CLPEX Chat Board

Curious to hear thoughts on this article.............

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/r ... arch02.htm

Practitioners of math make a mistake on a math problem.

In response to the mistake, we should;

A: task a three-member review committee to evaluate the fundamental basis for mathematics and to recommend research to be considered to test, where necessary, the hypotheses that form the bases of this discipline.

How many times do we have to knock this can off the fence?

Steve.

The mistake was made as there was no scientific standards based fingerprint fence to stand on. Math is absolute objectivity with a strong and unbendable fence. All errors must be practicioner. This it is a weak analogy to fingerprints.

This article attempts to build the scientific fingerprint fence to place the can upon. It is easy to knock the can over when there is no objective scientific fence.

"Empirical studies can never prove absolutely the hypothesis of uniqueness. Doing so would require comparing the friction ridge arrangements on all fingers, palms, and soles of every person who has ever lived or, at a minimum, everyone who is currently alive. "

I would argue that a simple statistical experiment with a large, randomized sample group and statistically significant results could put this issue to rest, or at least placate the scientific community.

"Although obviously complex forces and events impact friction ridge skin formation, they have not been defined and correlated. Thus it is easy to interpret an undefined, complex process as random and independent.

Basic embryological development defines these "complex forces and events" rather well. See Dr. Babler's work on the embryological development of friction ridges.

"This rationale may explain in part the current FBI Laboratory Latent Print Unit (LPU) protocol for requiring an additional review by a supervisor prior to accepting an interpretation of identification on fewer than 12 points (which will be discussed below)."

If a latent examiner follows proper protocols as directed by ACE-V methodology, shouldn't all identifications be verified, no matter how many "points" are observed?

I agree with Sharon that the article does not address anything new, nor does it offer solutions that have not already been discussed up, down and backwards. It is useful, however, to have a review of this type that puts all of the issues into one concise review, complete with references. The larger issue that is rarely mentioned, however, is the lack of support of the science by graduate schools. Very few graduate schools offer programs that would support a student who wished to tackle these issues. At the recent National Academy of Sciences Colloquium on Forensic Science and the Law, an egotistical law professor stated, "these people call themselves forensic SCIENTISTS, but they don't even have PhDs." And how many graduate schools support (i.e.-pay for) PhD programs in Forensic Science? (By the way, not one speaker at the colloquium was a front-lines forensic scientist... I would love them to come to an autopsy with me sometime!)

Conclusion to this diatribe: let's stop spinning our wheels and chewing our cud, and start putting pressure on the educational institutions that can help us explore solutions to these issues!

Hillary Moses wrote: If a latent examiner follows proper protocols as directed by ACE-V methodology, shouldn't all identifications be verified, no matter how many "points" are observed?

I am sure the article means an additional (third) verification beyond just the two working examiners, and that the third look will be a supervisor when there is less than 12 points. Think of it as an additional layer of QC.