Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Fingerprints Confirm Bogus Britain is Missing Florida Man
- May 9, 2006
...bogus identity as an English nobleman is actually a
Approval of Funds to Update Fingerprint Data
MIDLAND REPORTER-TELEGRAM, TX
- May 9, 2006
...city to hire a part-time worker and equipment to
scan a backlog of fingerprint records...
Morphing of Digital Fingerprint Tests Startles Contractors
TECHNOLOGY, US - May 9, 2006 ...test
of the interoperability of vendors’ fingerprint minutiae templates...
Fingerprinting Failure Leaves Gaps in Screening System
MASON CITY GLOBE GAZETTE, IA - May 8, 2006 ...the failure
to fingerprint hundreds of arrestees over the past two years could
create a gap in the criminal-record system...
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
II2None59 Sun May 14, 2006 6:05 am
Daubert Seminar in Las Vegas
Alice Maceo Fri May 12, 2006 8:35 pm
Parliamentary Inquiry in McKie case
sharon cook Thu May 11, 2006 9:51 pm
opop Thu May 11, 2006 11:40 am
Charles Parker Wed May 10, 2006 10:46 am
The Science of Sherlock Holmes
Ernie Hamm Tue May 09, 2006 2:13 pm
Multiple User Names
Steve Everist Tue May 09, 2006 12:57 pm
Processing Fired Cartridge Casings
gherrera Tue May 09, 2006 12:08 pm
[ Poll ] McKie / Peter Swan
Curious Mon May 08, 2006 8:02 pm
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
From a CLPEX.com Posting by Alice Maceo:
The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
is hosting another Daubert Seminar in Las Vegas this November. Please
see the information below and visit their website for
registration information and forms.
The Paradigm Shift in Forensic Sciences
November 9-10, 2006
Las Vegas, Nevada
Daubert is still here and continues to play a pivotal role in the world of
expert opinion testimony. Various forensic sciences, such as Documents,
Fingerprints, and Firearms/Toolmarks have not been immune to these
During a Daubert hearing, the trial judge serves as a “gatekeeper” and must
determine whether the expected trial testimony has a reliable basis in the
knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. In assessing the
reliability of an expert’s testimony, the court may consider the following:
Whether the technique or methodology has been or can be tested
*Whether the technique or methodology has been subjected to peer review
Known or potential error rates
Existence of standards controlling the technique’s operation
Extent to which the methodology or technique employed by the expert is
generally accepted in the scientific community
The factors as laid out by the Daubert Court, although not intended to be a
checklist, are routinely being utilized as such by the “gatekeeper”. The
expert and the attorney must be prepared to present and discuss each factor.
Failure to adequately address each of these may result in the exclusion of
the expert’s testimony, or in the alternative, limiting the testimony of the
expert at trial.
Recent court decisions have commented on the expert’s participation, or lack
thereof, in proficiency testing. Experts from several fields, including the
cognitive sciences, attorneys, experts in Documents, Latent Prints, and
Firearms, and, Judge Domitrovich will discuss the court’s current focus on
proficiency testing and error rates; and how these two issues can impact the
forensic expert’s testimony.
The paradigm of the forensic sciences is the focus of this seminar. Ongoing
cognitive science research, the courts interpretation of Daubert, and the
steps each discipline has taken to address each of the Daubert factors will
Judge Stephanie Domitrovich (Erie County, PA)
Dr. Itiel Dror (England)
Dr. Thomas Busey (Indiana)
Dr. Bryan Found (Australia)
Mr. David R. Ausbaugh (Canada)
Ms. Lisa Steele, Esquire (Massachussetts)
Mr. Ronald Nichols (ATF, California)
Mr. Derek Hammond (Georgia)
Ms. Alice Maceo (Nevada)
Ms. Jan Seaman Kelly
The exclusive list of speakers will discuss numerous issues pertaining to
forensic science and Daubert, to include the following:
Judicial Expectations in Daubert Hearings
What Do the Courts Want?: Individual Error Rates and Peer Review
How the Cognitive and Visual Sciences Might Help (and Hurt) in a Daubert
Friction Ridge Identification Science: Theory, Technique including Error
Rates, Operational Standards: How to Meet the Daubert Standards
The Appellate Process
Firearms: How It Meets Daubert
Error Rates in the Medical Community
Steve Everist brought
s the second article in a series on
Adobe Photoshop for latent print examinations.
Joe Polski, COO of the IAI, brings us an
update on Next Generation Identification System and AFIS interoperability
through the 2006 Monthly Update:
FBI's Next Generation
The FBI has announced a name change for the new IAFIS system from Next
Generation IAFIS to Next Generation Identification System. The NGI initials
will remain the same but the new wording is meant to reflect the multi-modal
aspects of NGI. There will be capabilities in the system for retinal scans,
facial recognition, photos and palmprints so the connotation of NGI being
strictly a fingerprint identification system is being changed to reflect
these new dimensions. To be sure the mainstay of the system will remain
fingerprint identification but these new identification biometrics are here
to stay and will be incorporated into NGI.
At the recent IS Sub-committee meeting in San Antonio, a good deal of
discussion ensued respecting how requests for fingerprint based inquires
into IAFIS and CCH from non-criminal justice agencies within DHS should be
handled. Immigrant checking, VISA processing centers and other branches
within DHS are all critical aspects of Homeland Security yet fall outside
the traditional framework of criminal justice. No final solution was arrived
at but safe to say, this is an issue that is only going to become larger in
the years to come and policies will need to be developed to deal with these
genuine needs although they fall outside typical dissemination policies for
CCH and IAFIS.
At that meeting, the FBI distributed a CD listing approximately 1,000
requested enhancements and changes to be incorporated into NGI as identified
through the requirements analysis conducted by Intellidyne for the CJIS
Division. I’m happy to report that it appears most of the changes requested
by the IAI’s Latent Fingerprint Sub-Committee chaired by Laura Tierney have
been included in the specifications. There were several issues respecting
interoperability that were not given as high a priority as the we would
desire so those will be discussed with the FBI to determine if the priority
can be raised. Many long-standing latent search issues are addressed
including an increased capacity for latent searches and a much-increased
penetration of the database for those searches.
Yesterday I spoke with Scott Swann and Gary Barron from the FBI’s NGI
Project regarding several requirements raised by the IAI. It is apparent
there is a disconnected view between the FBI’s CJIS Division and the latent
print community with respect to AFIS interoperability. The FBI’s position is
that the Universal Latent Workstation (ULW) contains a complete
interoperability solution for the latent fingerprint community and can act
as an input and search terminal into any AFIS system of any manufacture. In
many discussions with latent fingerprint examiners, that view is not shared.
In response to this discussion, the FBI has agreed to prepare an AFIS
interoperability paper to be run through the APB advisory group process.
This is a very good compliment to the efforts being undertaken at NIJ (see
below) to address this same issue. The two will come together at some future
point in time.
As any of you who work with AFIS are keenly aware, interoperability of AFIS
from different manufacturers has been a longstanding problem. Neighboring
jurisdictions are often not able to check fingerprint records of each other
if their AFIS are of different brands. This has been a problem since the
first AFIS were introduced in the 1970’s and continues to be a problem
today. Incidents such as the Malvo sniper case on the East Coast a couple of
years ago highlight the consequences this lack of interoperability.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has become involved in this project
and Assistant Director John Morgan has begun a series of meetings to
identify the issues and lay out a roadmap leading to interoperability.
Obviously this will involve the user community, the vendors, the FBI and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at a minimum. NIJ
invited IAI Board Member Mike Campbell to Washington on May 1 to do an
educational session about fingerprints and AFIS to NIJ staff. Mike brought
with him a portable AFIS on which he demonstrated how AFIS works and some of
the issues involved in interoperability. IAI President Joe Maberry, the IACP,
the CFSO and the broader fingerprint community have all voiced their support
for interoperability or said another way, “enter once, search many”.
Some agency needs to take the lead on solving this longstanding problem and
from a public policy standpoint NIJ is in a position to take that leading
role. Future plans call for a follow-up meeting at NIJ with the FBI, Peter
Komarinski (Chair of the IAI’s AFIS Committee), representatives from NIST
and several others. The matter is at the “problem identification” stage and
will, hopefully, lead to a roadmap to solve the problem. This is a very,
very important issue to IAI members and the forensics community in general
and I’ll keep you updated with developments as they occur.
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, enter your
name and e-mail address on the following page:
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
firstname.lastname@example.org and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!