Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Fingerprint System Nails 10,700 Crossers with Records –
TUCSON CITIZEN, AZ - Aug. 20, 2004
...AFIS has helped Border Patrol
agents apprehend illegal immigrants with criminal or immigration
Fingerprinting System Puts Prints in State Database –
BAY CITY TIMES, MI - Aug. 19, 2004
...an updated fingerprinting system
soon will help county sheriff's deputies better identify
Police Test Handheld Fingerprint Reader –
Aug. 18, 2004 ...handheld
device scans a suspect's fingerprint and checks it against
Minnesota's fingerprint database...
Palm Print of Sex Offender Doesn't Match –
MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, MN - Aug. 17,
2004 ...a palm print
of a convict questioned in the disappearance of a missing TV
anchorwoman doesn't match those found at the scene...
Dennis Degler prompted a discussion on the CLPEX message forum regarding John
the IAI is in full swing in St. Louis, MO. and an excellent program is ahead of
those in attendance.
This week, we review an article on:
Process errors leading to
potential for error is the first step in eliminating it. The possible causes of
missed-ID's has been studied. A comprehensive list of mistakes should be
compiled that includes oversights, errors, omissions etc that could lead to a
suspect not being identified in a case where a detectable latent print capable
of individualization was present.
Below is a list of all the ones I could think of, grouped by which stage of the
process at which they occur.
I'd like people to comment on whether they think the errors are caused by lack
of proficiency on the part of the operator, by unsound judgment by the
decision-maker or are unavoidable in some or all circumstances. Also, can you
think of any errors I have missed?
The scene is not
examined by a CSI
A surface that bears a
detectable latent print is not examined
The surface is not examined
using the appropriate method for development of the latent
The latent is not optimally
The developed latent is not
noticed by the CSI
The developed latent print
is not recognized as a friction ridge print
The developed latent print
is not recorded or recovered
The latent is incorrectly
assessed as containing insufficient detail for individualization
Features of the latent are
incorrectly classified as friction ridge features or as distortion artifacts
The latent is orientated
determination and search allowances do not include the correct location for the
friction ridge skin
The corresponding exemplar
is not compared with the latent
The selected target(s) from
the latent is (are) not present in the exemplar
The target group is not
recognized when seen in the exemplar
Incomplete comparison of all
the features available
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
The Detail was sent out this week during
discussions regarding all sorts of interesting fingerprint-related topics by 5
crazy examiners part 2.
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Detail
Updated the Newzroom
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!