CLPEX Chat Board

Even inked print comparisons can be a challenge.

Print on the left is from a pawn transaction form

True Bill, but at least an inked print will give you the smudge you need to help you resolve the issue(s).
That's the biggest problem with live scan images - they undergo background processes that clean up the smudge.

Shane

I hope you are saying these are ***not***ident!

Confused about Shane's comments reference "...resolve the issues". What issues am I missing with this non-ident?
Thanks.

In just a minute in PhotoShop, I have traced two lines of slippage indicating double or triple tap nature of the the print on the left. Of course this is a correct identification. I wonder how many CLPEs would erroneously exclude it?

This example was brought to me by a newer examiner and at first glance I didn't see the issues either. Probably because it is such a "clear" impression.

The resolution of the aparant disagreement came from an experienced examiner who had taken a distortion class. We did indeed call the identification and believe it's at least a double tap as pointed out by the Dr.

I'm glad to see discussion on the chat board again. That was my reason for posting. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know.

I would also remind everyone that there is a distortion class coming up in June. Maybe more of us need it than we think. It's not about being "fooled" it about being trained

Bill Schade wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:42 amI would also remind everyone that there is a distortion class coming up in June. Maybe more of us need it than we think. It's not about being "fooled" it about being trained

I heartily support your call for training in analysis of distortion. Those who have not had a class in this topic in the past five years should seriously consider signing up. Those who have never had a distortion class should put this class at the very top of your priority list.

Danny L. Harness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:24 am I hope you are saying these are ***not***ident!

and

Danny L. Harness wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2017 10:24 am Confused about Shane's comments reference "...resolve the issues". What issues am I missing with this non-ident?
Thanks.

Danny, can you show what you're using to come to your Non-ident decision?
And, is a non-ident the same as an exclusion to you?

These types of double tap / multiple contact impressions are really nothing new. How we interpret them and how we explain them is born of both knowledge, training and skill in application. The artifacts we see in Bill's print image relates nicely to the smudges and tonal shifts just as the oldest example of an artifact I can think of that was found in Francis Galton's book Finger Prints. (See A Absent in boy)
in this image you can see how the smudge / tonal shift relates to the artifact which allows us to account for the extra L2 feature.

As I said before, live scan images present the real challenges. I'm not sure if I should start a new thread with this one, I'll defer to the moderators wisdom and guidance on this.

Here is the issue: Can you spot the artifact in a live scan image? Give it a try, I'll post the answer in a week or so.
Shane Turnidge

Looks like it must have been the week for complex comparisons I was busy working on a complex comparison that one of our examiners left on my desk for review, print on the slippery outer plastic of an X-Box One Video game container. After spending quite a bit of time mapping out the distortion issues I was seeing and explaining the difference in contact, pressure and movement in the impression, I walked past Tim's screen and he showed me a similar example right here on CLPEX! Check out this example of a distinct demarcation line visible, with areas of clear ridge clarity on either side.

Shane Turnidge wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:17 am Here is the issue: Can you spot the artifact in a live scan image?

Okey dokey, then. I'll play. Without an undistorted (inked) print to gauge the questioned image by, I am not talented enough to spot a specific artifact, but I would be a bottle of cheap scotch it is in the red "Danger Zone."

Thanks Steve.
I hate it when this happens. I must apologise for my earlier responses regarding non-ident.(different sources)

Upon reading the responses in this thread, I reanalyzed my original conclusion and found myself to be wrong. I now agree they are ident-from the same source.

Being that I have been out of active case work for a while, I have allowed myself to slip back into a bad habit. That being, unable (or unwilling) to consider any other conclusions other than my first instinct.

As we all know the evaluation phase of ACE is where your mind is attempting to objectively confirm/verify what you subjectively see in the analysis and comparison stages.

In this case I clearly failed to "see" what I was seeing.

Our military warrior heroes preparing for battle, use the phrase "get your head right". Meaning to focus on the issues at hand and clear your mind of potentially dangerous non important life concerns that can cloud your ability to react when the battle starts.

I would suggest that as Forensic examiners, we must always "keep our head right" as we conduct business. Being alert for our own self bias that would cause us to "not see what we are seeing".

In my case (and I assume others as well), I have always felt the need to constantly check myself when doing complex comparisons. IE: Is my brain to physically tired to compare this print? Should I table it until tomorrow?

In this case, being caught up in everyday life issues, I wanted to relax for a moment while I updated myself looking at the various threads.

Looking at this case I thought I saw disagreement in the core area and simply jumped on my incorrect conclusion.

Clearly now I finally was able to "see" what I was looking at. The take away point of my comments is that by sharing this, I hope we can all (especially young examiners) learn to keep our heads right as
as we continue to serve the public.

My closing prayer for everyone is:
May you never do a "Danny" in case work.

That would also be a good screen saver!

Thanks everyone for listening.

Danny, good professional posting!!

Now, I am no longer an active practitioner and retirement is good!!! However, for individuals inclined to jump into these “Interesting Comparisons” waters, I had a golden rule: original evidence before rendering any opinion.

I was not interested in photographs, copies or scans. I wanted to see the original, both in questioned and standard. Also, being old-fashioned, the standard for record prints was preferred to be ‘inked’, not scans or ‘inkless’ recordings. Also, when a qualified examiner gives you a comparison and says, “What do you think?”, or words to that effect. That is the first red flag!!! (Bill, remember years ago when I was in your area on a project and you came in with breaking news on a high profile case and the subject of ignoring red flags was mentioned!!!)

Back to the tarpit

I agree with Ernie Danny, a very professional posting.
People have to understand and value that in this business criticism is necessary and it's part of the landscape.

So now that I've tortured you folks enough, here is the live scan artifact (of course there are more). Fortunately I have more good scotch than I could ever hope to drink.
This was found while comparing a latent print.
Here is the inked version.
I have more if anyone is still interested. I'm sure any latent examiner could see why this could become an issue in a marginal environment.
Shane Turnidge