Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
New Fingerprint Agency 'shambolic'
- Feb 10, 2008
- ...reform of police forensic services in the wake of the McKie
fingerprint scandal has been branded a "shambolic" failure by staff...
Forensic Scientists Need to Evolve New Technologies to Counter Crimes
CHANDIGARTH NEWSLINE, INDIA
- Feb 8, 2008
three-day international symposium on ĎAdvances in Fingerprint
Identificationí was organized by the Punjabi Universityís Department
of Forensic Science...
"Innocence-Politics" Weighs Heavy on Senate Hearing - and the Law Ė
CRIME LAB REPORT - Feb 7, 2008
...the impact of "Innocence Politics" on
the Senate Judiciary Committee and its examination of NIJ's
administration of forensic grants...
THE PHOENIX, MA
- Feb 7, 2008 -
...the police investigation of Stephan Cowans led to a wrongful
conviction. Was it incompetent ó or corrupt?...
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist
Announcement: Click link any time for
recent, relevant fingerprint NEWS
clpexco 1202 16 Dec 2007 03:36 pm
Calls for Inquiry to be scrapped
Daktari 11870 10 Feb 2008 08:26 pm
KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony
clpexco 271 10 Feb 2008 07:20 pm
Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
Pat A. Wertheim 11272 10 Feb 2008 11:04 am
Charles Parker 89 09 Feb 2008 08:05 pm
looking for good web sites
danielle 48 09 Feb 2008 08:06 am
More on Stephen Cowans
L.J.Steele 218 08 Feb 2008 07:34 pm
Confirming AFIS hits, ASCLD considerations
Alicia Wilcox 252 08 Feb 2008 02:49 am
Zero Error Rate vs. No Error Rate
Michele 1924 06 Feb 2008 06:16 pm
Body fluids on black bags
Philip Bekker 632 06 Feb 2008 03:00 pm
Anyone still using "paper prints"?
antonroland 398 05 Feb 2008 11:41 pm
Need help with an etched print on a gun magazine
Heather Baxter 257 05 Feb 2008 04:26 pm
LPE and Forensic Tech Positions - CONUS/OCONUS
wkpetroka 6437 04 Feb 2008 07:06 pm
Statistics and Misidentifications - The weeks Detail
Michele 38869 04 Feb 2008 03:05 pm
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group web page with FIG #
Inserted KEPT #6 - Terminology -
Identify, Individualize, or ID? Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has
been created for KEPT.
we looked at the first 2008 edition of the DoD
Michele Triplett brings us
an independent user-review of the
Services Limited (CAS Ltd.) latent print examination proficiency test.
CAS Ltd. Review
by Michele Triplett
Itís always important for Latent Print Examiners to show theyíre proficient
and competent at their job. Some people use their years of experience, some
people tout the accreditation of their lab, some people become certified by
the IAI, and others take yearly proficiency tests. In the past,
Collaborative Testing Services (CTS) has been the only company to provide
testing services to the latent print community. If a person or agency wanted
a different type of test (or a different level of testing), the only option
was to make up their own.
Recently a new company, Competency Assessment Services Limited (CAS Ltd.),
has started providing latent print testing services. This company is based
out of England but has several representatives within the United States. I
have no affiliation with this company. My interests are in knowing the
benefits and shortcomings of whatís available to our discipline.
Since 2001, Iíve participated in CTS proficiency testing but Iíve always
wanted more out of a proficiency test. At one time I emailed CTS asking them
if they ever planned on expanding their test to include any of the
following: testing examiners for their ability to make exclusions rather
than just individualizations; asking examiners for justification to support
conclusions; and asking examiners to state the proper scientific principles
behind arriving at a conclusion. Months went by but I never heard back from
CTS. Some latent print examiners feel that CTS does test the ability to
exclude different suspects but the term they use, NI (Not Identified), is
confusing. While some people take this to mean exclusion, others think ĎNot
Identifiedí indicates they couldnít find the exemplar that left this latent
print. And then there are others who use NI to indicate that consistency
exists but not sufficiency. Regardless of the intent, this is an area that
could be clarified and tested.
Back in 2006, I was very excited to see that Quality Forensics was
advertising that they would have a new test available in early 2007. I donít
know the details as to why, but this project never resulted in offering a
new proficiency test to LPEís.
Later in 2006 I heard about CAS Ltd. I immediately contacted them to see how
their test was going to differ from what was currently available. I was
pleased to get a response from them right way. They told me that their test
would test individuals, have quality materials, would be made with ground
truth conclusions, would be proctored independently, and would be timed.
They were hoping to have their testing academically accredited as well as
sanctioned by ASCLD/LAB. The current CTS test can be taken by an individual
or taken as a group by an entire lab. Since each test is proctored by the
agency taking the test, it may not represent the proficiency of individual
I decided that taking the CAS Ltd. test would tell me what I needed to know.
In early January, CAS Ltd. coordinated the details with Lloyd Thomas from
the Seattle Police Department (a neighboring agency to mine). They mailed
him the test and he generously agreed to oversee the testing process. He
arrived in my office the morning of February 8, 2008. The test was still
sealed so we opened it and began the testing process. The materials were of
the highest quality. The quality was so good that the exemplars looked just
like inked prints. This was very different from what I was used to. The CTS
test provides color photographs of black and white latent prints and
exemplars. The result is a color distortion that leaves a yellowing on all
the test materials. This never interfered with my ability to complete a CTS
test, but I did immediately notice the difference. The CAS Ltd. test was
three hours long and the directions indicated that I could use a comparator.
I didnít use one however, as Iíve never used or seen a comparator, and donít
have access to one. My office enlarges and enhances images using Adobe
Photoshop which serves a similar purpose. Since this wasnít mentioned in the
testing directions I just used my 4.5x magnifiers.
I should mention that I became an LPE in 1998, finished my training in the
end of 1999, and became certified in 2003. Iím not one those amazing LPEís
that can individualize the smallest distorted latent print in a matter of
minutes. Sometimes I get lucky, but for the most part I consider myself to
be the ďaverageĒ examiner. Iím also anxious by nature, so timed tests are
not something Iím fond of.
Reading the directions was included in the three hours given to take the
test. I instantly thought this was eating into my comparison time and
regretted having been so inquisitive about this test. I should have just
been happy that Iíve always passed the CTS tests Iíve taken. The test
included 12 latent prints and 6 sets of exemplars. The first two latent
prints I looked for I couldnít find. About 45 minutes had passed and I
hadnít identified one print. This wasnít looking good. I thought of little
tricks that Ron Smith (from RSA) had taught me in my training and the next
latent I picked up was identified to the first person I looked at. Part of
my anxiety was caused by a new test that I wasnít familiar with. If I took
this test again, Iím sure Iíd feel more comfortable. Iím not making excuses
for my results, Iím happy with how I did. I donít know what constitutes a
passing score but I identified 8 out of the 12 latent prints and excluded
the exemplars from leaving one latent print. I was hesitant about excluding
the others without getting a good night sleep and double checking my
conclusions the next day (something I may do in actual case work).
Like I said earlier, the quality of the materials was excellent. The
difficulty level was perfect, maybe a little harder than typical casework
but this level of difficulty is needed by LPEís. The test reminded me of the
IAI Certification Test and it had a good combination of latent prints from
different parts of the hands. I also liked that the test was arranged so
that the examiner had to look at the rolled impressions, the flats, and the
palm prints because many of the latent prints couldnít just be
individualized to the rolled impression. The cost of this test is $275.00
which is very comparable, yet slightly less expensive, to the cost of the
I would highly recommend this test as a way to show the competence of any
LPE. Even if agencies donít require such a test, this is an excellent way
for examiners to demonstrate their competence. One of the best aspects is
that it has the difficulty level of the IAIís Certification Test but itís
available to examiners who donít have the experience required to take the
Certification Test. This is something that the IAI considered in the past,
but was never developed. Using the CAS Ltd. test would also be a legitimate
way to determine the abilities of potential examiners for hiring purposes. I
think the independent proctoring is a step above the CTS test. This sort of
objectivity is essential in a scientific profession.
An element of testing that Iím still trying to promote for all agencies and
companies is to require justification of conclusions. My personal feeling is
that this should be essential since the foundation of scientific conclusions
is in the justification. Since this is a vital part of science, proficiency
and competency should take both the conclusion and the justification into
account. The CAS Ltd. test comes with a very professional workbook that has
plenty of room for justification but itís not required at this time. I also
wonder how a conclusion would be scored if someone recognized the
consistency between a latent and the exemplar but they didnít individualize
it due to their own sufficiency requirements.
After this was written, a representative of CAS Ltd. responded to an email I
sent. Mr. Peter Whent indicated that only latent print examiners would be
able to take this test. Eight correct conclusions (of either
individualization or exclusion) were considered a passing score. He also
indicated CAS Ltd. is currently working with ASCLD/LAB to become accredited.
If I understood him correctly, CAS will be turning in the paperwork within
the next 28 days. CAS also plans on having a ten print competency test
available in the future.
If youíd like more information on this company and the tests they provide
you can visit their website at www.casltd.org.uk/ or contact them at
From the website:
CAS Ltd considers that it is providing the
only truly bespoke and fit for purpose independent competency test
currently available to the fingerprint profession.
It is the only test in the profession with a robust process of
invigilation under controlled conditions that can be conducted in house at
the premises of the customer.
What We Do
The Test and Testing Procedure
- Testing only of bona fide fingerprint practitioners who must firstly
demonstrate that they have received relevant training.
- All tests are conducted in anonymity.
- CAS Ltd recommends that practitioners should be competency tested every
- Testing will be accredited by London South Bank University
How We Do It
CAS Ltd has developed its own database of finger
marks and fingerprints from consenting donors, ensuring that every mark in
their database is from a known person.
The data provided in the test is drawn from the database and the
competency testing reflects the type of material that would normally be
expected to be received into an average fingerprints bureau during a
The test requires the applicant to:
- Undertake a 3 hour timed test
- Be allocated a unique reference number for each candidate
- Be supervised by an independent Invigilator
- Be Independently assessed
- Have the right of one appeal only
Meet The Team
The team consists of Martin
Leadbetter Peter Whent, and Graham Gyford, a strong and experienced team
dedicated to striving for excellence.
Martin Leadbetter RFP FFS BA (Hons) has more than 40
years experience in fingerprint identification. He is currently chairman
of the Fingerprint Society, A Distinguished Member of IAI, UK
Representative for the IAI and a member of its editorial board and is a
Registered Forensic Practitioner with CRFP. Originally trained at New
Scotland Yard, he recently retired as Head of the Fingerprint Bureau for
Cambridgeshire Constabulary. He has recently been a consultant to the
European Commission, worked for the Forensic Science Service and was a
consultant and training officer for Sagem. He has conducted many
bench-marks of AFIS Systems throughout the world and in all continents.
Peter John WHENT QPM
LLB FILT FRSA CLTHE. Peter completed 32 years police service,
serving as a Detective Chief Superintendent and rising to Assistant
Chief Officer level. He was awarded the Queen's Police Medal for
distinguished police service. He is a qualified part time academic tutor
at a London University, lecturing in Forensic Science, the Principles of
Investigation, and Major Disaster.
He also provides counter
terrorist advice internationally specialising in transport and
buildings. Is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a Fellow and Chair
of the UK Security forum of the Institute of Transport and Logistics, a
National Council Member of Victim Support, and a member of the
Independent Advisory Group for Essex Police.
has been involved in Sales, Management Development and Human Resources
for his entire career and has worked for organisations such as First
National Bank, Citibank, Lombard Finance and Abbey National. He has also
undertaken freelance consultancy work with the Police Service, The
Economist Group, HSBC and GE Capital.
Graham has vast experience in
the field of developing and conducting assessment and development
centres since 1991. He has actively advised and coached businesses to
develop their strategy through use of Balanced Business Scorecard
methodology and managed high profile HR projects involving business
relocation and corporate takeovers.
Sam has over 35 years experience in fingerprints and has worked
extensively with law enforcement and forensic agencies throughout the
United States and worldwide including countries as diverse as Honduras,
Poland, the Philippines and South Africa just to name a few. As a
forensic analyst he has been involved in conducting both laboratory and
field investigations concerning a wide range of serious crimes.
He has testified as an expert
witness in court throughout the States both at State and local levels
and also other miscellaneous proceedings concerning forensic
Sam is also a qualified
trainer in all aspects of fingerprints and has lectured at many
academies and professional conferences at various locations around the
world and apart from fingerprints, covering such topics as criminology,
criminal law and crime scene investigation.
Scott M. Glazebrook
Scott has been a Latent Print Identification practitioner since
1994 with the Florida State Law Enforcement Department and other local
law enforcement offices and since 2001 gas testified many times in
He is a qualified trainer in
Latent Print comparison and has been teaching the various aspects of
fingerprint work for the Department of the International Association of
Frank J Rodgers
Frank was formerly Assistant Administrator for the Laboratory
Services Bureau within the United States Phoenix Police Department in
Arizona, With over 35 years experience in fingerprints covering
Comparative Analysis, Automated Fingerprint Systems, Image Enhancement
and Laser/Forensic light Systems. Frank's experience also includes Crime
Scene Photography, Reconstruction and Investigation.
He is qualified expert
witness within his specialities in criminal and civil cases in
Municipal, Justice, Superior and Federal Courts
Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #6
- Identify, Individualize, or ID?
by Michele Triplett, King County
Disclaimer: The intent
of this is to provide thought provoking discussion. No claims of accuracy
Question Ė Terminology - Identify, Individualize, or
This could be any question that relates to the
I identified the subjectÖÖ
I individualized the subjectÖ
I IDíd the subjectÖ..
This latent print matches the middle finger ofÖ..
This image was made by one in the same individualÖ..
Which term or phrase you use may not seem important but
you never know what other experts in a case are saying, whether itís another
latent print person or an expert from another forensic discipline. These
ideas donít necessarily have to come from someone elseís testimony.
Attorneys may bring up topics from other court cases, from books, and from
articles during closing arguments.
Itís possible that one examiner continually uses the
term Ďidentifyí during his testimony and then another expert testifies that
the term identify means that youíre putting something into a certain class
or group and it doesnít mean that youíre specifically individualizing
something. If this concept is brought into court then it could severely
impact the way a judge or jury thinks about what youíre saying.
The best way to insure there are no misunderstandings
is to use the proper terminology. We can identify a latent print as a whorl
(classify it into a certain group) or we may be able to individualize a
latent print to a certain person (which is a more specific type of
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other
examiners. This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY
latent print examiners.
With the exception of weeks such as this week, there
are no copyrights on The Detail content. As always, 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!