Duplicate Lifts

[Charles Parker]

Duplicate Lifts—More than one lift made of latent print(s) from a surface with the general intention of improving the quality and contrast. (I did not see a definition in Michele's book so if anyone has a better definition, I am all ears).

Scenario 1: You have received a case to work with several lift cards and on one it is marked as “Lift Number 1” and then a second card that is marked “Lift Number 2”. In your examination you determine quite easily that both are indeed the same latent print(s) and that both lifts meet your sufficiency level.

Scenario 2: You have received a case to work with several lift cards and during your examination you determine that two lift cards are of the same latent print(s) and checking the location where the lifts are from you observe they are from the same item. However the lift cards have not been marked “Lift Number 1” or “Lift Number 2”.

Scenario 3: Same as scenario 1 except that on lift number 1 you have two latent images and image “A” is sufficient but image “B” is not but looking on lift number 2 you have image “A” is insufficient but image “B” is sufficient. You have a split ID of the same latent print(s) on two separate lift cards.

Scenario 4: Same as scenario 2 except that when you look at the location where the lifts were made from they are from two different areas (Interior Drivers Window vs Exterior Right Rear Quarter Panel.)

Scenario 5: Same as scenario 2 but you only have partial lifts. Lift one has three latent prints on the lift card but on lift card 2 you have only one of the latent prints lifted but the person making the lift has only done a duplicate lift on one of the latent prints and not all three (Taking A Second Lift Of The Best Of The Three.)

So what do you do in Scenario 1. Take the best lift card and destroy the other OR just list the one and casually mention the second? Do you mark and identify all the latent prints on both cards? (Is this not bolstering your examination and making it appear that four latent prints have been identified with the subject when actually there is only two.)

What do you do on Scenario 2. Since the lift cards are not marked as “Lift Number 1 and 2” you cannot make the independent assessment that they are the same latent print(s) and must mark all four as latent print identifications?

On scenario 3 should you make some mention that you have a split ID involving a cluster formation. (I personally think the use of cluster often reminds me of the time in the military when that word was used in conjunction with another word that had a very negative connotation----You know a Cluster F#$%^)

Scenario 4, just throw both away OR get the person that made the lifts to come in and determine which one is correct. What if they cannot remember?

Do you really treat scenario 5 any different than any other duplicate lift?

For those people that teach processing techniques I would hope that the concept of duplicate lifts is covered completely and not given the 5 minute discussion I have seen in the past.

[David Fairhurst]

Okay I'll have a go at this one..

1. I would report the first lift as identified and the second lift as being the same latent print lifted a second time without mentioning the identification a second time.

2. I would report one lift as identified and the second as being the same latent as that previously examined without saying which one was lifted first.

3. On lift number 1, I report A as identified and B as being the same latent as that examined in lift B. vice versa for lift 2.

4. I contact the scene examiner and tell them to sort out their cock-up. The case doesn't get examined further until they do.

5. Report the identification of the 3 latents in one lift and report the second as being the same latent as one of those in the first.

Further scenarios,

6. Same as 3 except, it is the existence of the cluster which swings the identification, and only when you use A from lift 1 together with B from lift 2.

7. A combination of 4 and 5. You receive 2 lifts. Lift one is said to be from the window and has 3 latents. Lift 2 is said to be from the mirror and only contains one latent but that is one of the 3 in lift 1.

[Gerald Clough]

Since we could make up endless scenarios, I'd answer first in general. Any ambiguity would be addressed with whoever recovered the latents. We didn't have scene techs. I taught all officers to mark their lifts by number, to mark them with the object and location of the lift in whatever language was sufficient to make it clear, to back that up with a sketch of the object showing the location of the lift with an arrow matched to an arrow on the lift card, and to narrate exactly what they did. They were taught to attempt subsequent lifts where they suspected it would be productive, for all the usual reasons, and to mark them as second, third, etc. lifts on the card and in narrative. If they complied, they could all be examined as appropriate and the proper conclusions drawn.

If they did not and could not remember, I would draw what conclusions I could. If the lack of documentation was such that my conclusions had little value, so be it. If I'm reporting a conclusion but noting the deficiencies, I think I could do it in a way that nothing misleading is read into my report.

Number 4 is the joker in the deck. If I can truly determine that the two cards labeled as having been lifted from different locations are lifts of the same impression (perhaps by an odd scratch in the surface being reproduced or precisely the same double tap), the labeling is in error, and that becomes part of the conclusion. It's legitimate grist for the analytical mill, since everything on that card is "latent print evidence." Personally, what I do not do is look at evidence, send it back for a change in critical descriptive information, and accept it back and start anew without any acknowledgment of the facts. If the field person simply mismarked one of them and corrected it, fine - they can explain that, and I can explain what I first found, what I did, and what I got back.*

Number 5 is just what it is. I think I can deal with it clearly, and I can easily imagine and defend situations in which a subsequent lift of one of the three impressions could be more cleanly done than an attempt to relift all three.

You put in the references to "destroy" and "throw away" just to see if anyone would bite, didn't you? Nothing ever gets thrown away.

I submit my terminology of "subsequent lift" as more descriptive than duplicate lift.

* I consider that there are two types of correctable error. One is the sort that the captain catches in reading a report and having the officer correct that he was on East 10th street, not West 10th. Not documenting that change is harmless. There are many other facts that make it clear where it happened. It is quite another thing to alter evidence, certainly after it has been turned in, and especially when the error affects how the evidence is interpreted. A marking error can be explained, but when it happened, it became a part of the case. Anything else is dancing around at the top of the slippery slope at the bottom of which is remarking to suit some other end.

[Charles Parker]

David, you are a person after my own heart except for #4. Cannot contact the scene examiner and cannot return the latent prints. What is stated stays. They can correct it in front of the prosecutor but realistically 99% of those types never make it to court anyway.

Now how do I get all those little scenario solutions into an SOP. Probably cannot. But if one examiner belives they should be done AAA and 2nd examiner believes they be done BBB, then we have the makings of an interesting case review.

Gerald your answer to number 4 is probably very close to what I do. Write it up like it is and let the investigator, prosecutor and courts sort it out. If any changes are made before that stage then that has to be documented.

You put in the references to "destroy" and "throw away" just to see if anyone would bite, didn't you? Nothing ever gets thrown away.

Brother Gerald, I am hurt to the quick that you would think I would put something in a post to bait a response. But you are correct. But no one bit on it did they? However I do believe to this day that some agencies do just that. They might not say they do, and I have no proof they do, but I can see some of them smiling out there.

I can remember in the early 1980's an article on the philosophy of identification and several well known LPE stated if it was not sufficient to just dump the latents. I doubt that they would agree with those statements they made over 20 years ago. Times do change.

[Kathleen Birnbaum]

I staple duplicate lift cards together with the most identifiable one on top, which gets all the usual markings if identified. While they "should" be marked Lift 1, Lift 2, etc. I have long found out that may or may not occur. Irregardless, by stapling the duplicates and identifying the prints on the top I do not "pad" the stats by identifying the same print over and over. No lift cards are ever destroyed in our office. If it gets turned in, it remains with the rest of the latents as it is considered evidence just like any other lift submitted. I have never had issue with this method and seems to work very well. Straight forward and easy to understand, irregardless of who is examining those lifts later.

[Gayle Peters]

You can only use the information that is given to you. Unless you are the one who processed the evidence and made the lifts you can not testify to where it came from. You can only say that the lift is labeled as "whatever is on the card".
I mark everything, when a lift is labeled as 'lift 2, 3, 4.... I mark the cards with the same latent numbers and continue to the next. I make no assumptions (we all know what that leads to) I can only go by what the lifts have on them.

[sharon cook]

Any professional examiner should be able to tell when a latent print is a duplicate lift. No two prints ever look the same, so when they do, you know it is a duplicate lift. As an expert, you CAN assume because you have the training and experience to back it up. I never report duplicate lifts as additional identifications.

[Charles Parker]

Gayle Peters makes a very interesting statement that I would like to explore further.

You can only use the information that is given to you. Unless you are the one who processed the evidence and made the lifts you can not testify to where it came from. You can only say that the lift is labeled as "whatever is on the card".

Ms Peters I am taking your quote and going into a little different direction than you probably intended and I understand that this was not your original intention. I am not disagreeing with the general intent of your quote for duplicate lifts just refining it a little bit for my own purpose.

Q1 Is there any time when the information on the lift (background clutter) will override what is presented as documentation as to its location and position?

Q2 When the visual information present in the lift (background clutter) and the written documentation of its stated location is different do Latent Print Examiners have an ethical obligation to report that difference?

Perhaps if I presented a couple of hypothetical’s (these never really happened by the way for all the attorneys and critics who might be reading this) to better illustrate my point of view.

H1 You have received a latent lift with a subject comparison generated by an AFIS Inquiry. You make the identification and working with your documentation and you notice in the background of the lift there are several dots that are very characteristic of water droplets and then off to the side you see the part of a stylized “C” that looks very much like the “C” from a coke can. You flip the lift card over and the description of where it was obtained states that it was from the interior of a wooden window frame. There is obviously no wood grain in the lift at all. You obtain the CS Photos and there is the window and it is not a smooth wooden window frame. What do you do? You do not have to assume anything because you have “externally verifiable phenomena” [I love that phrase—Thank you Bill].

H2 You have received a latent lift in a murder case and part of the crime consisted of a juke box being pulled from the wall and broken into to take the money box. In looking at the documentation of the lift all it states is “Juke Box”. You identify it to the subject but the prosecutor wants to know where on the “Juke Box” the lift came from and the CS person cannot remember (or does not want to—heels dug in). You observe in the lift a number of scratches in the lift (background clutter). By going over the “Juke Box” (powdering and lifting) you are able to locate the same arrangement of scratches on the back of the “Juke Box” and not the front and thereby placing the specific location of the lift and not the general object.

I believe as LPE’s we have the responsibility and duty to consider the background of the lift as well as the information of the friction ridges themselves. Now granted the use of that information is extremely rare but one should be prepared for that career eventuality by studying the background of every lift you receive in your possession. 99.9% of the time you will not need it, but when you do you are going to need it real bad.

Now the word assumes and assumption was used in two threads. I do not think that observing the effect of the background and determining its cause is assuming anything. The background clutter is there, it is not going anywhere and it is an “Externally Verifiable Phenomena”.

I also believe that the same reasoning can be used to determine duplicate lifts when they are not labeled as such or when they are labeled differently.

We have a responsibility to observe all the information and not just the friction ridges themselves.

If we only went with just the information as stated on the lift card and accepted that information as written in stone then I believe that we as a discipline could never pursue falsified evidence.

My 2 Cents. Any other thoughts or ideas?

[michelleewaldron]

The lift cards you receive have locations noted on the back? Lucky.

[Charles Parker]

Michelleewaldron----well some of them are blank like you suggest and some of them just have a single word on them such as car, door, window or some other non descriptive general term.

But then some are very descriptive. NOT ALL

[Kathleen Birnbaum]

The lift cards I receive from the Forensic Techs and often from the deputies in the field tend to have excellent descriptions such as "Exterior Drivers Window" (sometimes a much more lengthy description) along with a diagram of where on the window the lift was taken. I teach at the academy and show them samples in a Power Point presentation of how their lifts should be marked. They are also instructed on the use of arrows, etc but seem to forget that portion more often. When a lift card occassionally is submitted with just a diagram and no written explanation, I return it to them with a note asking for some sort of description. They really do try to do a decent job and all AFIS hits their latents make earn deputies a certificate and a "Hit" pin. Needless to say, they do try harder to do good work. A bit of praise works wonders for improving the quality of the work.

[Danny Lamont]

Charles,

Our crime scene people are very exact in everything that they turn in to me. Occasionally, our officers who also take latents, are not always so exact. If they turn anything in to me that just says, "passenger window", or "kitchen window", or even "driver's door", I have them specify whether it came from the inside or outside. This does not normally happen when they turn the evidence into one of our ten-print people; although, I am working on rectifying that little problem. I do know for a fact that they (officers, investigators) have been trained to properly record from whence the latent was lifted. They were taught by me at the academy.

As for duplicate lifts. I had one instance where a duplicate was turned in on another shift by an officer who had two different locations recorded on the back of the cards. I returned them to his supervisor with a note requesting that he had better decide from whence they came; otherwise, if he was going to continue to say they came from two different surfaces, I would be reporting him. All people that I train are aware that I will take that step.

Regarding the other points that you brought up at the beginning of your post, I had not given too much thought to how to handle the indentifications on duplicate lifts where the latents contained sufficient friction ridge detail for individualization on both cards. It does open my eyes to a problem with that. In the future, I will be handling that situation differently; though it was also mentioned how these cases rarely go to trial; the same is true from here. The most important part of this thread has also been that NO EVIDENCE SHOULD EVER BE DESTROYED. I tell everyone to turn everything in to me regardless of how bad it may look. It could come back to bite them in the buttocks later on. Good post, though. Thanks again for your insight, Charles.

[antonroland]

I have learned, in this game at least, that the right way is normally the long way but it it sure saves butt and face if you go to court 10 or more years later...

[Charles Parker]

Danny, glad to see you still alive you old dinosaur you. Do you remember the good ole days------well they were not that good.

Anyway I am glad you have the control over the product that comes you way. Some of us are not so lucky. Sometimes when I make one with very little or no information on the back, I do as Gayle Peters suggested. I write it up the way it is written. Now there are some exceptions to the rule, especially if I have duplicate latent prints and the information on the back is not the same-----then I do something.

I was hoping someone would take the issue of writing up just what it says versus on some cases pursuing it further. But that ball bounced out of bounds.

On that same note, there is an article from Georgia and you can access it by going to the Georgia Division IAI web site. The title is "Using the Analysis Phase of ACE-V to Identify Forged or Fabricated Prints" and was written by Tim Schmahl. I liked his approach and the conclusion is interesting (I will not spoil it for you). I think he put it together very well. Matter of fact it was picked up by the Chesapeake Examier in their Spring 2008 issue.

He went that extra inch when some might have just written it up as it was stated.

Gayle Peters makes perfect sense for 98% of the cases but Tim Schmahl hit the nail on the 2%.

Why is nothing in this life just an easy yes or no. One of my favorite ending lines goes like this:

"Fate Favors The Prepared Mind"

Anybody tell me which movie that came out of??? Are you there Peter Griffin, I know you watch movies?

[radarmoose]

Charles,

Where exactly is that article by Tim Schmahl to which you refer? I looked on the Georgia IAI site, but I could not readily find it.

Todd