CLPEX Chat Board

The recent article in the Detail by Steve Scarborough, along with recent conversations with other examiners, has prompted me to ask the following:

Premise:
1. The proper application of ACE-V methodology to fingerprint examination yields an infallible system of identification.

2. Fingerprint identification (individualization) requires the participation of human examiners.

3. Human examiners have been known to make mistakes and misidentify a fingerprint to a source.

Recognizing that the process involves the application of a scientific methodology by a less than perfect device (the human examiner), what is the threshold at which we can no longer be confident in the 100% certainty claim of the total process?

Does our confidence level rise with the quality of the specimen?
Does our confidence level rise with the quantity of detail?
Does our confidence level rise with the professionalism (training, certification etc.) of the examiner?

Can we consistently measure a point at which certainty (of the process) is maintained at 100%?

If certainty falls below 100%, what triggers that decline?

I recognize the temptation to separate out the science from the practitioner. However, the process is a combination of both and it is the process, not the science, that triggers an arrest or a trial and the subsequent challenges to both.

Dogma,

Right after the Mayfield error broke, a large agency addressed the intellectual problem you pose. That agency ruled that 100% was simply no longer sufficient. They moved to make all examiners adhere to 1000% certainty. This solution was applauded and has met with good results in case work.

I believe if more agencies used this standard, 100% certainty problems would become obsolete.

8)

Regards,

Bohemian Rhap