CLPEX Chat Board

In the last 15 years there have been a number of SWG started (They first started as Technical Working Groups TWGS but that got changed after a few years).

Here is a list that I am aware of and there may be a few more than these. Not all supported by the FBI.

SWGDAM----DNA
SWGDE------Digital Evidence
SWGDOC----Questioned Documents
SWGFAST----Fingerprints (Fingerprints or Latent Prints?)
SWGGUN-----Firearms and Toolmarks
SWGIBRA----Illicit Business Records
SWGIT-------Imaging Technologies
SWGMAT-----Materials (Hair--Fibers--Trace--etc)

I saw one recently that was SWGDOG.

Now here is a question---How many of these SWG's use ACE or ACE-V?

Another Question---How many of these SWG's use "Individulization".

T or F
ACE was proposed by a QD Examiner but the QD discipline does not even use it!

Ladies and gentleman, I am not trying to change anything but I do want people to know that the only forensic discipline that I am aware of at this time that uses ACE or ACE-V is the fingerprint discipline.

Now granted there might be a different discipline examiner here and there that might use it. But it is not in their discipline documents under the SWG's.

Question 3---Just how wide spread and accepted is ACE outside of the fingerprint community?

Charles,
You left out:
SWGTREAD---Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence

As of September, 2007, 'Identification' is listed as the preferred terminology.

I have not seen an update from a meeting scheduled for March, 2008; however prior to that time, ACE-V was not specifically included in their guidelines.

It perhaps should be noted that there are individual examiners who have used the ACE terminology as a way to describe their comparison methodology.

Charles,

There's also SWGSTAIN---Blood
http://www.swgstain.org/

A couple of weeks ago I posted links to SWIGIT's draft(s) for comments, to which a third draft has now been added. In their draft of Section 16: Best Practices for Forensic Photographic Comparison they mention ACE-V. But I'm sure you visited the site and sent your comments in already, right???

Here's how they include ACE-V in this document:
ACE-V
A commonly accepted protocol applied to photographic comparisons is ACE-V (Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation – Verification). Not all photographic comparisons invoke this protocol.

The Analysis stage involves an objective and thorough assessment of the properties and attributes of the features contained in the images under examination. This includes determining which features are class or individual characteristics as well as issues of image formation, such as resolution, lighting, focus, and camera-to-subject geometry.

In the Comparison stage, an assessment is made of the correspondence/discordance of the characteristics identified in the Analysis stage.

In the Evaluation stage, a tentative conclusion is reached and the correspondences/discordances are tested against it. All discordances are evaluated to determine if they reflect true differences between the subjects. Discordances may result from the imaging process or conditions in the scene (i.e., “explainable difference”). If differences are not thus explainable (i.e. “unexplainable differences”), then an elimination is determined. If no unexplainable difference exists, then the quantity and quality of corresponding features are used to determine the level of correspondence and the results are documented. As a result of this evaluation the final conclusion is formed. The discussion of statistical vs. cognitive evaluation below applies to this stage.

In the Verification stage, the results of the examination are confirmed through independent review by a comparably trained individual.

Pay close attention to the description of the Verification stage - this is not peer review in verification only confirmation of results (processes are not reviewed).

And if you weren't sure if you prefer discrepancy over dissimilarity, they have now added discordance to the mix... And they've also renewed the idea of the One "Discordance" Rule, which I personally don't agree with - nor should anyone who has consistently viewed your FIG's and couldn't figure out 'what happened' in some of the images.

To contrast them with how SWGFAST defines Verification in their document (as linked from the IAI's site):
SWGFAST
Friction Ridge Examination Methodology
for Latent Print Examiners (Version 1.01 8/22/02)

3.4 Verification
Verification is the independent examination by another qualified examiner resulting in the same conclusion.
3.4.1 All individualizations (identifications) must be verified.
3.4.2 Exclusion or inconclusive results may be verified.


I don't know if this makes you feel any better as, by this definition, the only way for Verification to exist is if the same conclusion is arrived at.

Anyhow, although I didn't answer many of your questions, it does appear that SWIGIT is attempting to include ACE-V in their Guidelines for photographic comparisons. For those who may want to comment on the content of this draft for comments, you've got until May 29th to say so - and I would ask that you do.

RLT---I missed SWGTREAD. I had it on my notes because I had just been looking at it's site and my only excuse for not listing it is old age. Thanks for adding it. As of this date SWGTREAD has nothing about ACE.

Steve---I have not reviewed SWGIT recently and the copy of their guidelines I keep handy definitely needs updating. I was not aware of them dealing with the concept of ACE when comparing photographs. There is one person in our office who stays up with SWGIT. But I guess I will be sending them a note.

Well now there are two that deal with ACE-----Fingerprints and photo comparisons.

I did see SWGSTAIN but it was not on my primary list. But in looking at their site they are a fairly recent SWG. They did not have much in their publications on their methodology so I guess they are still working on it or I need to do a better site search.

Charles, I am not a document examiner. My understanding of ACE is that ACE came from the document examiner domain from R. A. Huber from Canada. This carried over to the shoe print community in Canada, then Ashbaugh in Canada brought it to the fingerprint community.

As far as SWGDOC goes, SWGDOC works closely with ASTM standards. ASTM Designation E 2290-03 "Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten Items" has many related topics to your discussions:

interesting words under Terminology definitions:

3.3.7 individualizing characteristics, n - marks or properties that serve to uniquely characterize writing.

(Under ASTM Designation E 1658 - 04, Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners:
Identification (definite conclusion of identity)- This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using the word "fact," the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known material actually wrote the writing in question.)

3.3.11 significant difference, n - an individualizing characteristic that is structurally divergent between handwritten items, that is outside the range of variation of the writer, and that cannot be reasonably explained.

3.3.12 significant similarity, n - an individualizing characteristic in common between two or more handwritten items.

3.3.13 sufficient quantity, n - that amount of writing required to assess the writer's range of variation, based on the writing examined.
(JRV Comment: No "sufficient quality" definition. However "quality" is mentioned in the document.)

Some points under Procedure part of the document:

7.3 At various points in these procedures, a determination that a particular feature is not present or that an item is lacking in quality or comparability may indicate that the examiner should discontinue or limit the procedure(s). It is at the discretion of the examiner to discontinue the procedure at that point and report accordingly or to continue with the applicable procedures to the extent possible. The reasons for such a decision shall be documented.
(JRV comments: "quality" is a big word here)

Many determinations take place from following the Standard Guide, but these highlight the spirit of the document:
7.7.4 and 7.10.4: Determine presence or absence of individualizing characteristics.
(JRV comments: Sounds like our Analysis phase)

7.12: Conduct a side-by-side comparison of comparable portions of the bodies of writing
7.12.1 Determine whether there are differences, absent characteristics, and similarities.
(JRV comments: sounds like Comparison phase)

7.12.2 Evaluate their significance individually and in combination.
7.12.3 Determine if there is a sufficient quantity of writing (questioned writing, or known writing, or both).
(JRV Comments: sounds like Evaluation phase)

7.12.4 Analyze, compare, and evaluate the individualizing characteristics and other potentially significant features present in the comparable portions of the bodies of writing.
(JRV comments: Sounds like ACE to me)

I did not seem the acronym ACE in this document. The concept is present. John V.

The firearms SWGGUN:
SWGGUN Guidelines

Guidelines: Criteria for Identification Scientific Working Group For Firearms and Toolmarks

1.0 Objective

The laboratory shall adopt a Criteria for Identification as it pertains to the firearm/toolmark discipline.

2.0 Procedures

2.1 The laboratory shall include in their protocol a Criteria for Identification that is generally accepted by members of the forensic firearms community.

2.2 SWGGUN endorses the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE) “Theory of Identification” definition as set forth in the AFTE Journal (July 1992 Volume 24, Number 3) to be the generally accepted Criteria for Identification:

2.2.1 The theory of identification as it pertains to the comparison of toolmarks enables opinions of common origin to be made when the unique surface contours of two toolmarks are in “sufficient agreement.”

2.2.2 This “sufficient agreement” is related to the significant duplication of random toolmarks as evidenced by the correspondence of a pattern or combination of patterns of surface contours. Significance is determined by the comparative examination of two or more sets of surface contour patterns comprised of individual peaks, ridges and furrows. Specifically, the relative height or depth, width, curvature and spatial relationship of the individual peaks, ridges and furrows within one set of surface contours are defined and compared to the corresponding features in the second set of surface contours. Agreement is significant when it exceeds the best agreement demonstrated between toolmarks known to have been produced by different tools and is consistent with agreement demonstrated by toolmarks known to have been produced by the same tool. The statement that “sufficient agreement” exists between two toolmarks means that the agreement is of a quantity and quality that the likelihood another tool could have made the mark is so remote as to be considered a practical impossibility.

2.2.3 Currently the interpretation of individualization/identification is subjective in nature, founded on scientific principles and based on the examiner’s training and experience.


Passed 4/16/08

(JRV Comments: SWGGUN has individualization in this document, and has not abandoned identification. I do like the sufficient agreement with quantity and quality statements.)

And:

SWGGUN Guidelines


GUIDELINES FOR THE STANDARDIZATION
OF COMPARISON DOCUMENTATION
Scientific Working Group
For
Firearms and Toolmarks


1.0 Objective

The purpose of this document is to set forth a scientifically acceptable standard for documenting, in a case record, the observations that support the reported conclusion.

2.0 Procedures

2.1 The case record must contain documentation of the observations that support a reported conclusion.

2.1 At a minimum, the documentation must include interpretable depictions or descriptions of the agreement or disagreement of individual and/or class characteristics to the extent that another qualified firearm and toolmark examiner, without the benefit of the evidence itself, can review the case record, understand what was compared, and evaluate why the examiner arrived at the reported conclusion.

2.3 The supporting documentation of one comparison may be used for additional evidence within a case provided the agreement described or depicted is representative of the additional comparison(s).

2.4 It must be documented in the case record which items are being depicted and/or described. The case record must clearly describe or identify what items are depicted.

2.5 Methods of documentation including photography/imaging, narrative descriptions, sketches, diagrams, charts, worksheets, tabulation of consecutive matching striae (CMS), or a combination of methods may serve to satisfy the requirements of this standard. (NOTE: The above mentioned documentation methods are not sufficient for the determination or verification of a conclusion.)


Passed 4/16/08

(JRV Comments: I am stretching ACE here without the process or acronym being present. Under the spirit of 2.1, a depiction or description of agreement or disagreement involves an analysis of the details in two images being compared. The determination of some of the details in the images results from analyses. The initial observation of each image results in an analysis of the details of the repeatable class characteristics and the presence of unique characteristics. Then note the "compare" and "evaluate" in this document. And 2.5 mentions the concept of "verification of a conclusion". SWGGUN is at least using some of the words you are asking about without a detailed description of ACE or ACE-V.)

I dont know if it is included in the recently released document on best practices for forensic video analysis, but I do know that some FVA's use a form of ACE-V when performing comparisons from video to knowns.

Many use the Term ACE-VR, with the R meaning report.

Then again, a comparison from video to a known image is basically a photographic image comparison.

Hi Charles (and list),

Charles Parker wrote:Now here is a question---How many of these SWG's use ACE or ACE-V?

I will comment only on QD and add the disclaimer that these are my own personal thoughts on the matter.

The SWGDOC guidelines do not use this terminology nor is it present in the ASTM standards relating to handwriting identification or any other QD work.

That doesn't mean the concept isn't present but the specific terminology is not used.
Charles Parker wrote:Another Question---How many of these SWG's use "Individualization".

I don't think the term is used by SWGDOC, per se. But it is present in ASTM E2388-05 which outlines minimum training standards for FDEs (see section 7.0 Syllabus where it is used no less than 7 times). Interestingly enough, it isn't in E1792 (Standard Terminology Relating to Forensic Science) nor in E2195-02 (Standard Terminology Relating to the Examination of Questioned Documents) though the latter does include "individualizing characteristic".
Charles Parker wrote:T or F
ACE was proposed by a QD Examiner but the QD discipline does not even use it!

True for the first part of the statement. Roy Huber presented the ACE concept in various venues over the years. It can be found in published form in Huber and Headricks 1999 textbook, Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals (CRC Press). Huber provides a self-reference to an earlier (1972) article in the RCMP Gazette entitled 'The Philosophy of Identification' (Jul/Aug, 34: 7/8, pp 8-14). I can't find a copy of that article but, as I recall, I don't think the term ACE was actually used in 1972 - just the concepts were outlined.

I'm not sure when, or by whom, the V was added but it wasn't part of Huber's original concept. The first time I recall seeing the V was in the context of LP work.

As for the QD discipline not using ACE/V, technically this is also true. You won't find too many FDEs who use the terminology. I am one exception - maybe because I spend too much time lurking on CLPEX...

However I would argue that all forensic comparison processes are (indeed, must be) a form of ACE. In fact, this was clearly Huber's position on the matter. To quote their text "the careful and systematic use of evidence, which is common to the many disciplines of forensic science [my emphasis] is directed toward the identification of an unknown. The process involves three distinct steps or stages, although routines are so well engrained into the practises of some disciplines that the existence of the three divisions, and our progress through them often passes unrecognized. It has been tagged the Law of ACEs."

Further they wrote "this process underlies the identification of any matter, person, or thing, by any witness, whether technical, forensic, or not."
Charles Parker wrote:Now granted there might be a different discipline examiner here and there that might use it. But it is not in their discipline documents under the SWG's.

I use it because people (both lay and professional) readily understand it. It's a great way to explain the basic examination process or, perhaps more accurately, the philosophy underlying our work.

I do believe that because it is a general or generic description of the basic philosophy it is not wise to present it as the actual 'method' of examination without some clarification. The specific method used in any given type of examination will have its own procedures, equipment, features of interest, evaluation protocols, etc. For example, ASTM E2290-03 outlines a generic procedure for handwriting comparisons in which the ACE-V concept is clearly present (as pointed out by John V), though not expressly referred to as such. For what it's worth, I personally prefer a more detailed method like the one outlined at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/humanbio/fore ... online.htm but, even in the latter, the term ACE or ACE-V is not expressly mentioned.

Certainly not the "method," as was brought to light in another thread. And it's going to manifest in different ways in different disciplines. It's really something that must be attended to in every kind of activity where decisions are made based upon information gained. I was reading recently about one of the WWII era intelligence operations known as "The Pond." The head of that outfit complained that valuable information was discarded by other groups because they considered the nature of the source, rather than the source's "box score," the source's known accuracy in the past. One method was subject to all sorts of biases, including considerations of a source's political, criminal, and social standings, rather than an objective examination of whether or not their information had always turned out to be accurate. Basically, they tended to make errors by not applying a sequence that would have held the ultimate conclusion until they had analyzed, compared to their sources, evaluated the meaning of the whole body of informations, and sought verification. (If I can be allowed to force the analogy into the ACE-V paradigm.) Doyle had Homes regularly preach against bias by assumption or guess, letting the data present the results and accepting wherever it led.

It's, to come degree, an area where applied forensics often differs from pure science. Scientific inquiry seems to gain much from hidebound bias that leads scientists to fight hard to fit observations to their favored theory, and some great advances were made by those who made the same observations as others but reached conclusions very different from what was very widely accepted. Moving behavioral science away from Skinner is an example. In one way it good that forensic sciences do strive for uniformity of conclusion among practitioners. On the other, I think it tends to make us somewhat slow to advance, since we're kind of allergic to public argument over fundamentals when those argument, that are really often just a feature of active learning, will have to be dealt with in court in a way that few astronomers or animal behavioralists will ever confront. .

I think one the most valuable aspects of the articulation of ACE-V is that, if one accepts it as a principle, one has to think hard about how one's forensic discipline is practiced and explained. It's probably relatively easy to demonstrate its application in latent print examination. Permanence and a limited number of factors that influence how impressions manifest helps, as does the simple nature of the skin we consider as possible sources and our almost total lack of concern with forgery.

I have noticed as well that the other SWG groups do not use the term Individualization when describing a positive association to one source. As far as other comparison disciplines in my agency, besides Latents, are concerned they do not use the term Individualization and have continued to use "identified as being made by" when reporting a sufficient agreement of unique/individual characteristics to a particular item of evidence. I have received training in Tire and Footwear comparisons through an in-house training program and attended a course taught by Bill Bodziak. The term Individualization was not used in any of the training I received when describing a positive association to one source.

I really am not concerned with which term gets used by our discipline (I will continue to use both) but my perception has always been that our terminology changed to make us more in line with other comparison disciplines. It disturbs me that apparently this was not the case and the motive may have been to make the discipline sound "more scientific". I would like to think that the Latent discipline is not just trying to sound scientific but being.