Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Fingerprint Dispute Dooms Border Site –
WASHINGTON POST, DC - May 24, 2007
...government wants to be able to take suspects' fingerprints and
compare them with terrorist and criminal databases...
Finding Fingerprints –
JEWISH WEEK, NY
2007 ...technique is supplemented by adding
hydrocarbon chains to the gold nano-particles and suspending them in
Police Fingerprint Test 'unfair'
NEW ZEALAND HERALD
- May 22, 2007
...a test using handheld computers to fingerprint drivers of stopped
cars has been criticized...
'CSI Effect' Put Under the Scope
2007 ...watching popular crime shows on television today is
not influencing jurors in ways that people in legal circles expect...
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
Statistics and Misidentifications - The
Michele Triplett 4199 Sun May 27, 2007 9:16 pm
McKie's facing court appearance?
Daktari 4583 Fri May 25, 2007 11:24 pm
mdavis 304 Fri May 25, 2007 12:44 pm
Not so good news out of Florida
Jessica Janisch 3226 Fri May 25, 2007 12:22 pm
Ann Horsman 327 Wed May 23, 2007 11:53 pm
Biometrics at the airport
sharon cook 249 Wed May 23, 2007 2:59 pm
Boston Globe on the BPD Print Unit
L.J.Steele 817 Wed May 23, 2007 1:06 pm
latent prints in blood
Julie 154 Tue May 22, 2007 6:00 pm
IAI Latent Print Certification Test
Pat A. Wertheim 574 Tue May 22, 2007 2:53 am
Motorola AFIS Users?
Ann Horsman 482 Mon May 21, 2007 4:46 pm
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
No major updates on the site this week.
But I have to include a quote from the CSI effect news article:
"The jurors acquitted because no one dusted the lawn for
Well, folks... get outside and git 'er done!
We reviewed a recent article
published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences related to latent print
Lenny Butt brings us
information about the recent National Academy of Sciences meeting regarding
forensic science needs.
Edited Address to the SWGFAST
Members Regarding the Recent NAS Meeting
by Lenny Butt, Chair: SWGFAST
Hope that everyone is getting geared up for Summer!
Talking about rising temperatures, the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community met on
April 23rd and 24th. This was the second of five scheduled meetings. The NAS
committee has been tasked with an overwhelming responsibility to be
completed in a minimal amount of time. The entire forensic community is
depending on their ability to successfully identify all of the issues that
should be considered, assemble and review all of the associated data
relating to those issues, and finally access what actions, if any, should be
recommended to address the issues. They have to be feeling the heat.
At the invitation of the committee, SWGFAST members Ed German and Steve
Meagher both made presentations during the meeting. Introductory comments by
Co-chair, Judge Harry T. Edwards, emphasized that this was an information
gathering session only, and that no one should assume that any decisions
have already been made.
Although Ed had to present immediately after lunch he did a great job of
responding to the issues that he had been asked to address while keeping
everyone interested and attentive. There were no surprises with how well
Steve's presentation went. There was a momentary gasp as he tried to respond
to an invited commentator’s earlier remarks which, unfortunately, he did not
have the opportunity to complete. Many thanks to both of these individuals
for representing the fingerprint discipline in such an exemplary manner.
During the proceedings the invitee would give their presentation and the
committee would follow-up with questions. In listening to the questions, I
found myself becoming increasingly concerned that the scope of what could be
accomplished by this study has the potential of being limited. This was, in
part, due to the level of attention that the committee had to give to
current criticisms. I hope that I am wrong in this assessment. There were no
surprises in the terms that were repeated throughout the meeting: blind
verification, contextual bias, error rate, and probability models. All,
deserving of consideration, but certainly not representative of the complete
forensic science picture as it currently exist.
Many presentations were scheduled for the 1.5 days that were open to
interested parties. The ambitious schedule left minimal opportunity for
additional comments or questions. Surprisingly, during Steve's presentation
he was asked if SWGFAST would be able to consider some additional questions
and report back to the committee. While presentations were made regarding
forensic examinations involving: arson, DNA, drugs, firearms, odentology,
and trace evidence/hair none of the other participants had the same
invitation extended to them. It should be noted that several critics were
also asked to present commentaries at the meeting and they too were not
asked to consider follow-up questions.
Yes, the fact that SWGFAST alone has such an offer may be considered as
being a "bad" thing. Personally I believe that, considering the manner in
which it was presented and the scope of what they are asking, this is a
positive sign. This provides the fingerprint community with an opportunity
to highlight points which may otherwise be lost simply due to the limited
opportunity for direct communication to the committee, the amount of
information that they have to consider, and the distractions presented by
the present criticisms.
There are six questions that SWGAFST has been presented with. So that the
NAS committee can have it in time to review prior to their final scheduled
open meeting, responses will have to be completed in the July/August time
frame. Unfortunately, that meeting will be taking place during the same week
that SWGFAST is currently scheduled to meet, so SWGFAST members will be
faced with additional homework over the next month. Of course, members are
all acutely aware that this study has the very real potential of impacting
many aspects of what we do, and for the good of the entire discipline it
deserves as much attention as we can possibly give it.
Thank you in advance for your continued commitment.
FYI: The NAS committee will be holding meetings open to the public on
June 5th and 6th and September 20th and 21st in Washington, D.C.
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!