Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Fingerprinting: A Revolution in Cracking Crime
PETERBOROUGH EVENING TELEGRAPH, UK
- Sep 21, 2006
...latest digital technology will be brought in to
speed up the fingerprint process...
New Crime Lab Helps Track Suspects
OH - Sep 19, 2006 ...fingerprints from arrestees are now
entered into a local database to compare with prints left at crime
Victim Blasts Cops for Delay
INDEPENDENT ONLINE, SO AFRICA
- Sep 19, 2006
...victims had to wait for nearly 48 hours before detectives and
fingerprint experts arrived...
FT WORTH STAR
- Sep 17, 2006 ...fingerprints inked onto bad checks are
searched through an AFIS database...
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
US House of Rep may need urging to
fully fund Coverddell Act
steve ostrowski 257 Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:26 pm
Terry A. Smith 439 Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:07 pm
Scientific and Technical Imaging Association
Andrew Schriever 116 Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:02 am
Charles Parker 164 Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:43 pm
Jan Seaman Kelly 157 Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:02 pm
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
No major updates on the website this week
Frank Fitzpatrick gives us a look at the FQS-I Police Science Accreditation
we take a look at Part I of a two-part speech by Steve Scarborough on "Leaps
of Logic" and "False Dilemmas".
Infallible - Part I
by Steve Scarborough
(Addressing a large audience of latent print examiners)
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today we are going to discuss a number of
issues with regard to the uniqueness of Fingerprints1
and hopefully you will gain benefit from seeing another side to some of
today's most heated fingerprint-related issues, while pondering some
different and thoughtful perspectives. Many fingerprint experts see that
challenges are good for the discipline; that challenge help us think about
some issues that some would just prefer to let pass by. We are often too
busy with our daily casework of making comparisons, processing crime scenes
and catching criminals to ponder some of these often theoretical thoughts
There is the hypothetical and theoretical side of certain issues vs.
the practicality of our daily work, something we will discuss later in
today’s presentation. However, if there is value in some of these
challenges, we should be appalled at the more outrageous claims by the very
tiny handful of critics.
Right now though let’s look at this headline:
HEADLINE: Medicine in shambles. People refuse to go to Doctors for
Treatment! A study shows that doctors make mistakes in diagnosis.
I am going to show you a few more headlines throughout this presentation
to make a point.
TODAY we are going to discuss various ways to look at just 8 issues
about fingerprints, though I know there are more bouncing around out there.
We all know that there are a lot of ways to look at an issue and usually
none of the perspectives are wrong but some are not very logical. I won’t
say that any perspective is the only correct one, but I will provide some
logical or empirical data for certain points of view.
First, though, let’s get a perspective on the issue of uniqueness. The
science behind the uniqueness of fingerprints and specifically the random
creation of friction ridge skin is solid. The statement: Fingerprints are
(absolute and) infallible, you must remember, is in response to a challenge
that Fingerprints are not unique. And claims like- “we haven’t seen all the
fingerprints in the world or in history” or “there hasn’t been enough
research to show that they are unique.”
The “infallible” statement is not meant to address the issue that
fingerprint experts may make mistakes. That emphasis or new meaning to the
phrase came much later in an attempt to promote a separate agenda. In other
words the statement is solid in its original context and the emphasis was
changed by someone as a leap of logic.
So don’t forget now, the context of the strong response
statement “Fingerprints are infallible” is in reaction to the challenge
“that fingerprints are not unique (and therefore should not be used to
individualize to a person.)” This statement is in the context of the
challenge that fingerprints are Not unique therefore it is entirely
appropriate in this form. Perhaps a better word than infallible could have
been used, absolute, unique, reliable …but the context has nothing to do
with the human imperfection of making a mistake.
Look at the statement here: “Fingerprints are infallible.” Now here is
the leap: “So you can’t make a mistake then?” Stop laughing for a second and
you can see how the two concepts do not go together.
Here is another headline.
HEADLINE: Flaws in Radiology! X-Ray machines are not accurate. “X-Rays
should not be used,” says California university professor. Interpretations
of x-rays have shown mistakes.
We have seen a lot of bold headlines to various stories lately. Some of
which, if the story is read diligently, can be scrutinized to show that the
headline is not supported by the facts of the article. Of course that is
not at all that unusual in journalism. The object is to catch the eye of the
reader. I am sure you can remember some of those you have read.
Now why show you these headlines? To point out that leaps of logic are
occurring here. These headlines I am showing you are leaps of logic without
any substance. Much like the challenge statements that have been posed about
the validity and reliability of Fingerprints.
For instance here are some of the headlines we have seen about Fingerprints
The Myth of Fingerprint Science Revealed!
How Far Should Fingerprints Be Trusted?
Fingerprints are Not Infallible Evidence.
Are Fingerprints Really Infallible, Unique ID?
Unproven Forensic Techniques sway courts!
The Real Crime- 1,000 errors in fingerprint matching every year.
A leap of logic is when the conclusion does not follow the supporting
information. It is the opposite of the scientific method in
operation. It is my opinion that that is exactly what occurs in Simon
Cole’s book, Suspect Identities. Extensive evidence is presented in
the book to show that Fingerprints have been challenged in court, have been
extensively researched, are currently being researched and studied, are
reliable and are in fact unique. However, the author interjects his own
conclusions that are the opposite of the evidence presented; resulting in
confusing leaps of logic.
Now why would some people make these leaps of logic? Why would they
skew normal logic and ignore their own research? I will let the audience
come up for the reasons behind this intentional ambiguity.
Which brings us to Leap of Logic #1 “There is nothing absolute in
Let’s explore a response to this statement.
This is a great philosophical and theoretical expression that is well
suited for think tanks and academia, but not for the practical world. This
is one of my favorites. In fact, in the practical world, it falls into one
MYTHS OF SCIENCE:
“Nothing is absolute in science!”
Though this might be a good philosophical argument, in practicality it is a
Let’s look at some other science myths. No, there are really no alligators
in the sewers of New York and these are also science myths:
“Humans use only 10 percent of their brains.” An MRI of the brain shows
that most all of the brain is put to use. 2
“Water drains backwards in the Southern Hemisphere.” Just not
true. You can see for yourself on your next trip south.
“Lightning never strikes the same place twice.” Not true, lightning favors
certain spots, particularly high locations.
“There is no gravity in space.” “Zero-gravity” and space is a vacuum are
more science myths. Gravity affects everything throughout space.
Gravity is a very good example here because that is one of the major
factors to mention to counteract the statement of “nothing is absolute.”
Gravity is absolute! The recent NASA space probes used gravity for
propulsion in the deepest space. In fact the term “zero gravity” is a
misnomer. Gravity is absolute (infallible) and there are no two planets,
fingerprints, plants, tigers and snowflakes that are exactly alike.
If you think about it, this dogmatic approach is really anti-science.
To even consider the possibility, from what we know of the random creation
of all of these objects, that any one of these things could have another
randomly created object exactly the same flies in the face of scientific
knowledge. In other words, to disregard all of the evidence that points to
one conclusion and –just for the sake of the old myth- keep thinking of the
possibly of a random duplication in nature.
If you ask the right questions of most of the scientist in these fields
they will say that, in the practical world, no two snowflakes, no two trees,
no two asteroids are alike; and that is the absolute.
A sub category of Leap of Logic #1 is the statement “even math is not
The argument follows that because a triangle cannot be created that
is perfect, even math is not absolute. Another very theoretical statement,
however, this is really referring to the human formation and drawing of the
triangle –but the philosophical measurements are exact and absolute –so that
just proves the point if created by “nature” or in random manner it can’t be
exact –just like no two fingerprints are alike.
Another thought that relates to this idea that is sometimes professed
regarding Fingerprints is the following thought: “After all, every transfer
of a fingerprint is distorted and not complete, so it is always different
and difficult to categorize as a unique medium.” This statement actually
mixes physical structure with interpretation –human intervention (nature)
and therefore doesn’t change the fact that the original surface (skin)
cannot be recreated and is unique. Just because every impression is
different doesn’t mitigate the fact that the friction ridge skin is still
Hypothetical, philosophical and theoretical
Obviously there are a number of issues about Fingerprint Science
that can be discussed on a philosophical and theoretical level. This
approach is absolutely appropriate for think tanks, academia and the
published treatise. However, what the working fingerprint expert knows is
that just doesn’t cut it in the real world. We have to be able to
acknowledge that side of the issue; and then separate it from our practical
Next let’s look at:
LEAP OF LOGIC #2 “The FBI says that they don’t make mistakes” –
You might have heard this statement during a discussion about the
infallibility of fingerprints. We already know it is a leap of logic to mix
uniqueness of fingerprints with human mistakes but let’s look at this
statement anyway: “The FBI has always said and promoted that they do not
make mistakes.” Well this is patently untrue from most of our experience.
And certainly not anything that is the official line of the FBI. I would
guess that this leap derives from -interviewing some experts and lurking on
the websites- hearing that the FBI has always presented an air of
superiority. And also from a misinterpretation of very confident FBI court
presentations regarding fingerprint IDs. But that does not translate into
“the FBI has always said that they are infallible.”
In all the training classes and presentations and testimony, the FBI
has never once said that there are no mistakes made by fingerprint experts.
In fact the FBI, in warnings about effective verification, mentions mistakes
that they are run across in submitted cases from local agencies. The FBI has
always promoted verification, consultation and double checks to assure that
no mistakes in fingerprint identifications are made. The FBI has always
based their high confidence of their fingerprint IDs on the infallibility of
The FBI instructors stress verification and other quality control
measures. They promote and teach verification to prevent mistakes. If
people didn’t make mistakes with regard to Fingerprints (people are
infallible) then we wouldn’t need verification. But we all know that human
beings make mistakes, and it goes without saying that humans are not
infallible. The assumption that when the FBI fingerprint expert says that
they are 100% certain about the ID, that they are implying that they don’t
make mistakes, is a grand leap of logic.
HEADLINE: Miscalculation made in Hubble Telescope. Entire sciences of
astronomy & engineering called into question!
If you look back at these headlines, not only are they leaps of logic,
but some are also a false dichotomy or false dilemmas. While
the statement, “he said that Fingerprints are infallible therefore he says
he can’t make a mistake” is a laughable leap of logic, it is also a gross
false dichotomy. A false dichotomy or false dilemma is a logical fallacy
that supplies only one answer to a situation. Often used in propaganda,
these statements try to lead you into a conclusion that is serves a purpose,
implying there is only one conclusion, when there are always many
conclusions to any situation.
“You are either with us, or you are against us”. “If you vote for that
protection law -they will just raise prices (rates).” "You're either part of
the solution or part of the problem." You may see how some of these leaps
of logic do not account for other alternatives and are false dilemmas.
Leap of Logic #3, “After all that is what we have been saying for all this
Another thought being suggested is the idea that the fingerprint
community has been saying all along that fingerprint experts don’t make
mistakes. Well, in reality, what we have been saying is that this ID was
achieved through extensive evaluation, it has been verified and we are 100
percent confident in the conclusion. That doesn’t sound anything like the
discipline has always said that they don’t make mistakes now does it?
By stating, as we have over the last 100 years, that we are confident
of an ID, it means just that, and it is obviously a leap of logic to twist
that assertion to mean that we have always been saying that experts don’t
HEADLINE: Two Snowflakes Found to be Alike!
This is actually part of a real article. It can be found on the
Australian “great moments in science” website. There is an article
entitled “Fingerprints Identical?” The article, written by Dr. Karl
Knuszelnicki, is skeptical about the validity of Fingerprints. However, it
reeks of leaps of logic. For instance, it states there were 22 mistakes of
fingerprint identifications in the last 100 years, therefore that reverses
the validity of Fingerprint Science. And the article arrives at the bizarre
conclusion that because the IAI requires that conclusions must not
have possible or likely results, therefore “they never admit
to an error.” 3
Within the article it mentions that “a scientist by the
name of Nancy Kerry found two identical snowflakes in a Wisconsin snowstorm
in 1988.” The implication is that snowflakes can be alike and so can
fingerprints. However, the real story is that a scientist by the name of
Nancy Knight observed two attached ice crystals that were “very
similar if not identical.” (her words) 4 What
seems to have happened is that it is unusual to have ice crystals even
closely resemble each other, and that was an event in the world of
atmospheric research. In actuality, when comparing the crystals with an eye
for uniqueness, like a comparison expert does, the crystals are not at all
Look at these photos of the crystals.6
They are similar but not exactly alike. You can see that this similar rarity
of ice crystals actually reinforces the axiom that no two snowflakes are
alike and pretty much shoots a hole in this “great moment in science.” Once
you delve into the article you find that the headline isn’t true.
Leap of Logic #4, Well that is what we have been taught
Another thought or argument is that we have all been taught or
trained that fingerprint experts cannot make a mistake. This seems to me to
be another logic twist to information gleaned in interviews or internet
lurking. In fact, just the opposite it true.
Look at this statement: “Finally, we hope that fingerprint examiners
will rethink their longstanding claim that competent examiners cannot make
errors. Always wrong, this claim is now absurd. Like emperors caught without
clothes, fingerprint examiners must now decide whether to acknowledge
reality or continue their brazen pretense.” 7
That statement is a huge leap of logic with plenty of
skewed thinking. As fingerprint experts, we have been taught that the
science of Fingerprints is exact, the methodology and biology supports that
fact, but as a practitioner, a fingerprint comparison does have pitfalls and
you have to prevent them the best you can.
Many of us were not taught in just that language or rhetoric. However,
just like Ridgeology, we may not have been using the language, but it was a
process we have been following from day one. As fingerprint experts we have
been taught that we must work to avoid mistakes. We have always talked
about mistakes and have never, ever, had conversations that there are no
mistakes in fingerprints. Almost every expert was taught in classes and by
their trainers to prepare for questions about mistakes in court.
Remember that moot court question you are always asked? “Have you ever made
a mistake?” Does that sound like we have always been taught that
fingerprint experts don’t make mistakes? Of course not!
In training, and in our in moot courts, we were questioned about the
importance of verification and what would happen if you made a mistake.
Remember the old adage “If you make a bum ID that will pretty much end your
career.” Despite the hyperbole, it is obvious that statement means, not
that there are never mistakes, but that an expert must take all the
precautions to prevent them.
Additionally as part of our training we have been taught about
confirmation bias and pressure from DAs and detectives. We were taught not
to let that outside pressure effect your examination and to keep a clear
head on those high profile/pressure comparisons.
We would never have been taught about these issues if at the same time we
were being taught that it there were no mistakes in Fingerprints.
In training, our instructors show us the mistakes we made, so that we can
try not to make them in actual casework. The message has been: be very
careful and have a through verification of all your IDs. So obviously
statement #4 is a tremendous leap of logic.
Why don't we take a little break at this point in time... let's try to be
back in our seats in... say about 7 days from now. (*smile)
[we will continue next week with Part II - #5 through #8.]
The Detail, issue #174, Dec. 13, 2004, They Keep Putting
Fingerprints in Print, S. Scarborough
2 Live Science,
great moments in science,
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1579301 , as reported by Dr.
Karl Knuszelnicki; unsure of the original source of the other
Original article in the Toronto Star, Dec. 17, 2005 by Jay Ingram,
www.thestar.com and the Wilson Bentley Newsletter Archives,
5 Earth & Sky,
6 Photos of ice
Column: Forensics: Lessons from the
Brandon Mayfield Case, William C.
Thompson; Simon A. Cole, Champion, April, 2005
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 (except in
unique cases such as this week's article), and the website is open for all
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
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!