CLPEX Chat Board

If you watched any of the 'How to Challenge Fingerprints' videos, this should come as no surprise as this forthcoming article was referenced, 'Assessing Latent Print Proficiency Tests: Lofty Aims, Straightforward Samples and the Implications of Nonexpert Performance'. It appears in the latest JFI (Vol 69, No 3 pg 281).


I don't know if it's as salacious as the author would have you believe but the premise is something like 'OMG, if defense attorneys can pass this test, it's worthless'. And maybe, just maybe that would be a valid critique if object recognition wasn't a universal human ability or if there hadn't already been studies focusing on the nature of expertise in fingerprint examiners
or if examiners hadn't already discussed the contributing factors to the limitations of a ground truth test, including the IAI Certification test which bills itself as a proficiency test. Heck, I'd even give the critique a modicum of credence if it weren't for the fact that previous critiques of fingerprint examination actually cited CTS tests as evidence of widespread error.

Glenn Langeburg wrote:A favorite of Cole’s is to address the 1995 Collaborative Testing Services (CTS) exams (10)

And those critiques are 20 years old. It's as if all things old are new again.....except Dr. Borracho.

And with that, we welcome the age of what I will call the 'Goldilocks Critiques'. The same phenomenon is either too hot or too cold, but it's never just right. See also: Inconclusives

Whelp, time to sign up for the bar exam...

Amy Watroba gave a great 2019 Update at the IAI and mentioned the attorneys that took this test. She also said that [one or more - I can't remember] were subpoenaed for a case because they were listed as witnesses and decided they'd rather not get disposed so they were dropped from the witness list.

For those that are interested, I'm sure you could reach out to her for a copy of the presentation.