CLPEX Chat Board

Does anyone have anymore information on this case.

But the prints he gave after the murder didn't match the bloody partial palm print found on the banister.

Sisco was fingerprinted again three months later when he was arrested for possession of a pocketknife in Manhattan in December 2003. Those prints didn't match the banister, either, sources said.

Then earlier this year, in an attempt to jump-start the investigation, detectives reviewed all the data.

The review included putting Sisco's penknife arrest fingerprints back into the NYPD computer to compare them to prints on file.

I am ASSUMING that the errorenous exclusions came from entering the latent print in AFIS and no match, entering into AFIS a second time and no match and then a third time is a charm.

However it could be a errorenous exclusion by examiner?

Just interested if it is a AFIS Miss or Examiner Miss?

I believe NYC did not have a PALM-AFIS in 2003 and the latent would have been compared manually.
I wouldn't assume an exclusion was reported. Agencies like my own still report "no identity determined" (inconclusive). If that's the case we would request additional prints.
The second set of prints may not have been compared at all and the latent may have only been entered into a PALM-AFIS earlier this year. Only guessing here but I'm trying to figure this one out myself.
All in my office are interested in how this might have occurred and it brings up the discussion of reporting exclusions.
How many out there clearly report the three SWGFAST conclusions?

That is one thing that the folks in my division are contemplating on right now. For some time, our examiners (who are also scene investigators) will categorize latent prints as AFIS quality, not AFIS quality but comparable, or not enough information (detail) available for comparison or AFIS. That got us to talking about "What is AFIS quality?" If it's not AFIS quality but it IS comparison quality, what makes it not AFIS quality? I think that maybe without an idea of level one detail (pattern type) then it makes it much harder (or longer, if you are performing multiple searches) to search through AFIS because it has to look through more fingerprints and possibly reducing the hit percentage (score) of the responses.

I don't have a good answer yet but we are trying to come up with a good way of reporting all latent fingerprints. One thing that we are implimenting now is a worksheet that will be filled out for every latent fingerprint lifted. If anyone is a member of the CBD-IAI, there was a great article by Alexander Mankevich in the Fall 2007 copy of The Examiner that details blind verification and the meaning of independent verification (independently performed experimentation or independently replicated conclusion). A really great article which I can send to anyone if they desire. But at the end of the article, he has created a worksheet of sorts that will accompany any latent fingerprint that when filled out, will satisfy the "extraneous bench notes" portion of the New Hampshire ruling (forget about the Maryland thing for now). We are attempting to impliment that with a better way of reporting latent quality. Anyone with other suggestions please continue this post.

Josh

Josh, I would love a copy of that article. If possible, e-mail it to cynthia.rennie@torontopolice.on.ca.

If you have it in hard copy only, please send a copy to:

Cindy Rennie
Senior Fingerprint Technician
Toronto Police Service
2050 Jane St.
Toronto, Ontario
M9N 2V3

Thanks.