CLPEX Chat Board

The Department of Justice has issued the final, approved document for Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for the Forensic Latent Print Discipline. It can be downloaded here:

https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1083691/download

Knowledge of this new DOJ document may be crucial under cross examination from opposing counsel on whether a latent print examiner is following the recently released draft document from the OSAC friction ridge subcommittee. That document proposes standards for wording of testimony and reports that relies more heavily on the language of statistics and includes five possible conclusions (strong support for same source, more support for same source than different source, inconclusive, more support for different source than same source, and strong support for different source) instead of the more traditional three conclusions given in the DOJ document (identification, exclusion, inconclusive).

Curious if you posted the right link? This document doesn't say anything that you are saying. It actually reads:
The examiner may offer any of the following conclusions:
1. Source identification (i.e., came from the same source)
2. Source exclusion (i.e., came from different sources)
3. Inconclusive

I admit I've been retired and out of the latent loop for over a year, but what you said is completely different from the link that you posted.

sandra wiese wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:28 am Curious if you posted the right link? This document doesn't say anything that you are saying. It actually reads:
The examiner may offer any of the following conclusions:
1. Source identification (i.e., came from the same source)
2. Source exclusion (i.e., came from different sources)
3. Inconclusive

I admit I've been retired and out of the latent loop for over a year, but what you said is completely different from the link that you posted.

What he says at the bottom is the proposed language by the friction ridge OSAC (https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/file ... usions.pdf), which is different than the DOJ's language (the link).