CLPEX Chat Board

Hi. I've just had an article published in The Barrister magazine. In it, I discuss a process to determine the reliability of each of the "matching ridge characteristics" quoted by Fingerprint Experts. Just how safe is that 18-point identification?

https://keithborer.co.uk/news/simon-bun ... -barrister

Could you please post more information regarding the cases you "cite" in your article.

It is difficult to evaluate your claims and evidence without proper citation and peer review of your article.

Specifically could you provide a source for the claim that examiner say they are immune to bias.

What evidence do you have that positive job satisfaction leads to damaging cognitive biasing effects.

Have you evaluated or performance tested "linear ACE-V" to show that it is more robust and results in a lower error rate that traditional ACE-V practices?

Could you please provide a summary of R-v-Smith and R-V-Kiseliov or the fingerprints in those cases. Was the verdict in R-v-Kiseliov based solely on fingermark/palm mark evidence or were there other factors that may have lead to a non guilty verdict.

There is an quite a bit of literature and performance studies as well as proficiency test and anecdotal historical evidence that Friction Ridge comparison is quite accurate and that the False Positive rate for comparisons is quite low.

I would echo the above questions and also add in another point.

The Noblis white box study suggests that a strictly linear ACE-V process where minutiae marked in Analysis are not moved or deleted and no additional minutiae are added during Comparison or Evaluation, the erroneous exclusions increase. The ACE-V process should require documentation of features prior to viewing the known print. However, a strict "linear" process might be defined as restricting moving, deleting, or adding minutiae.