Detail Archives    Discuss This Issue    Subscribe to The Detail Fingerprint News Archive       Search Past Details

G o o d   M o r n i n g !
via THE WEEKLY DETAIL
 
Monday, July 27, 2009

 
The purpose of the Detail is to help keep you informed of the current state of affairs in the latent print community, to provide an avenue to circulate original fingerprint-related articles, and to announce important events as they happen in our field.
_________________________________________
__________________________________________
Breaking NEWz you can UzE...

by Stephanie Potter

Burger King robbers behind bars
WPTV 07-20-09
Police say a bag left at the crime scene helped identify the suspects after crime scene techs lifted fingerprints from it. According to the Boca Raton ...

Finger prints lead to burglary arrest in Brewster
Cape Codder 07-20-09
The Barnstable County Sheriffs Department CIO Unit assisted by locating and comparing palm and finger prints located at the scene. ...

Fingerprint of accused found on bag containing murder weapon ...
Ireland Online - Dublin,Ireland 07-22-09
Detective Garda Ray Kane from the garda fingerprint section told Anthony Sammon SC, prosecuting, that he found three fingerprints and one thumbprint on the ...

Women Arrested for Mailing Drugs to Jail Inmate
WCTV - Tallahassee,FL,USA 07-22-09
The illegal contraband was seized as evidence and processed for fingerprints. Crime Scene Detectives located fingerprints on the contraband and identified ...

37-year hunt for killer over?
Sacramento Bee - CA, USA
That pair also were shot to death in a sleeping bag on a beach, and authorities linked Burgess to the case through fingerprints. ...

Insurance policy scrutinized at Dover murder conspiracy trial
Post-Bulletin - Rochester,MN,USA 07-23-09
Bergeron, a forensic scientist with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, testified that he analyzed the documents for latent prints and found ...

Douglas found guilty of murder
Jackson Sun - Jackson,TN,USA 07-24-09
Gilliam called several witnesses to the stand Thursday, including William Roane, a certified latent fingerprint examiner with the Jackson Police Department, ...

__________________________________________
Recent CLPEX Posting Activity
Last Week's Board topics containing new posts
Moderated by Steve Everist and Charlie Parker

Public CLPEX Message Board
Moderated by Steve Everist


___________________________________
IAI Conference Topics -
Tampa Bay, Florida - 2009:
Moderator: Steve Everist


No new posts

___________________________________
Documentation
Documentation issues as they apply to latent prints
Moderator: Charles Parker

No new posts
___________________________________
History
Historical topics related to latent print examination
Moderator: Charles Parker


No new posts

(http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)
 

 UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Detail Archives
_________________________________________

Last week

We looked at recent news items in the field.
 

This week

We look a Draft for Comment that was approved for publication at the last SWGFAST meeting. The SWGFAST Chairperson requests that all feedback be provided to the Executive Secretary by September 4, 2009 at: MAB@fss.ocgov.com.

_________________________________________


STANDARD FOR THE DOCUMENTATION OF ACE-V

(LATENT)

 

Preamble

When friction ridge detail is examined using ACE-V, the examiner’s documentation must be such that another qualified examiner can determine what was done. Documentation will be made at or near the time of the examination and could be in the form of annotated images, narratives, worksheets, annotated legible copies, sketches, AFIS or other electronic system records, or any combination of these methods. This documentation will be a part of the case record.

1    Analysis

1.1 Latent Prints

1.1.1 The presence of friction ridge impressions, including those that are of no value for comparison, shall be documented.

1.1.2 Analysis documentation of the latent print shall be completed prior to comparison. The quality and quantity of the information present in the latent print will dictate the extent of the documentation. At a minimum, the following, when available, must be documented in the case record:

·         Anatomical aspect (e.g., fingerprint, palmprint)

·         Orientation (e.g., tip up)

·         Presence of Level 1 detail

·         Presence of Level 2 detail

·         Substrate

·         Development medium

·         Preservation method (e.g., lift, photograph, legible copy)

 

1.1.3 If the original friction ridge impression determined to be of value for comparison will not be maintained in the case record, a legible copy of the friction ridge impression shall be retained.

1.1.4 Refer to Appendix A for additional analysis factors that may be considered for documentation.

1.1.5 Refer to Appendix B for examples of analysis documentation.

1.2 Known Prints

1.2.1 Documentation of known prints is necessary if comparisons will be conducted. At a minimum, the following, when available, must be documented in the case record:

·         Unique identifier of the exemplar such as name, date of birth, assigned identification number, or reference to the specific exemplars (e.g., date of arrest, date of recording).

·         Anatomical aspect(s) represented in the exemplars (fingerprints, palmprints, or footprints)

·         Medium (e.g., ink, livescan)

·         Origin (e.g., printed from archive, direct submission)

 

1.2.2 Known prints that are deemed insufficient for comparison or that contain any factors which may affect the comparison shall be documented. The quality and quantity of the information present will dictate the extent of the documentation. These factors may include:

·         Incomplete recording of the friction ridge skin

·         Missing anatomical aspects (e.g., palms, phalanges)

·         Unclear recording of the friction ridge skin

 

2 Comparison

2.1 Documentation, which records the information relied upon during the comparison, must be made for each comparison. At a minimum, a legible copy of the known print must be retained. The complexity of the comparison will dictate the extent of the documentation. 

2.2 If additional analysis of the latent print occurs, supplemental notes shall be added and dated.

2.3 Refer to Appendix B for examples of comparison documentation.

3 Evaluation

3.1 Documentation of an identification (individualization) shall include:

·         Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·         Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·         Anatomical aspect (e.g., right thumb, left palm)

·         Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·         Date conclusion reached

3.2 Documentation of an exclusion shall include:

·         Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·         Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·         Anatomical aspects

·         Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·         Date conclusion reached

 

3.3 Documentation of an inconclusive shall include:

·         Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·         Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·         Reason (e.g., better exemplars needed, specific anatomical aspects needed, insufficient detail in agreement)

·         Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·         Date conclusion reached

 

3.4 Conclusions shall be documented prior to verification.  

3.5 Refer to Appendix B for examples of evaluation documentation.

4 Verification

Verification shall be documented and shall include:

·         Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·         Unique identifier of the specific exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·         Anatomical aspect

·         Conclusion of the verifying examiner

·         Initials, signature, or equivalent, (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·         Date of the verification

 

5 Consultations

Consultations shall be documented and shall include:

·      Specific friction ridge impression reviewed

·      Nature of consultation (e.g., discussed distortion in core)

·      Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner(s)

·      Date of the consultation

 

 

Appendix A

 

Analysis factors that may be considered for documentation:

 

·         Anatomical Aspect and Orientation

                        Digit, hand, or foot determination

                        Distal orientation

                        Position of the body to the surface

                        Handling of the object

                        Amount of force required to handle an object

                        Voids or additional friction ridge detail present in the impression

 

·         Substrate

                        Porous or non-porous

                        Shape of the object

                        Pliability of the object

                        Texture

                        Weight of the object

                        Color of the object

                        Condition of the surface on touch

                        Post-deposition factors

 

·         Portability of the object

                        Position reversal

 

·         Matrix

                        Type

                        Amount

                        Location

                        Movement

                        Absence of matrix

 

·         Development medium

                        Type of physical, chemical, optical technique

                        Interaction of the development technique with the substrate

 

·         Preservation Method

                        Photograph

                        Lift card

                        Scanning

                        Retention of physical item

  

·         Deposition Pressure

                        Amount of deposition pressure

                        Different levels of pressure throughout the print

                        Effect on the thickness of the friction ridges and furrows

                        Multiple touches

                        Color reversal   

 

·         Lateral or Rotational Movement

                        Contortion of the friction ridge flow

                        Drag lines through matrix

                        Initial and final contact positions

                        Accumulation or loss of matrix on a friction ridge or an edge of a friction ridge

                        Differential movement that is due to deposition pressure

 

 

Appendix B

 

There are many methods that can be used to document ACE. The following latent, indicated as A5-e (Figure 1), and the tenprint image of JONES, A. (Figure 2) were used to demonstrate some methods that could be used to meet documentation requirements.  

 

Figure 1

Image of latent print A5-e before documentation.

 

 

 

 

Figure 2

Image of tenprint card of JONES, A. before documentation.

 

·         Examples of annotated images.

 

 

 

Figure 3

Documentation of analysis on an annotated image.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Figure 4

Documentation of analysis and evaluation on an annotated image using digital imaging software and narrative.

 

 

Corresponding case notes:

 

-------------------------------------------------5/6/09 MRG   ----------------------------------One latent fingerprint of value is recorded on CD1 (file name A5-e.tif).

The image is indicated as having been developed on a glass beaker with black powder.

 

 

Figure 5

Documentation of analysis on an annotated image with corresponding case notes.

 

·         Examples of a latent print analysis worksheet using designated Latent A5e, glass beaker, black powder, adhesive lift.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6

Documentation of analysis, comparison, and evaluation using narrative and a sketch

(Image of latent and tenprint retained in case record).

 

 

 

 

Figure 7

Documentation of analysis, comparison, and evaluation using a worksheet

(Image of latent and tenprint retained in the case file).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8

Documentation of comparison and evaluation on an annotated legible copy.

 

 

_________________________________________

Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners for Fair Use.  This is a not-for-profit newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. 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: http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm  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 kaseywertheim@aol.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!


Discuss
Subscribe
View Archives