Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
FBI's Handling of Fingerprint Case Criticized –
SEATTLE TIMES, WA - June 1, 2004
...documents show that one of the FBI
examiners who erroneously linked a print to the Madrid bombings made
two similar errors in the past...
Spain And US At Odds On Mistaken Terror Arrest –
NEW YORK TIMES, NY - June 5, 2004
..."They (the FBI) had a justification
for everything," - Spanish National Police
Fingerprint Debate Heats Up – NEWSDAY,
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
- June 5,, 2004
...testimony as to the age
determination of a latent print creates fervor in court. Also link
I Found Print on Jewel Box
Police Have Criminals in Palm of Their Hand –
NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NZ
- May 31, 2004
...Police have caught up to 150
criminals with new technology that enables them to search and
Last week we all watched the internet for additional
information on the Mayfield case. On Friday, Judge Jones released a verbal
order preventing the public distribution of the images in this case, so they may
now be viewed online at:
There has also been some excellent discussion on the CLPEX board regarding this
and other parallel topics. Some of the posts mention the very relevant
side issues of standards and training. Here are a few comments by fellow
CLPEX message board users:
We must recognize that we are going to have scientific standards, industry
standards, administrative standards, court standards and personal standards. If
possible, it would be nice to point out which category a standard is from.
In order to progress, we have to openly acknowledge that all conclusions are not
absolute and conclusive (obviously given the present situation).
All conclusions should adhere to scientific protocols. If you want to call it
ACE-V, so be it, but understand that science requires more than our industry has
told us about ACE-V. Our analysis and conclusions should be reproducible,
verifiable, and open to all that want to scrutinize them.
Due to science requiring that both the analysis and the conclusion be open to
others, I think the only way to insure this is to document your analysis. This
can be done with a written statement, a chart enlargement, a power point
Because we are an applied science, financial constraints must be considered. It
isn’t feasible to do the above on all comparisons. Maybe it should be done on
all comparisons that you feel may be doubted by other qualified practitioners.
I think we should recognize the fact that our analysis could be wrong, but your
notes are open to anyone to go through them and show you where your thinking
Our industry guidelines call for “sufficient friction ridge detail in sequence”.
What is sufficient? I don’t feel that our parenting bodies have explained this
very well. I can’t do much better myself but maybe between everyone who reads
this board, it can be explained better. I use many methods to decide on
1) Much, much, much more training in the philosophy of science. 2QA was a good
start. Now lets take it further. Next week I will testify in a case where the
defense will bring in an expert counter the fp evidence with the weakness
observation. I wish this could be the opening session in a national academy for
fingerprint experts. As well as ongoing training at conferences and lectures.
2) Added steps to eliminate suggestion during the comparison process such as a
thorough and written analysis before the latent print is ever compared. In order
for this observation and analysis to be performed correctly the examiner must
first completely understand the relationship between clarity and tolerance. This
should be documented before the unknown impression is compared to the known.
3) We should stop trying to perpetuate the thinking that because friction skin
is unique THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO BE WRONG CONCERNING AN IMPRESSION OF
FRICTION SKIN. If you can demonstrate your knowledge of level I, II, and III
detail. If you can demonstrate you understand the clarity/tolerance continuum,
if you can demonstrate how you eliminated suggestion and bias from your decision
I think you can be 100% sure that you have matched the unknown print to the
source. But can you be wrong? It is possible. Is this your opinion? YES! Are you
all knowing? NO!
4) We should stop being afraid to talk about points. They are incomplete by
themselves and when relied on like a crutch that reliance does more damage than
good. But they are real and can be counted.
5) Try not to "count" level III details. Evaluate them with the small detail
axiom in mind. "Counting" level III details can lead to disaster because it is
an evaluative process not a counting process. It is the shape that matters more
than the quantity. A misguided analyst can lead himself or herself into disaster
by adding level III detail into the equation without understanding the concept
I also received an excellent response to my commentary on error rate last week
that I wanted to share. Rhonda Boston brings her thoughts on this topic as
this week's Detail (with permission, of course):
Forgoing all the talk of blind test and double blind test and etc, the real
issue at hand I believe is setting standards and protocol for those who work in
the field of Latent Print Examination. I have long thought that more than
studies need to be done.
This matter goes much deeper thank just training, experience, talent, and
motivation. It should also include ethics, how far will a person go under
Yes blind test and double blind testing could be a good thing. But they also
need to be instructing the latent print examiners about ethics and the fact that
in reality the latent print examiners are on trial, even though they aren't
really. The latent print examiner needs to realize that each and every time he
or she makes a call on an identification/individualization they put themselves
and their credentials on the line. Sometimes this means going out on a limb as
the agency they work for may not back them up with support or maybe they will.
They need to scrutinize all aspects of their field of work. They need to base
their opinions strictly on facts and not even listen to what the detectives or
others say about the cases they work.
Basically the latent print examiner needs only the latent prints and known
standards (fingerprints and palm prints) and equipment relevant to do their job
in latents, such as a magnifier, comparitor, AFIS, camera and items to develop
the latent prints. The latent print examiner needs to be aware of how serious
this line of work is. Fingerprints are a dynamic piece of evidence if found in
the right place. Yes we do need our identification/individualizations
verified/validated by others qualified in the field. This also should not be
I believe there should be more training required and done before a person is
even allowed to do casework or testify in court as an expert. If there are not
schools available then use the assets from the area, such as state crime labs,
others in the field who are qualified to train. The trainers need to be
qualified to train. That is why I feel much work needs to be done on the
standard setting and protocol end of this. I believe if we were doing
proficiency testing correctly it would include going through actual case work
previously done by an individual and be analyzed by someone from the field. Then
the questions could be raised about why this method was or was not used. It
would weed out strengths and weakness' of the individual and therefore help to
find out what schools or training were necessary for each examiner.
There are several problems I have seen within the Latent Print Examiners field.
I have seen how smaller agencies abuse their latent print examiners. I have
actually had pressures put on myself as coming in forms of the detective saying
"I made the arrest and now you have to make the prints match." Several other
scenarios have come and gone for me and many others similar to this and
sometimes worse than this. I have also tried to train some others in the field
and they want to tell detectives they are 80% sure they match and I say NO you
can't do that. I have even had detectives pace the floors as I do the
comparisons for them. I try to tell them I will call them when I am done, but
they are wanting to make an arrest and sometimes on
a high profile case they get kind of upset when you tell them the news that
there are no matches or the latents are of no value for comparisons. There are
so many problems out there in the field. Sometimes the road as a Latent Print
Examiner can be a lonely and an unthankful road.
Something else that is seldom brought to light are the people who are exonerated
due to fingerprints. They are bringing up all kinds of cases with DNA proving
innocence. But how about fingerprints? I have helped
several people prove their innocence through fingerprints.
Yes I would say that much research needs to be done, but I go back to standards
being set and protocols need to be established to help make our field a little
lighter. I believe we as a science will be scrutinized more
but I believe this will only strengthen our field and make us stronger as we
will have to be on our toes. Yes we need to be ready to give an account about
errors, error rates, Daubert hearings, etc. It means we need to stay current in
all areas of our field, study, study. We need to be prepared.
DISCLAIMER: The views discussed here are only the views of the writer and\do not
reflect the views of the agency for which the writer is employed.
To discuss this Detail, the
message board is always open: (http://www.clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)
More formal latent print discussions are available at
HOW TO SUCCEED AS A MANAGER
Management consultant Peter Stark suggests the following if you want to make it
to the top in management:
Develop positive vision. See success before it arrives. Example:
Successful managers – when visualizing themselves walking across a high wire –
see themselves walking to the other side. Managers who struggle usually have
their focus on not falling off the rope.
2. Think big. Look for ideas that will be contagious and excite
3. Encourage others to do their best. Successful managers believe
that people do want to make a significant contribution. Coach, cousel and
develop people to live up to their potential.
4. Set and maintain high expectations for all who work with you.
Mediocrity does not generate a highly motivated work force.
5. Overuse polite phrases. Unsuccessful managers don’t seem to
find the time to say “please” and “thank you.”
Adapted from "Becoming a Leader: Communication
Techniques That Motivate, Guide and Inspire Employees to Excel," via Communication Briefings,
October, 2003, 800.722.9221, briefings.com.
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Archives, Smileys, and Newz were updated on my local computer, but unfortunately
a technical problem is preventing internet logon from that machine. I
published the Detail through a different computer this week, but the web update
will be delayed for an undetermined time.
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other
examiners. This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent
print examiners. There are no copyrights on The Detail, and 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, send a blank
firstname.lastname@example.org) 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
email@example.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!