Steve or Kasey can delete this thread if it has already been discussed. I found this article online this morning and thought that you might want it for your collection and for discussion.
http://www.fd.org/Publications/SpecTop/ ... review.pdf
From our beloved 'friend' Robert Epstein. I think he hangs out with Mike Cherry at the same bar where you can find 'Nutcase(cracker)' and RT!
The Myth of Fingerprint Science is Revealed!
-
josher89
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:32 pm
- Location: NE USA
The Myth of Fingerprint Science is Revealed!
"...he wrapped himself in quotations—as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of emperors." - R. Kipling, 1893
-
Gerald Clough
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:27 am
- Location: Lockhart, Texas
- Contact:
I sometimes wonder that so many folks seem to think they are the first to think to play on the "myth." Gee, guys, even Paul Simon wasn't the first in 1986. It's not exactly a revelation that the notion that no two humans have identical sets of friction ridge skin is unproven (and, I believe, unprovable) and therefore by definition, myth. But the only relevant myth is that the current state of the discipline depends on that myth.
Of course, such articles are both selective in presumption of what constitutes evidentiary value and in choosing which "Daubert" factors should be applied and how knowledge of them should be interpreted and weighted. When one filters for Daubert tests that are merely imagined to be absolute requirements of admissibility, we are left with a pretended or real outrage at a perceived claim of absolute uniqueness. Selective interpretation appears throughout the article applied to the DOJ solicitation. It would certainly add to the fundamental knowledge of the field if meaningful studies of the sort solicited were undertaken. But seeking further knowledge is not an admission that, without them, the conclusions of latent print examinations are not to be trusted. This absurd position would seem to hold that any scientist conducting new research is declaring his field fatally flawed without them. As anyone with academic exposure knows, proposals for soliciting research must demonstrate that the work will have value, and weakly stated proposals don't make the cut. Even such language as "may" and "we hope that" significantly weaken a proposal, and if you've ever passed a draft research proposal to an experienced person for critique, you've likely had it back with this language changed to positives, like "will."
The author seemed to think that pointing out differing experts devastates latent print identification's credibility. If that were the test, very little scientific and technical evidence would make it into courtrooms. Such issues as future dangerousness, competence, and insanity could never be determined, these being expert fields where contradictory expert testimony is the norm. Nor could eyewitness identification be admitted under any circumstances.
The article purported to "fill the void." The only void that might be imagined would be that of an article at that time exhausting every possible issue. But, in the end, it was just another attempt to hold a one-sided Daubert hearing with the usual misapplied mix of admissibility and credibility so beloved of these folks, with the usual whining about judge's statements that don't suit them. But, I welcome this and later arguments that move us toward solid presentations. They will, in the end, leave latent print examination where it belongs as capable of producing very powerful evidence. Maybe we'll even one day be free of the myth of the "myth."
Of course, such articles are both selective in presumption of what constitutes evidentiary value and in choosing which "Daubert" factors should be applied and how knowledge of them should be interpreted and weighted. When one filters for Daubert tests that are merely imagined to be absolute requirements of admissibility, we are left with a pretended or real outrage at a perceived claim of absolute uniqueness. Selective interpretation appears throughout the article applied to the DOJ solicitation. It would certainly add to the fundamental knowledge of the field if meaningful studies of the sort solicited were undertaken. But seeking further knowledge is not an admission that, without them, the conclusions of latent print examinations are not to be trusted. This absurd position would seem to hold that any scientist conducting new research is declaring his field fatally flawed without them. As anyone with academic exposure knows, proposals for soliciting research must demonstrate that the work will have value, and weakly stated proposals don't make the cut. Even such language as "may" and "we hope that" significantly weaken a proposal, and if you've ever passed a draft research proposal to an experienced person for critique, you've likely had it back with this language changed to positives, like "will."
The author seemed to think that pointing out differing experts devastates latent print identification's credibility. If that were the test, very little scientific and technical evidence would make it into courtrooms. Such issues as future dangerousness, competence, and insanity could never be determined, these being expert fields where contradictory expert testimony is the norm. Nor could eyewitness identification be admitted under any circumstances.
The article purported to "fill the void." The only void that might be imagined would be that of an article at that time exhausting every possible issue. But, in the end, it was just another attempt to hold a one-sided Daubert hearing with the usual misapplied mix of admissibility and credibility so beloved of these folks, with the usual whining about judge's statements that don't suit them. But, I welcome this and later arguments that move us toward solid presentations. They will, in the end, leave latent print examination where it belongs as capable of producing very powerful evidence. Maybe we'll even one day be free of the myth of the "myth."
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."