CLPEX Chat Board

The following are some quotes from a recent newspaper article. I do not think it is necessary to name the newspaper or the person(s) who were quoted. Now I do not believe for one minute that the news media is entirely accurate or precise as portrayed on some other threads of this forum. From my POV the news media in this country have about a 60% error rate.

My position is that some of the information quoted is different than my beliefs. Now either my beliefs are wrong, the person quoted beliefs are wrong, or the media did not make accurate quotes.

Let me show you what I am talking about. (Names have been changed)

KKKK explained the fingerprint is made up of the natural oils and sweat that everyone leaves behind whenever they touch an object. He said some people’s prints are easier than others to pick up.

I have a problem with everyone who touches an item are going to leave a print. What about the people born without friction ridge detail or those that do not perspire easily. Can your hands be free of oils and sweat? If they are free of oils and sweat will you leave a print behind? A good article that discusses some of this is “A Rebuttal to the No Print Defense” by John Nielson.

“For a fingerprint to be viable we have to be able to pick up 13 points of identification which are found in the loops, whirls and ridges of a latent print,” KKKK said. “The challenge comes in when you try to lift latent prints from the wide variety of surfaces at the scene.”

I thought the point standard was finished in 1973 and again in 1995. I believe the current standard is that there is not scientific basis for a set number of points. Are they only found in loops and whirls (sp whorls)? What about the Arches and then we have the palms of the hand and soles of the feet.

PPP and KKKK demonstrated a similar method to the fogging container seen on the television program. It turns out that the fumes emanating from Super Glue will adhere to the oils of a fingerprint and harden it so it can be recovered intact and identified.

Now I might be wrong on this one. It has been my belief that CAE (Super Glue) will polymerize (bond) with water molecules to create the white plastic material. Now one might argue that the oils present on friction ridges are a liquid and works the same way. Well experts out there is it water molecules or sebaceous oils that is the primary catalyst that causes CAE to bond and turn white?

Years ago at the CCCC Police Department, the process was accomplished by placing a coffee mug warmer in a covered fish tank with the evidence and the adhesive and waiting until the fumes did the work. Today, a foil packet is opened that contains the needed materials, greatly simplifying the process.

My belief is that the right humidity in the chamber will assist in developing latent prints with CAE from a tube or a foil packet. I have used the foil packet and I still put moisture in the tank. In working with Glue Packets is it not a good idea to continue to use humidity in the CAE chamber?

“Dusting for prints” is another common method of identifying prints. The dust is actually finely powdered ink available in a wide variety of colors to make the print stand out from a variety of colored surfaces.

Dusting for prints---now there is a phrase I have a hard time with---but I can live with it. Now correct me if I am wrong but is fingerprint dust finely powdered ink? I have always believed they were finely ground materials or dry chemicals. I have always believed that black powder was primarily finely ground carbon and lamp black. But hey I could be wrong.

Academy participants worked diligently to lift prints from surfaces such as glass, CDs, door knobs and a plastic molded dashboard from a car. The results varied, and the lesson was clear that many materials that appear smooth are far from it, making it impossible to get a viable print.

I have never really believed that it was impossible to get a latent print off of some surfaces. To get a latent print off of a difficult surface to me might be difficult and with very slim margin of success but impossible--Nyet! You do not know until you try!

“The truth is, in 28 years of working crime scene investigations; I can only recall two cases where fingerprint evidence was the turning point of the case,” KKKK said. “Fingerprint evidence makes good television but its very overrated. In the real world its usually plays only a small part in the prosecution of a case.”[/

I suppose from a certain point of view this might be correct. The vast majority of cases going to trial actually do not have latent prints involved. But what about the number of cases where latent prints were obtained and the suspect confessed because of it. Or the number of subjects who take a plea in court because latent prints are involved. Or latent prints developed on one case and suspect is cross linked to a series of other cases (Crime Analysis—something not present in state and federal forensic labs I believe). I suspect that a far more number of cases where latent prints were obtained are the turning point on cases that never see the inside of a court. I certainly have seen more than two cases in 35 years, but then I work in comparison and not development so I am probably bias anyway. That is one bias I can live with.

In reading the quotes do not be too harsh on the people quoted, maybe they were not quoted correctly. Maybe that is what they were taught and is their current belief. If that is what they were taught then perhaps we need a stronger set of training standards OR perhaps if I am wrong then I need to go through re-training.

Yeah, I read that article too and was not impressed. This statement in particular was very bad:

The truth is, in 28 years of working crime scene investigations; I can only recall two cases where fingerprint evidence was the turning point of the case,” KKKK said. “Fingerprint evidence makes good television but its very overrated. In the real world its usually plays only a small part in the prosecution of a case.

I think that person needs a new career.

Please tell us the newspaper that article appeared in. Do not worry that I will harm the science of fingerprints. I would merely like the opportunity to teach those fingerprint people some new lessons. The courtroom makes a good classroom for uneducated fingerprint technicians. I think these people need a teacher. I think I could do the job. What is the name of the newspaper, or what city does it publish in?

Oh Dark Side Guy:

Go forth and seek on this web site and ye shall find!

I do not believe that you could harm the science of fingerprints!

Do not assume they are Fingerprint People----They may be Crime Scene People.

Those things that are best hidden are in plain view.

Several folks posted comments about the misinformation to the paper's site (which is easily found by putting any phrase from the quotes into a search engine). What's sad is that, for all the boasting of their array of forensic tools, they apparently can't make them produce. Not surprising. I can give someone plenty of slack on what they supposedly told media. But this guy gets no such slack. The quotes are extensive and specific, so unless the reporter got an overdose of glue fumes and hallucinated, it's pretty clearly a detective talking out of his a**. Twenty-eight years and only a couple of fingerprint cases? I had more than two nailed down by fingerprints each year in a smaller jurisdiction than Columbus, Nebraska. (My crooks weren't much, but I don't think they were any sweatier than crooks elsewhere.) The citizens' academy is still running, and the reporter is still in it. I wonder if he reads the comments to his stories.

Stuff like this is a good reminder that it's not just one department or one detective. In this nation in which law enforcement is a small-agency business, lack of basic forensic training is common. Plenty of officers are testifying to their mistaken ideas and notions without challenge. We ought to ask ourselves if our own officers are ignorant of the basics and potentials of forensic methods. And there are plenty of folks doing latent comparisons whose training dates back to point-counting and who have had no contact with the LPE community or advances in methodology who wouldn't know ACE-V from a hole in the ground and would guess that Daubert is a character in a comic strip.

I found some remote similarities between Mr. Parker's quoted article and an article that can be read at http://www.columbustelegram.com/article ... 340744.txt

Brother Gerald rightly notes that there have been some better educated fingerprint examiners making comments on that site at the end of the article. It looks like there may be some competition for the role of teacher.

Embarrassment is a good teacher, although a painful one. Embarrassment in a newspaper article. Embarrassment in a courtroom can be much worse.

In my experience I have had some good luck embarrassing police people like those quoted in the article. I have found very few dishonest police, but a lot of them who don't think they need any training past Basic Police Academy, which is taught by other police who's total training came from Basic Police Academy twenty years earlier.

I love teaching those people new lessons in the courtoom.

I have some problems with the philosophy you espouse, Oh Guy from the Dark Side.

In my little unit, training funds are lean. IAI? Not a chance. Expensive classes like Ashbaugh's? Not likely!

And my few people. On their low salaries, to pay for a class or conference on their own would take a relatively high percentage of their annual take home pay.

Going after crooked cops is one thing. Embarrassing working stiffs who are trying to do a good job in the face of overwhelming odds is something else.

Well, we're really talking two things here. One is ongoing training for LPE's. You're not the only place with limited training money where it would wipe out the training budget for two or three years to send someone to a conference or to a pricey seminar. But what I was talking about was folks who had their latent print courses many years ago and have had no contact with the latent community since but are still doing examinations. There are plenty of them in small departments who haven't read a book, haven't sought out information on the Internet, and certainly don't check into discussion groups to see what's going on. They would therefore have nothing but blank looks in response to questions about standards, current methodology, and other issues, like errors and testing. They get away with it because most attorney's don't know any more then they.

The other is non-LPE officer training. Basic academies may or may not have updated their coverage of fingerprints in many years. There is the same problem of training funds, but in a department with LPE's on staff, there's no reason officers shouldn't have a reasonably good orientation to the current basics of practice and potential. It's no real problem if officers know no not much more than how to preserve latent evidence. It is a problem if they are likely to testify to inaccurate information don't know what to document from a scene to show diligence and to help answer the absence of evidence questions. Saves the LPE from having to show up the officer's poor testimony. Cheap enough to provide that training in-house when there is knowledgeable staff on board.

It's difficult when the administration ignores the need for training. The officer and the case pays for it in court. I know how hard it is. It took a long time to get administration to give me the patrol officers for even four hours to do a basic presentation on the state of the discipline and the basic field methods. I did a lot of it by teaching on the scene and by educating officers when I gave them feedback on what they had lifted and objects they had brought in for processing. I like to think they could handle questions appropriate for the responding officer and they knew when not to guess. They were pretty good about being able to say, "The answer to that is beyond my training."

Statements in news articles like this are what makes me believe that we need a national standards for Latent Analyst. This misinformation is what causes problems throughout the latent community as a whole and creates issues that could have far reaching effects in courts. .

Gerald States

Stuff like this is a good reminder that it's not just one department or one detective. In this nation in which law enforcement is a small-agency business, lack of basic forensic training is common. Plenty of officers are testifying to their mistaken ideas and notions without challenge. We ought to ask ourselves if our own officers are ignorant of the basics and potentials of forensic methods. And there are plenty of folks doing latent comparisons whose training dates back to point-counting and who have had no contact with the LPE community or advances in methodology who wouldn't know ACE-V from a hole in the ground and would guess that Daubert is a character in a comic strip.

Well put Gerald. A couple of nights ago I was reading some FP&ID Magazines from the early 70's and they were intereviewing supervisors and managers and they said the same thing you said. Lack of Training. Just as prevalent today as then----HOWEVER, with the internet and the availibility of material today there is no reason why someone cannot learn some things on their own---BUT IT SEEMS TO ME that most people want to be paid (and paid a lot) to learn things that puts a roof over their heads and food on their table. A famous quote I have heard many times

"If the department is not going to pay for it then I am not going to do it"

Dark Guy Said

Embarrassment is a good teacher, although a painful one. Embarrassment in a newspaper article. Embarrassment in a courtroom can be much worse.

Dark Guy when I first read this I thought about replying, then I said to meyself---why bother--but then if I let a statement I believe to be incorrect remain unchallenged then I am agreeing with the statement by default.

I do not belive embarrassment is a good teacher. I agree that a person may learn something from embarrasment but what they learn is what matters. They could learn to do it different, or they could learn not to do it anymore. Most people that I have seen embarrsed over an action generally choose not to even get close to that action again. You embarrass an officer over the way he developed latent prints and the odds are that he will never lift a brush again or even try. No--embarrassment is not a good teacher. May be in your neck of the woods it might be good, but I have not seen it very productive in my life time.

Also from my very personal POV and certainly not something I have any cognitive or pshychological training in, but those people that like to embarrass others do so for other reasons and not to teach.

David Schultz Said

Statements in news articles like this are what makes me believe that we need a national standards for Latent Analyst. This misinformation is what causes problems throughout the latent community as a whole and creates issues that could have far reaching effects in courts. .

David I agree with the concept of standards----but who's. Yours, Mine, Dark Side Guy, The Feds, do not forget about States Rules. But even the most well written standards cannot take the human out of people. Someone is going to want to shine in front of that camera or puff up to the media and say something that most others will not agree with. I like standards but like Ron White says "You Can't Fix Stupid".

Charles,

I happen to agree with you on your choice of quotes, Ron White is a good choice. I have kept silent for a very long time while reading the comments that are posted on this chat board; however, on this one, I cannot continue to do so.

Training is important. Back in 2005, I attended David Ashbaugh's class in North Carolina. This department does not have much in training funds, and for fingerprint people, it is pretty much, zilch. So, in order to attend this class, which even after 30 years in fingerprints I still deemed it to be very important, my wife and I took out a personal loan to do so. The one comment that I received the most from the others in the class was, "At your age, why are you here? Your career must be nearing its end, so why bother?" To which, I responded, "As long as I am working in this field, I must be able to work in it properly, with the proper training."

Now, as for points-of-view, this happens to be mine. I firmly believe in training, and whenever, I can get the funds on my own, I will continue to do so. When I cannot, I keep up with what's going on through books and articles that are for this profession, latent prints. In fact, my wife and I have saved the money and have our room reservations to this year's IAI International Conference in Kentucky. It will be my first in nine years, and I am looking forward to it. As for training here, at this department, all of our ten-print people go through a very vigorous seven week course in ten-prints which is taught from the FBI's material. Our new police cadets get an eight hour course in fingeprints which includes a little over four hours in processing latents. I know this because I have written the lesson plans and examinations for these training courses. It has taken me many years of hounding to make sure that people know how to do their work properly in this science.

As for the wonderous dark side guy. You sound like a defense attorney; if so, then I will have to let you know that I have embarassed many defense attorneys over the last twenty-five years. Including two hours on the stand in a murder case in which I was crossed on Daubert; that man is currently on death-row. In fact, that was in December of 2003, and the only other time that I have been called upon to testify in Circuit Court was in March 2006 in another murder case. I receive many subpoenas but I seldom have to testify. Most of my time is in Federal Court, or used to be, testifying on the ICE program for the local ATF office. Even with that, I receive the subpoenas, but again, rarely am I called upon to testify. Regardless of what is past, I am always ready to testify on any case in which I have made an identification.

I too, believe in accuracy; not only in my work, but also in what I read. I must agree with all, that the above article was rift with errors. Terminology, spelling, lack of knowledge that there is no point standard that is recognized; just to name three. Even Scotland Yard did away with their point standard a few years ago. As for textured surfaces, there is always gelatin lifts. (By the way, most surfaces today are textured, including, but not limited to, pop machines and filing cabinets.) I can only say that if the majority of us, who have the proper training, expertise, experience, and knowledge in this science, did our work the way those in the article profess to doing, then this science would truly be in a world-of-hurt. Fortunately, we are not like that. Over the past thirty-five years, I have dealt with some of the finest professionals that fingerprints has known.

Well, I have now had my say and will leave. I am sure there will be many disagreements with what I have said, but they are my beliefs and my views after thirty-five years looking at friction ridge detail, and the last twenty of those years as an instructor in this science for my department.

Danny,
No disagreement here. Thank you for your contribution - it's good to see you on the board.
-Kasey

Danny Lamont----You old dinosaur. Hope to see you in Louisville (Louievile).

You will not get any disagreement from me on your post.

Dark Side Guy wrote: In my experience I have had some good luck embarrassing police people like those quoted in the article. I have found very few dishonest police, but a lot of them who don't think they need any training past Basic Police Academy, which is taught by other police who's total training came from Basic Police Academy twenty years earlier.

I love teaching those people new lessons in the courtoom.

One thing you should keep in mind DSG, sadly, many agencies do not provide consistant or progressive training. The first thing cut during budget crises is usually the training budget so those in technical areas really suffer. I've never met anyone in forensics who didn't think they should not attend more training beyond their basic academy course or basic schooling.

Training and continuing education is very important and we all realize that. I've noticed a trend with my last few depositions, the defense attornies are very interested in what training I receive each year.