and position of minutiae which are unique formations.”[2]
It is the Galton Details that provide the science to fingerprint identification. The physiological development of these characteristics; ending ridge, bifurcation and dots, is firmly established by biological science. Their persistence and permanence as determined by the studies of Sir Francis Galton, et al, establish the irrefutable identification of an area of friction ridge skin area found on one substrate to that appearing on another substrate. Opinions of association are made on the following agreements; characteristic type, direction (orientation), relative attitude to each other and separation from other characteristics. There may be subjective decisions made on whether a ridge ends or bifurcates, but any discrepancy in the feature’s appearance may be the result of a number of factors in either the record or latent, or both. The end result is there is a recognizable feature at that specific point in the print, something does occur and can be plotted, compared and demonstrated.
Level Three Detail (L3D) is defined by SWGFAST as, “friction ridge dimensional attributes, e.g., width, edge shapes, and pores”. [1] Interestingly, ‘width’ may be seen as comparable to ‘overall size’ and this was listed by SWGFAST in L1D as ‘general morphological information’. Ashbaugh defined L3D as, “shape of minutiae, shape of individual ridges, presence and location of pores.”[2] The features of edge shapes and pores can involve minute characteristics that may easily be observed in deliberate recordings and some latent prints, but may not be seen in either for a number of reasons. Some examiners have also placed ‘all others’ in the L3D category, such as creases, scars, incipient ridges (though SWGFAST has these in L1D?) and anything else not understood to be in L1D or L2D. This has caused many examiners to ask just what does constitute L3D and if this ‘level’ is necessary. [5][6][7]
One important problem with some of features placed in L3D as having individualization quality is their failure to accurately and consistently be present in both deliberate and latent situations. This is especially the case with those associated with pore and ridge edge structure. There can be a lot of variation in the appearance of these features that is dependent upon pressure, substrate, developing substances in latent prints and the recording medium, inked or electronically, in record fingerprints. The variations can cause details like pore openings to disappear or present a different arrangement of the ridge edges. The effect of these differences can readily change from one deposit or recording to another. They do not have the permanence and persistency found in Galton details. [8][9]
Another problem is that some ‘experienced’ examiners seem to be validating their identification opinion because of L3D perceptions. There seems to be more public statements like, “I can see third level!!”, implying support for an identification. This statement is even made by individuals viewing digitally transmitted images in which pixilation can seriously effect the visualization of the ridge features, especially those composed and posted on the Internet.
In a comparative examination, L1D and L3D may or may not be accurately represented, leaving L2D as the definitive factors in identification. However, a hierarchy of 1, 2 and 3 has been ‘established’ and such a ranking is not necessary and should be discouraged. Competent latent print examiners have no problems with understanding and applying all features labeled as L1D, L2D or L3D. Practitioners have been recognizing and using these features, some perhaps unconsciously, for years and years without having them categorized or rated. [6] A ranking can present difficulty in court testimonies in which an examiner must explain why L1D in an observable pattern design is absent or does not appear to be similar between record and latent and then why there is no L3D. L2D is always expected to be present* and can assist in additional comparisons to other features:
“To search pores we must still depend upon the surrounding ridge characteristics
or (sic) suspects submitted by investigators” [8]
A juror or other “trier of the truth” may accept explanations about an apparent discrepancy in L1D, but still remain skeptical when L2D is demonstrated and ultimately discard the validity of the testimony when there is no L3D.
“So officer, where is the third level detail in these impressions, as there is none
I put it to you your evidence is flawed” [10]
and
“…what you are asking the jury to believe is that level 3 only counts
when it agrees with the result you want and when it doesn't, you ignore it.
Correct?" [11]
This is a human response to numerical rankings; 1 is okay, 2 is better and 3 is even better. However, if there are problems with L1D appearance and L3D can not be affirmed, the value of L2D can be diminished. The Galton details are solid and indisputable features for the identification. There are other features such as pattern, ridge flow, ridge and pore structure, creases (permanent and transient), scars (permanent and temporary) and others that can be used somewhere in the comparative examination and evaluation IF they are present. These should be called by their descriptive term and not ranked or placed in special categories. This view has also been expressed in discussions involving the Third Level Detail sub-group of the United Kingdom’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). [10]
There are valid concerns with the L3D philosophy and it has been stated, “the term is now so deeply embedded in our vocabulary it’s going to take us a very long time to forget it!” [10] Another view is stated as, “If we're going to live by level 3, we'd better be prepared to die by level 3". [11] It really is disconcerting this has taken place in a fairly short span of time. Unfortunately, we are faced with the dilemma expressed by the following:
“The moving finger writes; and having writ, moves on: nor all your
Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your Tears
wash out a Word of it.”
Edward FitzGerald (1809-1883), translator
‘The Rubáiyát’ of Omar Khayyám (1859)
SWGFAST guidelines are contributing to the difficulties with the use of levels of detail. ‘Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for Latent Print Examiners’, paragraph 2.2.2, states that L2D is, ‘used in conjunction with level one detail to individualize’. It also states in paragraph 2.3.3 that L3D is, ‘used in conjunction with level one and level two detail to individualize’. [1] There are also authoritative statements that the levels are not only used ‘in conjunction’, but also in sequence. [2] [12] Where does this leave an examiner being subjected to cross-examination when there are difficulties with L1D and L3D aspects? The examiner’s proper, correct and perhaps valuable identification of a latent print through the use of Galton details is in very serious jeopardy. The professional standards and guidelines pertaining to the use of levels of detail bring to mind the expressions,
‘Hoist with one’s own petard’,
Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4
William Shakespeare
and,
“We have met the enemy and he is us”
Pogo, Walt Kelly.
The profession is being seriously damaged by its own cleverness in devising terms and conditions for its methodology.
Friction Ridge Levels of Detail, bane or boon? It can be argued that both assignments, bane AND boon, are appropriate. The attention generated by discussions of L3D has resulted in increased awareness, research and understanding of the development of friction ridge skin. That is a clear and definite boon. The increased research and documentation of all friction ridge features has given the latent print examiner much more information beyond the thoroughly memorized stock explanation, “…formed in the 3rd and 4th month of fetal life and remain unchanged…”, typically used for defining L2D features. This presentation is not a challenge to the uniqueness and integrity of friction ridge features found in a latent print. These features are supported in biological science and their presence in sufficient clarity can and should be used by an examiner in forming an opinion of origin. An understanding of the formation of all ridge structure as associated with their deviations, edges, pores and general appearance is essential and their value in a comparative examination can not be set aside. There is where the attention given to ‘levels of detail’, especially L3D, has resulted in valuable contributions.
It must first be understood that L1D has no valid argument for being an element in any standards or part of a criteria for establishing individualization in a latent comparative examination. This type of detail is great for deriving a classification scheme for the storage and retrieval of fingerprint records, but its use in latent comparisons is entirely different. It is merely a filtering and search tool for the latent print examiner that may or may not be fully utilized in the final analysis. The following was stated many years ago:
“The whole secret of identification thus solely rests upon the order in which these minutae (L2D) appear in the two prints under comparison, and it needs no emphasis that exact measurements, or exact shapes have no place in the identification of finger prints, whereas the type of a print is only an auxiliary point in establishing identity between two prints” [13]
Friction ridges will always be present, but how they will eventually contribute to the comparative examination is unknown. Their designation as Level One Detail and implying there must be correspondence and agreement between latent and record before proceeding to the next step creates a major area of concern.
This presentation is a challenge to the use of number rankings that can create a perception of weighted values of one ‘level’ over another. The ‘levels of detail’ with the numerical rankings can be interpreted by the public and exploited by legal representatives as required and sequential progressive steps. This is supported in the literature and professional guidelines when terms like ‘sequence’ and ‘conjunction’ are used in association with discussions involving the different levels. This is the bane side of ‘levels of detail’.
The validation of identifications through the perceived presence of L3D is a questionable practice. IF L3D, using whatever features one wants to place in this category, is present in both latent and record in clear clarity and arrangement, it may support an identification having limited L2D. This clarity of detail is possible and it is the responsibility of the examiner to ensure the proper evaluation of the features is conducted for their use in the decision making process. One of David Ashbaugh’s most significant red flags in a comparative examination is, “making excuses for differences”.[14] An examiner should completely re-evaluate their examination procedure when making too many ‘assumptions’ and ‘adjustments’ on any aspects of friction ridge detail and not become color-blind to red flags. They should not use L3D as an ‘excuse for differences’.
The purpose for the ‘levels of detail’ may have initially been expressed too plainly and has failed in its intent. It initially appeared to be a simple explanation of the progressive, mental and visual, methodology used by a latent print examiner in conducting a comparative examination between latent and record. It should not have evolved into a perception that resulted in giving ranking or weighted value or to friction ridge features utilized by a latent print examiner. It should not have resulted in the establishment of a view there were relational conditions and situations for the use of these features.
While it may be difficult to overcome obstacles set up by ‘levels of detail’, latent print examiners need to reinforce their conclusions by ensuring that the members of the Court and jury members understand the information on ‘levels of detail’ when confronted by the terms. The problems may never go away, but perhaps a revising of the philosophy concerning all types of friction ridge features, not as LEVELS but as unique and valuable individualizing characteristics can ease any difficulties in the future. If individuals, agencies and associations continue to support ‘levels of detail’ philosophy in friction ridge examinations, the following points should be emphasized: There is no weighted value to the numerical rankings, there is no sequential or progressive requirement for the use of features and there is no conjunctional relationship necessary to utilize any friction ridge elements encountered in a comparative examination. Latent print examiners must educate their legal associates, prosecution and defense, as to how they arrived at a conclusion through a complete and thorough appraisal of ALL features observed in both the latent and record prints. Hopefully, you may find your testimony to be a bit smoother and your evidence fully accepted.
REFERENCES
[1] SWGFAST, Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for Latent Examiners, Ver. 1.01, 08/22/02
[2] “Ridgelogy: Modern Evaluative Friction Ridge Identification (Part 2)”, David R. Ashbaugh, Identification Canada, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1991)
[3] “Ace to Elimination”, M. Leanne Gray, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 31, No. 120, April 2005
[4] Personal communication, Charles H. Parker, July 21, 2005
[5] “What is Third Level Detail”, Keith M. Townson, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 30, No. 117 (July 2004)
[6] “What is Third Level Detail: Letter Response”, J.D. Thomas, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 30, No. 118, October 2004
[7] “Third Level Detail: Letter Response”, Steve Penhallurick, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 31, No. 119, January 2005
[8] “Poroscopy”, David R. Ashbaugh, Identification News, Vol. 32, No. 11, (November 1982)
[9] “Ridgeology”, David R. Ashbaugh, Identification Canada, Vol. 9, No. 3 (July 1986)
[10] “More on Third Level Detail”, Bob Taylor, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 31, No. 121, July 2005
[11] Personal communication, John P. Nielson, August 29, 2005
[12] “Guest Editorial: Ridgelogy – Standards for Conclusions”, David Ashbaugh, Identification Canada, Vol. 27, No. 4, December 2004
[13] “International Corner: Pressure Distortions in Fingerprinting”, Parduman Singh, Identification News, September 1962, pp. 14-15
[14) “Essential Knowledge for Fingerprint Analysis and Comparison”, Gail Hankin, Identification Canada, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001
Michele
michele.triplett@metrokc.gov
FRICTION RIDGE LEVELS OF DETAIL: BANE OR BOON?
Ernest D. Hamm
Educational Conference of the Florida and Georgia Divisions of the IAI
November 7, 2005
bane n. – a cause of death, destruction, or ruin
boon n. – something beneficial or pleasant that is bestowed
The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company
Friction Ridge Levels of Detail: Bane or Boon?
In the past number of years, the terms Level 1 Detail, Level 2 Detail and Level 3 Detail have crept into discussions associated with the identification of individuals through friction ridge characteristics. These ‘levels’ have also been expressed in different formats; Level I, II and III and First Level, Second Level and Third Level. However, there are concerns relating to these terms and an understanding of their importance in the identification process for both the professional ranks and the general public.
It must be understood that there are two distinct applications involved in friction ridge visualizations. There is the deliberate and controlled recording of a fingerprint and other friction skin areas through the use of transferring mediums and prepared substrates. This recording is intended to obtain a complete and clear representation of the entire friction ridge skin area of interest, such as the end joint of a finger. The second application is the latent print. This ‘print’ is not deliberate or controlled and usually must be made visible by the application of physical and chemical properties on a variety of substrates. It is rarely a complete representation of the entire area and may only reveal a small area of something like a fingerprint. These differences play an important part in understanding problems associated with the use of ‘levels of detail’.
Level One Detail (L1D) is defined by the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST) as, “friction ridge flow and general morphological information”. “General morphological information” is further described by SWGFAST as ‘incipient ridges’ and ‘overall size’.[1] However, incipient ridges and overall size should be more associated with physiological ridge formation and not associated with to ridge flow or pattern arrangement. David Ashbaugh, whose articles on ridgeology initiated ‘levels of detail’, described L1D as, ‘pattern or ridge configuration which is a class characteristic.” [2] L1D has generally been accepted as ridge flow and pattern arrangement.
While ridge flow and pattern arrangement can readily be seen in deliberate recordings, it is not always clearly recognized in many latent print situations. The chance nature of latent prints can easily result in distorted fingerprints to the extent that even those with an apparent pattern definition may not favorably compare to a deliberate recording of the same digit. A skilled latent print practitioner may be able to resolve pattern appearance differences and continue to a successful comparative examination [3], but an untrained individual will not recognize or acknowledge any association between the record and the latent. There have been countless occurrences of these ‘dissimilar’ prints and this illustration is just one example. [4]
There was, and still may be, a sort of form test for latent examiners centered about pattern similarity recognition. The ‘test’ consisted of a page of single record styled fingerprints that also had duplicates on the page. The applicant was to match the fingerprints one to the other, or not. This was usually applied as a screening tool to evaluate a person’s aptitude for conducting comparative examinations. This test involved straight forward pattern images with no attempt to trick or deceive the viewer and yet some individuals can not adequately complete this test. There are individuals that, regardless of their background, education and initiative, just do not have that innate ability to ‘match’ images such as those found in fingerprint comparisons. Also, no amount of training for some individuals can correct this area of cognitive reasoning to the extent they could be considered competent.
On the other side are proficiency tests that are used in training stages and also to periodically evaluate and validate the skill level of examiners. There are probably many, many instances in which the latent prints chosen by a committee or a supervising individual may be part of the testing BECAUSE there are differences in general pattern appearance and ridge flow from that appearing in a record print. These latent prints are purposely included in the test to mislead the examiner and serve as an example to not necessarily accept L1D in the comparative stage.
L1D can be a very valuable screening and orientation tool in a comparison, but is very weak in the identification process. The current attention in understanding and applying L1D features is reflective of the changing technology in fingerprint activities from years past. The movement from the use of the Henry System of classification with extensions and modifications to the NCIC codes and then to the use of electronic scanning of fingerprints and automated classification systems has changed the background experience for prospective latent print examiners. The professional career transition of latent print examiners from traditional classifiers to latent print examiners meant that ‘new’ examiners had many, many hours of looking at and understanding patterns and ridge flow from countless hours of viewing thousands of fingerprints. However, that experience and exposure to inked fingerprints is waning in this era of automated systems and new examiners are receiving minimal training in understanding and appreciating L1D, which was a basic ingredient in the education and experience of fingerprint examiners.
The initial screening of a latent print as being of value for identification should concentrate on the clarity and appearance of individual ridge characteristics. If this preliminary examination deems the latent of value for a comparative examination to a known print, the examiner will mentally note a particular arrangement of individual characteristics, perhaps only two or three depending on the distinctiveness of the arrangement. The L1D may then be employed while evaluating the record print, but the examiner still has the ‘mentally stored’ image of a specific arrangement of individual characteristics as a point of reference.[3] These individual characteristics are considered Level Two Detail.
Level Two Detail (L2D) is defined by SWGFAST as, “individual friction ridge paths and friction ridge events, e.g., bifurcations, ending ridges, dots”. [1] The Galton details that were established over 100 years ago and whose arrangement and positioning serve as the definitive method in establishing an association of a fingerprint, or other area of friction ridge skin, to an individual person. Ashbaugh described L2D as, “type and position of minutiae which are unique formations.”[2]
It is the Galton Details that provide the science to fingerprint identification. The physiological development of these characteristics; ending ridge, bifurcation and dots, is firmly established by biological science. Their persistence and permanence as determined by the studies of Sir Francis Galton, et al, establish the irrefutable identification of an area of friction ridge skin area found on one substrate to that appearing on another substrate. Opinions of association are made on the following agreements; characteristic type, direction (orientation), relative attitude to each other and separation from other characteristics. There may be subjective decisions made on whether a ridge ends or bifurcates, but any discrepancy in the feature’s appearance may be the result of a number of factors in either the record or latent, or both. The end result is there is a recognizable feature at that specific point in the print, something does occur and can be plotted, compared and demonstrated.
Level Three Detail (L3D) is defined by SWGFAST as, “friction ridge dimensional attributes, e.g., width, edge shapes, and pores”. [1] Interestingly, ‘width’ may be seen as comparable to ‘overall size’ and this was listed by SWGFAST in L1D as ‘general morphological information’. Ashbaugh defined L3D as, “shape of minutiae, shape of individual ridges, presence and location of pores.”[2] The features of edge shapes and pores can involve minute characteristics that may easily be observed in deliberate recordings and some latent prints, but may not be seen in either for a number of reasons. Some examiners have also placed ‘all others’ in the L3D category, such as creases, scars, incipient ridges (though SWGFAST has these in L1D?) and anything else not understood to be in L1D or L2D. This has caused many examiners to ask just what does constitute L3D and if this ‘level’ is necessary. [5][6][7]
One important problem with some of features placed in L3D as having individualization quality is their failure to accurately and consistently be present in both deliberate and latent situations. This is especially the case with those associated with pore and ridge edge structure. There can be a lot of variation in the appearance of these features that is dependent upon pressure, substrate, developing substances in latent prints and the recording medium, inked or electronically, in record fingerprints. The variations can cause details like pore openings to disappear or present a different arrangement of the ridge edges. The effect of these differences can readily change from one deposit or recording to another. They do not have the permanence and persistency found in Galton details. [8][9]
Another problem is that some ‘experienced’ examiners seem to be validating their identification opinion because of L3D perceptions. There seems to be more public statements like, “I can see third level!!”, implying support for an identification. This statement is even made by individuals viewing digitally transmitted images in which pixilation can seriously effect the visualization of the ridge features, especially those composed and posted on the Internet.
In a comparative examination, L1D and L3D may or may not be accurately represented, leaving L2D as the definitive factors in identification. However, a hierarchy of 1, 2 and 3 has been ‘established’ and such a ranking is not necessary and should be discouraged. Competent latent print examiners have no problems with understanding and applying all features labeled as L1D, L2D or L3D. Practitioners have been recognizing and using these features, some perhaps unconsciously, for years and years without having them categorized or rated. [6] A ranking can present difficulty in court testimonies in which an examiner must explain why L1D in an observable pattern design is absent or does not appear to be similar between record and latent and then why there is no L3D. L2D is always expected to be present* and can assist in additional comparisons to other features:
“To search pores we must still depend upon the surrounding ridge characteristics
or (sic) suspects submitted by investigators” [8]
A juror or other “trier of the truth” may accept explanations about an apparent discrepancy in L1D, but still remain skeptical when L2D is demonstrated and ultimately discard the validity of the testimony when there is no L3D.
“So officer, where is the third level detail in these impressions, as there is none
I put it to you your evidence is flawed” [10]
and
“…what you are asking the jury to believe is that level 3 only counts
when it agrees with the result you want and when it doesn't, you ignore it.
Correct?" [11]
This is a human response to numerical rankings; 1 is okay, 2 is better and 3 is even better. However, if there are problems with L1D appearance and L3D can not be affirmed, the value of L2D can be diminished. The Galton details are solid and indisputable features for the identification. There are other features such as pattern, ridge flow, ridge and pore structure, creases (permanent and transient), scars (permanent and temporary) and others that can be used somewhere in the comparative examination and evaluation IF they are present. These should be called by their descriptive term and not ranked or placed in special categories. This view has also been expressed in discussions involving the Third Level Detail sub-group of the United Kingdom’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). [10]
There are valid concerns with the L3D philosophy and it has been stated, “the term is now so deeply embedded in our vocabulary it’s going to take us a very long time to forget it!” [10] Another view is stated as, “If we're going to live by level 3, we'd better be prepared to die by level 3". [11] It really is disconcerting this has taken place in a fairly short span of time. Unfortunately, we are faced with the dilemma expressed by the following:
“The moving finger writes; and having writ, moves on: nor all your
Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your Tears
wash out a Word of it.”
Edward FitzGerald (1809-1883), translator
‘The Rubáiyát’ of Omar Khayyám (1859)
SWGFAST guidelines are contributing to the difficulties with the use of levels of detail. ‘Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for Latent Print Examiners’, paragraph 2.2.2, states that L2D is, ‘used in conjunction with level one detail to individualize’. It also states in paragraph 2.3.3 that L3D is, ‘used in conjunction with level one and level two detail to individualize’. [1] There are also authoritative statements that the levels are not only used ‘in conjunction’, but also in sequence. [2] [12] Where does this leave an examiner being subjected to cross-examination when there are difficulties with L1D and L3D aspects? The examiner’s proper, correct and perhaps valuable identification of a latent print through the use of Galton details is in very serious jeopardy. The professional standards and guidelines pertaining to the use of levels of detail bring to mind the expressions,
‘Hoist with one’s own petard’,
Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4
William Shakespeare
and,
“We have met the enemy and he is us”
Pogo, Walt Kelly.
The profession is being seriously damaged by its own cleverness in devising terms and conditions for its methodology.
Friction Ridge Levels of Detail, bane or boon? It can be argued that both assignments, bane AND boon, are appropriate. The attention generated by discussions of L3D has resulted in increased awareness, research and understanding of the development of friction ridge skin. That is a clear and definite boon. The increased research and documentation of all friction ridge features has given the latent print examiner much more information beyond the thoroughly memorized stock explanation, “…formed in the 3rd and 4th month of fetal life and remain unchanged…”, typically used for defining L2D features. This presentation is not a challenge to the uniqueness and integrity of friction ridge features found in a latent print. These features are supported in biological science and their presence in sufficient clarity can and should be used by an examiner in forming an opinion of origin. An understanding of the formation of all ridge structure as associated with their deviations, edges, pores and general appearance is essential and their value in a comparative examination can not be set aside. There is where the attention given to ‘levels of detail’, especially L3D, has resulted in valuable contributions.
It must first be understood that L1D has no valid argument for being an element in any standards or part of a criteria for establishing individualization in a latent comparative examination. This type of detail is great for deriving a classification scheme for the storage and retrieval of fingerprint records, but its use in latent comparisons is entirely different. It is merely a filtering and search tool for the latent print examiner that may or may not be fully utilized in the final analysis. The following was stated many years ago:
“The whole secret of identification thus solely rests upon the order in which these minutae (L2D) appear in the two prints under comparison, and it needs no emphasis that exact measurements, or exact shapes have no place in the identification of finger prints, whereas the type of a print is only an auxiliary point in establishing identity between two prints” [13]
Friction ridges will always be present, but how they will eventually contribute to the comparative examination is unknown. Their designation as Level One Detail and implying there must be correspondence and agreement between latent and record before proceeding to the next step creates a major area of concern.
This presentation is a challenge to the use of number rankings that can create a perception of weighted values of one ‘level’ over another. The ‘levels of detail’ with the numerical rankings can be interpreted by the public and exploited by legal representatives as required and sequential progressive steps. This is supported in the literature and professional guidelines when terms like ‘sequence’ and ‘conjunction’ are used in association with discussions involving the different levels. This is the bane side of ‘levels of detail’.
The validation of identifications through the perceived presence of L3D is a questionable practice. IF L3D, using whatever features one wants to place in this category, is present in both latent and record in clear clarity and arrangement, it may support an identification having limited L2D. This clarity of detail is possible and it is the responsibility of the examiner to ensure the proper evaluation of the features is conducted for their use in the decision making process. One of David Ashbaugh’s most significant red flags in a comparative examination is, “making excuses for differences”.[14] An examiner should completely re-evaluate their examination procedure when making too many ‘assumptions’ and ‘adjustments’ on any aspects of friction ridge detail and not become color-blind to red flags. They should not use L3D as an ‘excuse for differences’.
The purpose for the ‘levels of detail’ may have initially been expressed too plainly and has failed in its intent. It initially appeared to be a simple explanation of the progressive, mental and visual, methodology used by a latent print examiner in conducting a comparative examination between latent and record. It should not have evolved into a perception that resulted in giving ranking or weighted value or to friction ridge features utilized by a latent print examiner. It should not have resulted in the establishment of a view there were relational conditions and situations for the use of these features.
While it may be difficult to overcome obstacles set up by ‘levels of detail’, latent print examiners need to reinforce their conclusions by ensuring that the members of the Court and jury members understand the information on ‘levels of detail’ when confronted by the terms. The problems may never go away, but perhaps a revising of the philosophy concerning all types of friction ridge features, not as LEVELS but as unique and valuable individualizing characteristics can ease any difficulties in the future. If individuals, agencies and associations continue to support ‘levels of detail’ philosophy in friction ridge examinations, the following points should be emphasized: There is no weighted value to the numerical rankings, there is no sequential or progressive requirement for the use of features and there is no conjunctional relationship necessary to utilize any friction ridge elements encountered in a comparative examination. Latent print examiners must educate their legal associates, prosecution and defense, as to how they arrived at a conclusion through a complete and thorough appraisal of ALL features observed in both the latent and record prints. Hopefully, you may find your testimony to be a bit smoother and your evidence fully accepted.
REFERENCES
[1] SWGFAST, Friction Ridge Examination Methodology for Latent Examiners, Ver. 1.01, 08/22/02
[2] “Ridgelogy: Modern Evaluative Friction Ridge Identification (Part 2)”, David R. Ashbaugh, Identification Canada, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1991)
[3] “Ace to Elimination”, M. Leanne Gray, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 31, No. 120, April 2005
[4] Personal communication, Charles H. Parker, July 21, 2005
[5] “What is Third Level Detail”, Keith M. Townson, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 30, No. 117 (July 2004)
[6] “What is Third Level Detail: Letter Response”, J.D. Thomas, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 30, No. 118, October 2004
[7] “Third Level Detail: Letter Response”, Steve Penhallurick, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 31, No. 119, January 2005
[8] “Poroscopy”, David R. Ashbaugh, Identification News, Vol. 32, No. 11, (November 1982)
[9] “Ridgeology”, David R. Ashbaugh, Identification Canada, Vol. 9, No. 3 (July 1986)
[10] “More on Third Level Detail”, Bob Taylor, Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 31, No. 121, July 2005
[11] Personal communication, John P. Nielson, August 29, 2005
[12] “Guest Editorial: Ridgelogy – Standards for Conclusions”, David Ashbaugh, Identification Canada, Vol. 27, No. 4, December 2004
[13] “International Corner: Pressure Distortions in Fingerprinting”, Parduman Singh, Identification News, September 1962, pp. 14-15
[14) “Essential Knowledge for Fingerprint Analysis and Comparison”, Gail Hankin, Identification Canada, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2001