Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Fingerprints & Drones Help Catch Criminals
electronic tools are being credited with helping Border Patrol
agents catch more illegal immigrants. Officials...
trips up life: TV crime scene shows influence jurors
Baltimore Sun, MD - July 25, 2004
attributed several recent surprising acquittals to what they call
the CSI effect...Jurors
increasingly expect to encounter in the courtroom what they've seen
Deadline Biometric Passport –
Bru Direct, Brunei Darussalam
- July 25, 2004
Brunei, along with 26 other visa waiver nations, are unlikely to
meet the October 26, 2004 deadline to introduce biometrics data on
fingerprint and iris ...
US to begin fingerprinting for visas from July 26 –
THE HINDU, INDIA - Jul
22, 2004 ...United States policy
to enhance its border security post-September 11, the US consulate
in Mumbai will begin collecting two electronic fingerprints
we looked at the Scientific Principles of Friction Ridge Analysis, by Tom
Ferriola and we started the "Close Calls" page. If you haven't checked them
out yet, pay a visit and send your CloseCalls to
Also, one correction on the dates for the upcoming Ridgeology Science Workshop
in Florida... the course is being held in West Palm Beach, January 31 - February
4, not the dates posted last week.
we look at a couple of things. Firstly, there has been a lot of posting
about a possible IAI resolution that addresses in some way the circumstances
surrounding the McKie situation.
Several people have mentioned privately that the IAI Board of Directors will
probably never pass a resolution that comments on or gives direction in an
individual case. However, the IAI can comment on the position of the
organization with respect to certain scenarios that may or may not be acceptable
in our discipline. Therefore, several people (myself included) have
contributed to the following draft that outlines this concept in
non-case-specific terms. Some may feel this is not enough, but surely
others will feel that even this is pushing the limits; therefore, I feel this
may be the best compromise that has a good chance at actually getting passed as
an IAI position statement or resolution in St. Louis, and possibly looked at by
our friends across the pond at the Fingerprint Society.
Before I propose wording for consideration, ask yourself the following questions:
1) Can one latent print originate from two sources?
2) Can one latent print originate from a source and at the same time not originate from
the same area of that same
3) Do you feel that individualization and exclusion are both absolute
conclusions? (as opposed to inconclusive determinations)
4) Do you feel it is acceptable for one examiner to feel confident and therefore
"call" a match (individualization) while another expert does not feel comfortable and therefore does
not "call" the match (inconclusive)?
5) Do you feel it is acceptable for one examiner to feel confident that two
prints were not made by the same source (exclusion) while another expert doesn't feel sure
enough to exclude (inconclusive)?
6) Do you feel that it is acceptable for two examiners to hold conflicting
(opposite) conclusions (individualization versus exclusion)?
7) Do you feel an examiner who has made an erroneous identification should
continue to work cases until a determination has been made regarding why the
8) Do you feel that a claimed "erroneous" identification should be looked at by
more than 1 other person (i.e.. a "panel")?
9) What should happen to an examiner who maintains an incorrect conclusion (as
determined by a panel)?
10) What should happen with the print or identification in a case where an
examiner maintains an opposing conclusion?
Let's discuss the following wording of a possible resolution on the message
board, or you may send your comments to me privately. This is by no means a final draft... this is just food for thought
as we forge ahead toward the conference. I would like to get a proposed
resolution in the hands of the resolutions committee before the conference, and
it would help if latent print examiners and also the Latent Print
Subcommittee had worked out the wording ahead of time. Also, I am sure
there are Board members who could offer insight on the discussion board before
anything is proposed. I am sure the Board would rather the details be
worked out before it officially got to them anyway!
It is my intention to present wording (with any modification by CLPEX members
from the message board or private e-mails) to the Latent Print
Subcommittee for their approval before it is submitted to the Resolutions
Committee... and I would like all of that to happen within the next two weeks,
if possible... so please comment this week if you have feedback on the
Whereas the ______ of the
International Association for Identification, in conference in St. Louis this
____ day of August, 2004, has considered the issue of conflicting opinions in
fingerprint examinations, and
Whereas it is not scientifically possible for one latent print impression to
originate from two or more different sources, and
Whereas it is not scientifically possible for one source to have both been the
origin and not been the origin of a single latent print impression, and
Whereas individualization (identification) is the determination that two
impressions were made by the same source, and
Whereas exclusion is the determination that two impressions were not made by the
same source, and
Whereas individualization and exclusion are both absolute conclusions, not
inconclusive determinations, and
Whereas it is possible to have differing conclusions regarding the sufficiency
or insufficiency of similarity for individualization (individualization versus
Whereas it is possible to have differing conclusions regarding the sufficiency
or insufficiency of dissimilarity for exclusion (exclusion versus inconclusive),
Therefore be it resolved that while sufficiency may be a matter of opinion,
fingerprint individualization or exclusion is a matter of scientific conclusion
and two conflicting conclusions in friction ridge examination are not
Be it further
resolved that any examiner found to have made an erroneous individualization or
an erroneous exclusion should be immediately removed from further examinations,
a panel of qualified examiners should be immediately convened to resolve the
issues, determine why the conflict arose, and make recommendations for change to
avoid recurring errors, and
Be it further resolved that in any situation in which two qualified examiners
maintain conflicting conclusions,
they should both be immediately
removed from further examinations, an external panel of independent qualified
examiners should be immediately convened to determine the correct conclusion,
Be it further resolved that in any situation in which two examiners maintaining
conflicting conclusions were both removed from further examinations and an
external panel of independent qualified examiners has determined that the
conclusion of one of the examiners was correct, that examiner should be
immediately allowed to conduct further examinations, and
Be it further resolved that in any situation in which an examiner has been found
to have maintained an erroneous
conclusion by an external panel of independent qualified examiners, they should
remain removed from further examinations until a determination can be made to
the cause of the error, corrective action taken to avoid the possibility of
recurring errors, and an admission has been made by the examiner that they made
an erroneous individualization or an erroneous exclusion, and
Be it further resolved that in any situation in which an examiner continues to
maintain an erroneous conclusion after corrective action has been taken, that
they should remain removed from further examinations.
To send thoughts privately, e-mail me at
If you post on the CLPEX message board, please try to follow "threads" and keep similar thoughts together.
Also, before you start typing consider what you are going to say and type a
short, specific, basic, and focused subject line entry about your response:
A few things about subject lines (to keep post events
semi-organized and searchable):
1) keep them short. With many replies, long subject lines may wrap 2-3
times and take up valuable screen space
2) make them specific. Interested parties should not have to click on
your thread to know generally what it is about
3) distill to the basics. It should be specific and detailed, yet
distilled to it's most basic form
4) stay focused on the concept. A reply should answer a question or build
on a previous comment. For new concepts, start a new "reply" to the "LIVE"
parent thread or appropriate sub-thread and label the subject line accordingly.
Message Board tip: if you are reading a thread and want to go back to the main
message board thread page, click the "BBS Index" button at the bottom left
corner of the screen.
Enjoy the CLPEX message board!
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
FUNNY FINGERPRINT FIND
You carry forever the fingerprint that comes from being under
thumb. --Nancy Banks-Smith
July 1, 2004
Help staffers break out of a slump
You've noticed that your staff seems less enthusiastic and productive lately.
There may be several reasons for the lackluster performance, so try a variety of
approaches to break your staff our of the doldrums.
1) Eliminate boredom. If your employees meet goals -
but show little initiative to take on new duties - they may be bored.
Strategy: Raise the ante. Set a goal that's difficult - but not
impossible - to attain.
2) Quell conflict. A group that's mired in conflict
won't progress. Usually, only a few staffers are responsible for most of
the dissension. Strategy: Urge employees involved in the conflict
to acknowledge the problem. Then hold the entire staff responsible for
ending the conflict. Whenever employees see their adversarial co-workers
in a dispute, they should note the incident and bring it up at the next staff
3) Challenge perceptions. If your department has been
a top-performing unit for a while, employees may see no reason to push
themselves. Strategy: Challenge your team to top their own record
or beat the records of others outside your department or company.
-From the Editors of Communication Briefings,
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Detail Archives
Updated the Newzroom
Updated the SmileyFiles
Updated the CloseCalls page
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!