CLPEX Chat Board

mdavis mentioned the words identify and individualize in another post and instead of straying off topic I thought I'd start a new thread.

Swgfast seems to support the idea that identify and individualize mean the same thing but other forensic disciplines have different definitions for these words. Identify usually means that you're identifying something to a certain group or a class (class characteristic). In our profession that would mean that we can identify something as ridges or identify it as being from a finger or palm or maybe identifying it as a whorl, a loop, or an arch.

Individualize usually means that you're distinguishing members of a certain group or class as being from a common origin. For instance two whorls may be individualized to each other if they have individual characteristics that are common between them.

I only work with latent prints but I know that several people who participate in this forum work in multiple disciplines (latents, shoe prints, tire tracks, etc.).

I'm wondering how people who work in several disciplines feel about our profession using these terms to mean the same thing while the other forensic disciplines use the words to mean different things. Is it time that we recognize the difference?

The term identification has been used for so long in context that I doubt anyone reading a latent print report would have a question as to its intent. I find "individualization" to be an unnecessarily long and unwieldy term that would tend to confuse non-examiners rather than clarify the intent of the report.

I find that individualisation just has far too many i's in it
I can just about cope with identification
Looking on the bright side though; at least I don't often deal with indivisibilities

I like identify, easier to say and easier for juries and attornies to understand!

[quote="Ann Horsman"]I like identify, easier to say and easier for juries and attornies to understand! :o[/quote]

This may be when it is only you testifying to a fingerprint.
If the fingerprint comes after several criminalists have testified with many disciplines (tire, shoe, firearms, fracture matches etc.) your testimony will only confuse the jury.

It will degrade the meaning of your testimony to be less than determining sole source in view of what the criminalists testimony of what identification means; a class characteristic shared by more than one source.

Our terminology should be consistent among the impression evidence sciences if fingerprint examination is a science.

Excuse me, Ducky, but why should the Latent Print profession use the same terminology as other "Impression Evidence Sciences?" We are not the same. Our terminology SHOULD be specific to our profession.

Sharon,

From reading this in Michele's original post:

I only work with latent prints but I know that several people who participate in this forum work in multiple disciplines (latents, shoe prints, tire tracks, etc.).

I'm wondering how people who work in several disciplines feel about our profession using these terms to mean the same thing while the other forensic disciplines use the words to mean different things.

...and having the luxury of talking with her about it, I think she's trying to make the point that there are many examiners that do comparative work in several disciplines and the use of the word "identify" could mean different things to different evidence as testified to in the same trial by the same examiner.

So in one case, testimony could be given to identifying a shoe as being a Merrell Element, but not being able to individualize its source (or possibly even its size). While in other testimony in the same case, by the same examiner regarding fingerprints, the same term is used to go all the way to pointing to the source of the latent print. So at this point, her final question seems appropriate:

Is it time that we recognize the difference?

My thoughts regarding the SWGFAST glossary and how 'Identification' is defined by "See Individualization" is that eventually the plan is to replace the term Identification with Individualization. I could also see Identification getting an updated definition that points more towards group or class characteristics.

Considering that SWGFAST's bylaw states:
7.1.4 When five years have elapsed from the date of adoption or modification of a Document, members shall reconsider whether changes are required. During the reconsideration process, the document shall be referred to by its original title as a “Document for Five-Year Review - Draft for Comment.”

With the Glossary being dated 9/9/03, this may be an issue for discussion at the upcoming SWGFAST meeting.

Just as an update, the newest document under SWGFAST's Guidelines section, "Quality Assurance Guidelines for Latent Print Examiners (9/28/06 ver 3.0)" no longer puts the word identification in parentheses next to the word individualization, as with many of the older documents.

SWGFAST will have its way as a committee, no doubt. For 100 years, the word "identification" or "positive identification" has been understood by courts as a "match". Old records use it. Everyone understands what it means in the latent print fraternity and legal community. I've never had anyone ask me for clarification on the term or on any of my reports.

I guess we're about fixing what ain't broke again. I wonder what's wrong with "match" instead of the stilted, awkward attempt to raise the intellectual level of our reports?

"For 100 years, the word "identification" or "positive identification" has been understood by courts..."

Since you brought it up, "positive identification" is something that has bothered me since I got into this field 15 years ago. Doesn't the word identification (although I know now individualization is more appropriate) indicate the result in and of itself? What does adding the word "positive" in front of "identification" mean? I would then ask what is a "negative identification"?

To answer Michelle's question, I think the latent print field should move in the direction of terminology that is more accurate. Why not? If I'm not mistaken, I believe at one time the earth was believed to be flat wasn't it? Having said that, although I try to use the term individualize where I can, it still rolls off the tongue to refer to those IDs as "idents", so I am guilty of not practicing what I preach. The fact of the matter is is that I know in several jurisdictions defense attorneys are using the published SWGFAST documents during cross examination, so if new versions of SWGFAST will ultimately just refer to individualization, it would be better to not play word games during cross-examination that will ultimately deflate the testimony from what it could have been by having to defend the use of concepts/terms that the "guidelines" for our field do not support in its own standards.

Mark Mills

This type of thread pops up from time to time. Im in agreement that we should be using correct scientific terms and their understanding. We have been heavily orientated to the practical side of our profession which in this instance means we use 'identify' because it assists in transferring meaning to the court/jury. My position is that we develop an understanding and an explanation that incorporates correct scientific terms with the same ability to relate them to a third party.
1. We identify that the mark examined is a latent fingeprint to the exclusion of all other similar marks. A human fingerprint.
2. We individualise that mark to the one source of hand or foot by using the technique of sufficient unique details in sequence. To the exclusion of all other areas of friction ridge detail.
3. We identify the source of that hand or foot to the person who supplied the exemplar. To the exclusion of all other persons.

Whatever.....

Does anyone in the 100 year history of latent print comparison have any question what "positive identification" means? Yes, it is a bit redundant. Such is common practice when trying to emphasize a point. The primary duty of defense, when they lack evidence of exclusion, is to obfuscate. If they now, after 100 years, do not understand millions of latent print reports, I guess we had better go back and change all reports which have not run beyond the statute of limitations, lest we be called back to the stand to explain the obsolete language and risk having the "individualization" excluded for improper modern terminology! Let's also hope they do not ask for written documentation proving that the "individualization" was independently verified. No one seems to care anymore about the validity of the "individualization", just the path through the jungle. When they can't object to an obvious "individualization" they go after the methodology. Clearly, the percentage of contesting the "individualization" itself is not winning many cases.

[quote]Everyone understands what it means in the latent print fraternity [/quote]
This attitude permiates to such a depth that the critics have seen fingerprints as a fraternity/religion vs a science. If we all keep up the fraternal association that you allude to, then it will be seen as a group of people that just believe in the faith of the group.

If this discipline is a science, then in should have the underpinnings to support that position. A secret handshake of a fraternity is not peer review as required by science.....whatever!

No argument here. So you're saying we change horses in the middle of the stream to fix what ain't broke? Does stilted, pseudo-scientific language substitute for one hundred years of universally accepted "slang?" If the meaning is and has been clear to all concerned, not just the "latent print fraternity" but the courts where it really counts, why are we changing it? If you use the term "individualization" in the court room, you invite questions about what you mean....which is OK. But why stray from the tried and true? The language we use is meant to be commonly understood, which it is by convention. Maybe it wasn't well chosen initially, but the meaning is clear. Fraternity/religion? Sorry, I've never attended an IAI convention so I don't know what you're talking about.

Don't you think changing terminology is a bit far removed from handshakes in "secret societies?" We consciously avoid complex scientific jargon because our audiences are not scientifically educated. That includes attorneys, judges and juries, indeed the entire law enforcement community. We issue reports and appear on the stand to simplify, and explain in laymans terms, not obfuscate. So while "individualization" may be grammatically correct, it is not commonly used language on this side of the pond.

Those of us who have been formally educated as scientists strive for objectivity within the limits of human frailty. There are no fraternities.