CLPEX Chat Board

Fingerprint Interest Group number 14 worries me.
Are there any notes to accompany this image?
http://www.clpex.com/FP-Interest-Group/ ... FIG014.gif

David, sorry about not having FIG 14 with the information. I need to update it and get it to Kasey.

It was developed on painted metal (side of a car). It was developed with black powder and preserved with a tape lift.

Was there something else about it that you wanted to know?

(Spooky little thing, isn't it)

Thanks Charles.

I'd like to see your notes or hear what you have to say about the comparison before I say any more.

David, when I started sending these FIGS out to people I sent them out just as "interesting comparisons". I generally try not to give a conclusion one way or another. The people I send them too have varying amounts of experience from full time examiners with 25 years of experience to those that might compare 10-15 a month and are part time examiners.

I send them out with the intention for people to look and make their own conclusions. Because I know there are some differences which are usually based on the "one discrepancy rule" as they apply it OR different interpretations of distortion.

With FIG #1 I have had that one for a very long time. I have shown it to some very experienced examiners (CLPE) who have told me they would not go on it because they could not explain it. Then I have had some with little experience see what I saw and would individulize it.

Of the 56 FIGS I currently have out there in all honesty there are some I would not call in real case work but would go inconclusive.

Perhaps I am doing the FIGS wrong and I should take a stance on each and every one of them and then defend exactly why I would go that way.

But I do not do that at this time.

FIG 14 came to me from another agency. As I recall it was an oddity as they had ID the individual on 2 other latent prints on the same surface and area. They were hesitant about this one because of the marks in green and the distance difference by one ridge to where the arrow is pointing. If my memory is correct because of the other ID of the same subject on the same surface, they passed on this one. They sent it to me not for confirmation just because they knew I like weird stuff.

It has been my experience that those that do Latent Print Comparisons part time are more conservative than their well trained full time brothers and sisters. Are there exceptions, certainly there is.

I do not doubt for one minute that if this was the only latent print in the case they would have pursured it to the state lab.

Now that I have skirted the issue of the conclusion I will tell you what I think.

Both were made by the same individual. The difference encountered is from distortion. There is slight movement at the top and bottom causing a slight double tap as others call it but my term is ridge displacement.

It has been suggested that with each FIG a kind of poll be done (anonoymous) on each one with four responses: Non Sufficient Individulization Exclusion Inconclusive.

If say 100 people look at them then you might gain some perspective to the discipline especially if the peson casing the vote also provided their experience level.

My two cents.

PS---I have also found that some LPE do not like to give conclusions to this type of thing. Maybe because they think I would hold their feet to the fire or for some other reason.

Thanks again Charles.

I have to admit I was initially doubting that this was an ident at all, but after further examination (before reading your last post) I have resolved the issues I had with the individualisation. I would like to send you my thoughts on it in a private mail tonight if I may.

Regards,

David---No problem----I encourage any comments on FIGS and your comments will be kept confidential.

The last FIG I put out (FIG 56) drew more comments that any other image.

I find LPE cautious about stating conclusions on these type of images in public. Maybe because they are digital and over the internet and you do not know if the sender is trying to trick you or not. No FIG image has been digitally altered except for contrast and resolution. Each FIG is from a real incident and is not maufactured. Perhaps because the conclusion becomes public domain. But hey, you are not swearing in a court of law about it, just making some comments on what you then observe.

I should not say anythng about others being cautious on their conclusions since it just occured to me that I am cautious myself.

Look forward to your comments and the exchange of ideas, thoughts, etc.

How can I get access to these examples Charles?

cheers


Dave

Now I feel dumb!!! Must be Friday ;.))))

Will look on link on front page....ooppss!!!

Hi Dave,

Kasey has graciously agreed to post one a week on this web site (only because he got tired of waiting for me to build one).

I greatly appreciate Kasey doing that because it just some more additonal work for him to prep them for this site.

But if you do not want to wait a year to see all of them then you can e-mail me (my e-mail is listed in the memberslist). Once I receive the e-mail I will confirm that you are bonafide by checking on this members list or the IAI directory. I will then send you my home address (sorry not putting that on this site).

You can then send me a self addressed envelope good to package a CD. I will cut a CD and drop it back in the mail.

You pay for the postage and packaging and I will cough up the CD.

Or you can be like a little boy and wait anticipating each week for the next FIG to be posted here. It would be like Christmas each week.

Either way is fine.

FIG 17, 19, 22, 32, 35, 40, 47, 48, 52 are very interesting comparisons. FIG 22 blows my mind and 35 created quite some comments in this office.

Something in this print (#14) reminds me of a latent print we had in our office not long ago. The print in our office was tonally reversed. I couldn’t see it and I was amazed that the examiner in my office noticed it. Then someone else from another lab saw the print and said, “the color shift is obvious”. OBVIOUS???? It wasn’t obvious to me, I wondered if maybe I missed something in my training???

I kept asking people about this until someone explained it in a way that I understood. I don’t remember how the visual clues of the color reversal were explained to me but what I took away from it (and this wasn’t how it was explained) was that if it ‘appeared’ that the ridges have a thin white line in the middle of them, then it could be a sign of a color reversal. The thin white line is actually not in the ridge at all, it’s actually the furrow between two ridges. That’s probably a really bad explanation but that’s how I see it (just so nobody is appalled by my explanations, I want assure you that I’m not responsible for anyone’s training).

The latent from my office can be seen at http://onin.com/fp/wwwbd/messages/14/2008.html#POST2018 (and there's a big clue to one of the people who said the color shift was obvious ) and what I see as ‘thin white lines in the ridges’ are in the lower portion of the latent.

Fig. 14 seems to have white lines in the ridges also (on the right side). Is it possible that this isn’t a double impression but a color reversal? One effect of color reversals is that the ridge count between two points may be off by 1 ridge and this is also seen in Fig. 14.

Any thoughts?

The FIG 14 on CLPEX is V-1. I have a V-3 as well that I allude to the possibility that the RC are not marked properly.

David has provided me with an explanation that is far better than the one I posted. I have re-done FIG 14 V-4 and as soon as David OK's my interpretation of his description I will send it to Kasey.

Until then if you print out a copy and on the inked print between the 2nd and 3rd green dot there is a bifurcation down a little bit. Mark it. On the inked print where the arrow is pointing to the most further out red dot. Ignore it.

Now you have the four in the latent print. The question is how did the four get so far out of spatial alignment.

David has provided me with a reasonable answer.

But Michele has also provided a good scenario and there are some FIGS that have this mixture of normal and reversed ridges. We had one in our office this past week that got pulled for a future FIG. It was very subtle.