CLPEX Chat Board

Anyone see the Proposed Language Regarding Expert Testimony and Lab Reports in Forensic Science or the supporting documentation?

Proposed Uniform Language / Supporting Documentation

Call me Marty McFly, but it seems as though we're going back in time to about 1999 to be exact. There are a few things that seemed odd and I'm hoping they'll spark some discussion.

From the Supporting Documentation:

Latent Print Comparison Process

There are different methodologies and processes for conducting a latent print examination. The Department shares information regarding some appropriate processes below. The Department does not suggest that the processes outlined here are the only valid or appropriate processes.

Latent print comparisons are guided by the Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (ACE8) process, which includes both a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the friction ridge impressions.9 The steps of ACE are applied to friction ridge impressions as appropriate and are documented in a linear-type fashion with the examiner first conducting an analysis.

A couple things:

Other than a visual comparison, what 'different methodologies and processes' are there for conducting a latent print examination?

Considering ACE is defined as linear and requiring up front documentation, does this mean a) the end of GYRO, considering there will be no more O (you can't go back after all), and will accreditation require analysis documentation considering its now baked into ACE as defined by this document?

The good news is, these documents are open to comment.

Hello,

I think this is along the similar lines to the UK, where the Forensic Regulator wants everyone to use one of four reporting outcomes - Identification, Exclusion, Inconclusive or Insufficient.

To be honest, and this is my opinion, I think it is a good idea that the language is standardised. Then whenever you report an outcome everyone knows what you mean. Pre the Regulator's standardisation I remember attending a meeting with people from different fingerprint bureau's and someone said they reported an outcome one way, and I had to ask what they meant....having explained it I said 'Oh you mean....'(explaining it how I would report it) and was met with an equally blank look from them! The Forensic Regulator has published a document with Fingerprint Terminology and definitions too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... d-acronyms

Having just had a scan through the document (and bearing in mind it is 7am and I have not had any coffee yet) I don't think they mention another way of processing apart from ACE. Ashbaugh's book made frequent appearances in my training and ACE is the only thing I know. I know that Circular Reasoning happens, usually due to bias but I am stumped as to any other methods.

I know as we go for a new accreditation we have had to increase our note taking through the ACE process and we are actively encouraged to record issues with fingerprint and fingermark images, lines of movement, areas of interference etc etc as we can back up our decision making processes and equally anyone verifying will additonally add their notes. And of course when preparing evidence for court our working notes always have annotations of issues, number of characteristics etc

As a matter of interest what is GYRO??

And now for coffee and another day applying ACE!!

Hi Michelle,

I don't disagree with your assessment of the standardization of language, and appreciate your international perspective since I don't really know too much about what goes on outside of the US, however I know that there will be some heartache depending on how different agencies currently use their terms. For instance I like your 'insufficient' and our version of Inconclusive is qualified as one of two things, either inability to locate due to ambiguity of the impression (can't orient, no focal points, can't tell if it is from a palm or finger, etc) and as being consistent but insufficient. The current suggested terminology takes something that is obviously being used (the notion of consistent but insufficient) and does away with it. Since it seems as though we as an industry are lurching towards some sort of confidence interval, this choice to do away with that 'consistent but insufficient' conclusion seems less transparent.

GYRO = Green Yellow Red Orange.

Glenn Langengburg put out a paper a while back describing it. It's basically a way of documenting that's been around for a while that allows an examiner to assign a color to the strength/objectivity/clarity of the minutiae that they are plotting. O = Orange = minutiae that are recognized after exposure to the known print. Given the linear recommendations of the document, it would seem that context provided by the known is not allowed due to its potential for bias. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.

From above: "The steps of ACE are applied to friction ridge impressions as appropriate and are documented in a linear-type fashion with the examiner first conducting an analysis." I can read more into this than a one time through and one directional A>C>E process and documentation. I know we cannot document all of what the brain does when conducting a visual comparative examination, but it is more than A>C>E one time through in a one-directional line.

I like AACE, or A of the first image, A of the second image, C, and E, better than ACE. I can examine and document as appropriate and in a linear-type fashion, such as something like: Start Examination > A1 > A2 > C > A1 > A2 > C > E > A1 > C >A2 > C > A1 > C > A2 > E > C > E > ... > Finish examination. I can apply the steps of AACE as appropriate. I can also document the appropriate application of AACE in a linear-type fashion. See attached/linked image for a linear-type flow chart. It is in a line. I can also often reverse the direction of applying a phase of AACE, as appropriate. Plus, I should not forget what I have mentally processed earlier, so the phases overlap. I can also write my notes in a sequential, linear-type fashion, using GYRO or other documentation.

Stephen Palmer also provides in the cognitive psychology study of vision science a description of a method to perceive and categorize objects as: Object Representation, Category Representation, Comparison Process, and Decision Process (Palmer, Vision Science - Photons to Phenomenology, pp 413-416), which is a visual comparison process. Or, this could easily be AACE.

JohnV