|
G o o d
M o r n i n g !
via
THE WEEKLY DETAIL
Monday">
|
_________________________________________ |
__________________________________________
Breaking NEWz you can UzE... |
|
compiled by Jon Stimac |
|
Toy Fingerprint Kit Contains Asbestos
–
SEATTLE-POST INTELLIGENCER, WA
- Nov 29, 2007
...asbestos has been found in a variety of consumer
products, including one of this season's biggest-selling Christmas
toys...
Fingerprints Reveal Wanted Man
–
KANSAS CITY STAR, MO - Nov 27, 2007 ...authorities entered
the suspect’s fingerprints into the nationwide FBI database...
Housemate 'was at crime scene'
– NEW
YORK TIMES, NY - Nov 27, 2007
...a bloody fingerprint belonging to Amanda Knox was found on a tap in
the bathroom...
Detectives Used Fingerprints to Identify Dragging Victim
–
KXLY-TV, WA
- Nov 27, 2007 ...body was so badly
damaged that he could only be identified by detectives through his
fingerprints... |
__________________________________________
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity |
Last Week's
Board topics
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist |
|
The Principal of Tolerance
Charles Parker 31 Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:50 pm
Bill Sampson
Michele 179 Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:44 pm
Randall's Post from the Maryland Thread
Steve Everist 486 Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:18 pm
Raise The Banner
Charles Parker 1186 Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:13 pm
A Model For Comparative Analysis
Charles Parker 14 Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:34 pm
Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
Pat A. Wertheim 201 Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:24 pm
Calls for Inquiry to be scrapped
Daktari 1814 Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:06 pm
Random Event
Charles Parker 442 Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:16 pm
An interesting statistic
Boyd Baumgartner 532 Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:03 am
Laminating documents with nin prints
RedFive 367 Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:04 pm
Google Books and The Gutenberg Project
George Reis 265 Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:07 pm
Earprints
Ernie Hamm 1411 Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:59 pm
(http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)
|
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group web page with FIG #
24.
_________________________________________
Joe Polski brought us some fingerprint related
items from the November IAI update.
we disseminate an IAI
fingerprint statement regarding the Baltimore Maryland case for further
distribution to anyone seeking information on the topic, especially any
press inquiries.
_________________________________________
IAI Position concerning Latent Fingerprint Identification
official IAI document
PDF currently at:
http://www.clpex.com/Information/IAI_Position_Statement_11-29-07.pdf (http://www.clpex.com/Information/IAI_Position_Statement_11-29-07.pdf)
An IAI link will be made available if and when this document is posted on
the official IAI website.
International Association for Identification
2535 Pilot Knob Road, Suite 117
Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1120
Phone: (651) 681-8566
Fax: (651) 681-8443
November 29, 2007
(Rev. E, 1 Nov 2007)
The International Association for Identification (IAI) is the world’s oldest
and largest organization of forensic science professionals. Founded in 1915,
the IAI represents some 6,900 practitioners in seventy five countries. Among
other things, the IAI is committed to: encouraging research in the area of
the science of fingerprint identification, advancing the relevant sciences,
providing training and education to practitioners and guidance to academia
and government on issues concerning forensic science disciplines.
The IAI fully supports the principle that finger, palm, and footprints
(friction skin detail) are unique to each and every individual. This
principle has been well established through the biological sciences of
anatomy, embryology and genetics. These unique anatomical features, which
are formed prior to birth are persistent throughout one’s life until some
time after death; have become the foundation upon which the
individualization of a fingerprint to a single person becomes scientifically
accepted and legally defensible. Friction skin information has been used
internationally to identify and exclude sources of finger, palm, and foot
impressions in criminal and civil proceedings by the relevant scientific
community for more than a century. The use of the Automated Fingerprint
Identification Systems (AFIS) provides additional support for the unique
nature of friction skin detail searches. Since the advent of such systems
some thirty years ago, hundreds of thousands of computer searches of
fingerprint databases have been and continue to be conducted twenty-four
hours a day each and every day. As yet, no two fingerprints from different
individuals have ever been found to be the same. Additionally, numerous
studies have been conducted over the years by the medical research and the
forensic science communities, the results of these studies collectively
supporting the theory of biological uniqueness and persistence as it is
currently applied to the individualization of friction skin. As with all
sciences, continued research is not only advisable but mandated for the
science to continue its level of acceptance in the scientific and legal
arenas. However, the fact that research is ongoing in no way invalidates the
past or current practice of the science by those competent professional
forensic practitioners who have successfully applied it as a means of
identifying perpetrators of crime and exonerating the innocent.
The IAI endorses the position that individuals may be identified as the
source of a particular friction skin impression through the correct
Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification (referred to within the
profession as the ACE-V methodology) of the friction skin detail by
competent examiners. The IAI acknowledges the concern of some observers who
believe, though incorrectly, that the individualization of an unknown
friction skin impression to impressions from a known individual is somehow
different when comparing impressions representative of the entire finger or
palm versus a partial impression. This is a flawed presupposition often
cited by those with no practical experience in the fingerprint science,
incomplete knowledge of the applied discipline, and or a lack of
understanding of the basic principles involved. Qualified examiners know
that the process is the same in both instances and the threshold for
individualization is dependent on the quality and quantity of information
available in and not the size of the unknown impression.
The IAI acknowledges that the practice of the friction skin comparison
discipline is not free from error. This opinion is in concurrence with the
National Research Council’s position on the issue of error rate as described
in their assessment of forensic DNA, and believes this to be applicable to
the forensic science of fingerprints. [1. Forensic genetics. I. National
Research Council (U.S.). Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science: an
Update. (ISBN 0-309-05395-1,); 2. National Research Council (U.S.).
Commission on DNA Technology in Forensic Science: an Update., RA1057.5.E94
1996, 614'.1—dc2O, 96-25364] To propose the argument that the applied
methodology (ACE-V method) is unreliable because of such errors is misplaced
logic. First, most of these errors may be attributed to the improper
application of the methodology, the competence of the examiner or subjective
influences. Second, errors are corrected by applying the ACE-V method
correctly. One can not claim that a method is unreliable and then rely on
the same method to detect and rectify the error. Though an accurate approach
to numerically quantifying an error rate for friction skin
individualizations has yet to be determined, it is generally held by
practitioners, scientists, and legal authorities that the error rate for
fingerprint identification is extremely small, statistically insignificant,
and not due to the methodology but instead to the inherent risk of error in
any human endeavor.
The reliability of any forensic science discipline is best controlled by the
adherence to established scientific and quality assurance practices. The IAI
acknowledges the existence and importance of standards and guidelines and
encourages all agencies and practitioners performing forensic latent print
examinations to adhere to these principles. Further, the IAI recognizes the
benefits of accreditation and certification for agencies and practitioners.
It encourages agencies performing forensic latent print examinations to
obtain accreditation and promotes the certification of examiners through the
IAI’s Certified Latent Print Examiner (CLPE) program. Participation in such
programs ensures confidence that the laboratory is practicing sound
examinations through adherence to established quality assurance practices.
Fingerprint examiners state their conclusions as a matter of opinion as is
the practice with many other forensic disciplines. They are ethically and
professionally required to offer their opinions only when they are
absolutely confident of their conclusions and in the procedures and methods
used in the process. Stating their conclusions with any less certainty or
offering an opinion on identity based on general or class characteristics
may allow for a misinterpretation of results by juries and judges.
The IAI recognizes that it is a tactic employed by opposing counsel in our
judicial system and others who may lack sufficient knowledge, training and
experience, to question the reliability of the forensic sciences
particularly that of friction skin impression examinations. This is to be
expected since it is part of an adversarial judicial system. The objective
of these tactics is to misrepresent factual data, offer incomplete or
misleading data, or attempt to create confusion. Therefore to clarify the
collective opinion of the profession at large concerning the ACE-V
methodology and the principles involved in the individualization of friction
skin, the following statement is offered:
The International Association for Identification steadfastly supports and
promotes the continued and proper application of the science of friction
ridge skin individualization.
_________________________________________
The Nugget
a stand-alone deep thought from the CLPEX.com forum
I feel that tolerance is one of the most overlooked areas in our discipline
right now. I think there is a lot of confusion about how much tolerance we
should have for distortion. In part, this confusion is fueled by recent
erroneous identifications and a general critical attack on the science of
fingerprints. Examiners seem more cautious, and therefore are more likely to
incorrectly state that something is out of tolerance, and not proclaim the
match. ...
Blind review has been shrouded in a negative light by examiners using
phrases of negative connotation such as 'shopping around' or 'fishing for a
verification'. Instead we should herald the concept of blind review as one
mitigation to the risk of letting the guilty go free in an era of relative
conservatism in our discipline.
_________________________________________
we will feature Pat
Wertheim's latent print report in the Van der Vyver case. This week
you can follow this case in the news and on the CLPEX forum:
The trial of Fred van der Vyver for the 2006
murder of Inge Lotz ended [on November 29] in a verdict of "Not Guilty" in
Cape Town, South Africa. In rendering that verdict, the judge went a step
further and found that each piece of evidence and each witness presented by
the prosecution was without credibility and that Mr. van der Vyver could not
have committed the crime. In his final words, the judge actually pronounced
Mr. van der Vyver "Innocent" rather than simply "not guilty."
Fingerprint evidence was presented as having come from a DVD cover at the
scene of the murder of Miss Lotz. That was significant because Mr. van der
Vyver was at her apartment the day before her murder, but she had rented the
DVD only hours before her death. The problem was that the latent print could
only have come from a drinking glass, complete with curved edges, curved
fingers, and even a lip print on the rim of the glass. Had there been any
lift that could conceivably come from a DVD cover, a careless mix up may
have been possible, but none of the eleven lifts from the scene could have
come from a DVD cover.
Evidence Fabrication in
South Africa
(http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=756)
http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=756
_________________________________________
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other
examiners. This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY
latent print examiners.
With the exception of weeks such as this week, there
are no copyrights on The Detail content. As always, the website is
open for all to visit!
If you have not yet signed up to receive the
Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and
join the list now so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail
newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page:
http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm
You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that
e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are
signed up!) If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work
e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters
considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail. Try
subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to
allow e-mails from Topica. Members may unsubscribe at any time.
If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently
removed from the list, e-mail me personally at
kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!
| |
|