CLPEX Chat Board

I am frankly, quite fed up with the constant accusations that the Science of Fingerprints is fallible. I read the series of two papers written by Simon Cole, where in his first part he attacked several instances, indicating that fingerprints were wrong - when in fact, it was fingerprints that made the story correct, and the operator was wrong.

(a) Loomis - "...the government admitted that Loomis was not the source..." Never indicated that the fingerprints were wrong.
(b) Stevens - "...that the print might have been forges." Seems to me there is human factor here, not the prints.
(c) Stoppelli - "...The FBI excluded Stoppelli as the source of the print..." from looking at the prints I guess.
(d) Caldwell - "...the latent print could not have been made by Caldwell..." testified by two Latent Print examiners. Here too, fingerprints cleared the person.

On and on for a total of 22 cases, Mr. Cole attempts to imply the fallibility of the latent fingerprint world - when in fact, at least to me, he proves the need for prints.

I listened to the testimony of an IAI Certified examiner (Mr. Ken Moses) for the defense in the Mayfield case, where he admitted he had made a mistake on his identification. I admire him for his honesty and I think it took a lot of guts to get up in front of his peers and admit to the gross mistake made by all involved. But, did I hurry out and write a book on how the system was incorrect and fallible? No! I attempted to look at the whole picture trying to see how I wouldn't fall into the same situation.

So far in my small career of 36 years of being a latent print examiner, I can proudly say that I have never made an erroneous match; but, I must add the word "yet", and can only hope and pray that I never will. (Just because I run my boat aground and put a hole in the bottom doesn't mean the boat business should be eliminated. I think I would need more training on how to operate the boat.) The same goes with the fingerprint field.

I did love one of his statements: "...or, perhaps latent print examiners have become increasingly complacement, and hence sloppy." Here-here, I couldn't agree more.

A suggestion for the fingerprint world is requiring more in-depth training for the people who want to become certified examiners, as well as on-going educational requirements.

Now as I begin to read the second part of Mr. Cole's letter, he seems to attack the term "ACE-V" but is constantly returning to his pet-peeve term "zero-error rate." He attacks Agent Meager on his being an "expert" within the "...scientific areas of methodologies..." and then if he was an "...expert on their error rate."

Please forgive me, but last week my doctor attempted to get my blood pressure using a pressure cup - and it failed to work. He simply got another pressure cup and completed his examination. You know - I forgot to ask him about his "error rate" in the usage of that type of pressure cup and if he were an "expert" in his methodology of pressure cups. Am I missing something here?

But lets go on.

An attempt to indicate that we "dummies" out here in the field need to be "coached" on what to say in a court of law by "Wertheim fils" or even "Wertheim pere" (as Mr. Cole indicates) is nothing more than pure gibberish. Yes, Mr. Wertheim made a few suggestions on the possibility of using certain phrases when confronted in a court of law when asked about certain things concerning "error rates" - but to say I was coached - get real! I constantly look at different views from different people who have been through the same experiences that I have been through or am about to go through. It helps me to be a better orator.

Do I, or am I going to write down each and every error I make on a comparison - such as writing "left" instead of "right", or "No.#2" instead of "No.#7" - the answer is NO, I am not. As long as I am the person who makes the comparison and another person verifies the print have the final "correct" answer when it leaves our office, we have done our jobs.

To me, the issue of magnifying the possibility of "error rates" is just another smoke screen used by the guilty parties or someone attempting to write a book. I believe that if a person alters the attention from the true objective enough times - the "truth" will eventually be hidden.

Paul

Hello Paul,
We've never met and because I'm down here in Australia its highly unlikely that will happen. I agree with what you've taken the time and ownership to put out there. You are right in understanding that Coles is not attacking the science of fingerprints but the competency of its practitioners. Where he adds strength to his argument are the cases that emerge where the practitioner has let the science down. In this sense the reliability of the practice brings into question the science. You made good examples of the doctor and the boating mishap, its all about competency and the regulation of the qualification. The practice of the science under the set number standard made it easy for Cole to suggest our house was not in order as a legitimate science. The science of fingerprint individualization is about the human form and not national or state policy. Under 'no set number' he simply attacks the competency of the examiner to get it right. An issue that assists the position of Cole is use of the term 'expert opinion' as a safeguard and a defacto probability. Expert opinion should only relate to court testimony and not to a fingerprint examination. We can already see that Cole will explore the examination outcome of 'insufficient' as a grey area of competency. Our science requires us to develop a presentation media that will accompany oral testimony as a full disclosure of the actual fingerprint examination. Food for thought but hopefully the message will get through to progressive leaders who will advance the cause. Regards. Les

Regarding Paul Bivens' articulate post, I could not agree more, and am likewise fed up with the Cole hype, personified by the self-promoting "circles-within circles" abstraction-style argument that appears to be good only for selling flat earth theories.
I think that the "error rate" argument is well understood by most mortals, including jurors, and when incidents of spectacular mishap occur, it is the very practitioners (excluding the SCRO) who highlight the error and fall upon the proverbial sword. The incident of successful latent print identification, whether it be comparison-based or AFIS related, is simply staggering when pitted against the erroneous cases that will invariably emerge from time to time.
I further agree that Ken Moses, more than anyone associated with the most recent media favorite, and Cole-quoted error, deserves every credit for acknowledging the misidentification and his role in it, and there is no doubt that it was cataclysmic for him personally. It is not so for the science, or for the practitioners who defend it on the stand daily and everywhere.
I am convinced that the "Cole doctrine" is one of intimidation rather than one of substance, and succeeds in part because of lack of general understanding among those who defend their practice daily in courtrooms everywhere. Education, education.....
There have always been the Coles, and they will flourish, but in the back of my mind I cannot help but wonder how significant fingerprint evidence would be should any of them ever have to rely upon it solve a personal catastrophe? The "Freedom Project" is a beautiful thing with gravely profound results in select cases, but Barry Scheck didn't seem to have much time for DNA when O.J. was around.....
It's my two cents worth, but I'll take any "Wertheim" expertise I can get along with that of other professionals who have much more than I. Simon Cole should at least attempt to do likewise.
Regards and Merry Christmas to all, Mr. Cole included.

[applause] Thank you all for your insightful comments and optimism. I recently traveled to DC to attend the National Academy of Sciences Colloquium on Forensic Science and the Law, during which Simon Cole spoke several times. The entire two days of the colloquium, I had to listen to lawyers, statisticians, and molecular biologists assert that my chosen profession was completely flawed and my colleagues uneducated and deluded. I was fuming, frustrated, and one of only a very few forensic scientists represented. I would love to see those egomaniacal elitists walk in our shoes, knee-deep in garbage, fishing bloody clothes out of a storm drain in the rain at three in the morning, comparing forty-seven latents to twelve different suspects, or collecting trace evidence from a SIDS baby. I was incensed by the third-hand "facts" delivered down the noses of these "scientists."

Attending that colloquium only made me prouder to be a forensic scientist, and to have so many great colleagues. I have only been in the business a little more than a year, and I thank you all for your inspiring thoughts and probing questions!