Neville wrote:I would rather see 1000 false negatives go over someones desk than 1 false positive. It only goes to show that that person is ultra cautious.
Is that not the prime premise of our justice system.
I think any defence solicitor would agree, so they for one will be happy with the result.
. Eighty-five percent of examiners made at least one false negative error for an overall false negative rate of 7.5%
Examiners frequently differed on whether fingerprints were suitable for reaching a conclusion
The ACE portion of the process results in one of four decisions: the analysis decision of no value (unsuitable for comparison); or the comparison/evaluation decisions of individualization (from the same source), exclusion (from different sources), or inconclusive.
The Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology guidelines for operational procedures (21) require verification for individualization decisions, but verification is optional for exclusion or inconclusive decisions. Verification may be blind to the initial examiner’s decision, in
which case all types of decisions would need to be verified.
Boyd Baumgartner wrote:So, for those keeping track it's really 5 decisions, but in the instance it's no value it's really 1, unless you decide that it is, but then it's not (carry the 1) and so we end up with 3.14 decisions that are actually possible.
jluthy wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if this should be governed in some way. A change in the SWGFAST policy may be the place to start. Perhaps a state or federal law or ruling requiring some level of a peer review environment for an individual to testify to their conclusions?
Boyd Baumgartner wrote:Analysis actually results in one of two decisions, no value or value. It is a go/no go decision on whether or not the Comparison portion will take place. If a comparison is performed, then you can get one of those three Evaluations. However, it's also not unheard of for someone to perform a Comparison and realize that the latent really isn't of value in the first place. After all, isn't ACE-V recursive and iteratively applied? So, for those keeping track it's really 5 decisions, but in the instance it's no value it's really 1, unless you decide that it is, but then it's not (carry the 1) and so we end up with 3.14 decisions that are actually possible.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest