A forensic platform focused primarily on latent fingerprints, latent print
examination, and fingerprint identification. Latent-prints.
com is for the sharing of articles, ideas, and discussion regarding the
impression evidence sciences.
The opinions expressed
on this site are solely those of the author(s) and do not
represent the policy of the author's employer, unless so stated .
Is there another
forensic application that you would like to have in the
discussion platform?
Send comments to
the Editor.
Articles
and responses to discussion topics can be submitted for
publication to:
Editor@latent-prints.com
Fair
use statement
For other languages, type latent-prints.com in the
"translate web page area" Click
Here
WHAT'S NEW?
SUFFICIENCY FOR CONCLUSIONS
The scientific measure of sufficiency for individualization of
friction ridge impressions is not a strict number of Galton characters in
agreement, nor a belief in the transference of biological uniqueness of level 3
detail. Sufficiency is the amount of detail present in each unknown
impression, and how this amount of detail compares to the closest non-match ever
found with concurrent equal levels of detail.
SUFFICIENCY FOR SOLE
SOURCE CONCLUSIONS
The question to count or
not to count points is a
matter of a friction
ridge examiners manner
of defending their
opinion in view of the
NAS report and it’s
continuing fall out onto
the forensic science
community.
By not counting points,
the examiner relies
solely on the biological
uniqueness paradigm. A
key question with this
approach is at what
level of features the
examiner can perceive
uniqueness as well as
the durability of these
levels to persist in the
transfer of touch. This
reliance of uniqueness
is weak in defending
their conclusion as it
is totally subjective
based upon the
examiner’s training,
experience, and ability.
Using this approach it
is also difficult to
reliably reproduce
results as all examiners
have different levels of
these three bases.
Counting points without
taking into
consideration the
biological uniqueness
paradigm, is also narrow
sighted as statistical
measurements on their
own do not equate to
individualization.
Quantification gives a
measure of likelihood
that anyone else may
share the same number of
clear durable features
not that there is a
likelihood that the mark
in question could only
have been made by a
particular person.
Defending ones
conclusion must have a
reliable and repeatable
basis. Both of these
approaches together can
support an examiners
opinion that it is
scientifically and
biologically impossible,
or sufficiently unlikely
for a friction ridge
impression to have been
made by another person.
Counting to a particular
number of durable level
2 Galton friction ridge
features supports
scientific research data
from probability
modeling which denotes
scientifically
predictable reliability
of uniqueness. At this
number of features in
agreement between the
unknown and known
impressions without
discrepancies infers
that the likelihood that
anyone else could share
those features is so
remote that it can be
ignored. Empirically
this ignoring opinion is
supported in that no two
persons have ever been
found to have this
number of features in
agreement in direct
comparison or AFIS
searching.
This impression has not
been individualized to
an individual as the
only possible donor but
statistically it
supports that opinion.
Upon reaching this
statistically scientific
level, finding a number
of clear level 3
features in agreement an
examiner can conclude
that it is
scientifically and
biologically impossible
for anyone else to have
made the impression, and
an opinion of sole
source attribution to
the known impression is
possible and supported.
|
The Attorney
General's National Commission on Forensic Science's (NCFS) charter expired on
April 23, 2017 and forensic standards work continues on with
NIST OSAC -
See
Friction Ridge subcommittee
--------------------------------------------------
U.S. Departments of Justice and Commerce Name Experts to
First-ever National Commission on Forensic Science
January 10, 2014
The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) has just published several documents
pertaining to the proposed reorganization of the
Scientific Working Groups.
They had first proposed changing the name from Scientific
Working Groups to Guidance Groups, and now suggest Scientific Area
Committees. Please find the documents below:
NIST
Proposed Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)
Download document
here
Presentation
by Mark Stolorow, Director of the NIST Law Enforcement Standards Office
Download the presentation
here
Public
comments received by NIST on the reorganization of Scientific Working Groups
Download PDF
here (339 pages)
NIST
website page
with these documents is
here
View Press Release -
12/17/10
With issuance of the 1973 IAI
resolution which stated, "That no valid basis exists at this time
for requiring that a pre-determined number............", the standardization
committee strongly recommended a federally funded study of fingerprints.
Twenty-seven years later a solicitation for such a study was issued.
THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (N I J) COMMISSIONS SCIENTIFIC STUDY
The grant
funding for this solicitation was recalled and the solicitation was rewritten to
include all pattern evidence sciences. This does not infer that friction
ridge individualization validation
is not needed.
The
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has identified the need for
validation of
the basis for friction ridge individualization and
standardization of comparison criteria:
|
Basic
research to determine the scientific
validity
of
individuality
in friction ridge
examination
based on measurement of
features,
quantification, and statistical
analysis.
|
|
Procedures
for comparing friction ridge
impressions
that are standardized and
validated.
|
|
Basic
research into the individuality of friction
ridges
requires objective measurement and
statistical
analysis.
|
View the solicitation
Open
Adobe PDF
View
the N I J solicitation clarification letter dated June 20, 2000
The IAI removes restrictions on
probabilistic friction ridge conclusions with the passage of
Resolution 2010-18 on July 16, 2010
NIJ awards Quantitative approach to forensic fingerprint comparison study
THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (N I J) COMMISSIONS NEW SCIENTIFIC STUDY - - - -
-DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION FEBRUARY 25, 2005
"Quantitative Research on Friction Ridge Patterns"
Solicitation Deadline February 25, 2005
View
Solicitation
NIJ
Link
IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCES COMMUNITY
View National Academy of Sciences Presentations from these 2007 meetings
2/18/09 NAS
releases report "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A
Path Forward
Read The
Final NAS Report
(August
2009)
Read the
NAS Congressional
Testimony (March 18 2009)
A complete resource for NAS report,
Congressional hearings, and the resulting Presidential Commission of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Forensic Science For The 21st Century
- The National Academy of Sciences Report and Beyond
Read
Presentations
April 3-4, 2009 Conference
- Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology-Sandra Day O’Connor College
of Law-Arizona State University Tempe, Ariz.
What
is Scientific Law, Hypotheses, and Theory?
The fingerprint
"Source
Book"
by Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge
Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), et al.
March 2011 (download
complete book) See Impression and Pattern Evidence
Webpage
SWGFAST
GUIDELINES
"STANDARDS
FOR EXAMINING FRICTION RIDGE IMPRESSIONS AND RESULTING CONCLUSIONS"
This
and other documents available at
www.swgfast.org
Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification - IEEGFI-1
Method For Fingerprint Identification
Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint Identification - IEEGFI-2
Method For Fingerprint Identification
Part II: Detailing the method
using common terminology and through the definition and application of
shared principles
National Institute of
Justice (NIJ)-June 2011 Conference - Panel Discussion "Human Factors in Latent
Print Examination" -
Video
Presentation -
Transcript
United
States of America v. Byron Mitchell
In the United States Court of Appeals 3rd
district- Decision argued 9/9/03 - filed 4/29/04
Brandon Mayfield Error
Articles
on the erroneous individualization in the Madrid bombing case
Special
report on the erroneous fingerprint individualization in the Madrid train
bombing case
In
response to the misidentification of a latent print:
FBI-"Review of the Scientific Basis for Friction Ridge Comparisons as a
Means of Identification: Committee Findings and Recommendations
Office Of Inspector General -
A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield
Case (Unclassified Executive Summary), Special
Report, January 2006 (9mb pdf)
Web
Viewable
(900kb)
FBI
response
Office of Inspector General -
Final full Unclassified Report
- A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield
Case - Download selected chapters from a list
View Mayfield, Daoud, and the latent
images contained in the Final OIG Report
"The
State of The FBI Laboratory's Latent Print Operation - Four Years After Madrid"
- Presentation from the 2008 IAI Conference -
Download the PowerPoint
Oregon District Court
Judge Ann Aiken
held
in
Brandon Mayfield, et al. v. the
United States of America,
that
two sections of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act amended under the Patriot Act are unconstitutional
A
Review of the FBI's Progress
in Responding to the Recommendation in the
OIG Report on the Brandon Mayfield Case - June 2011
Shirley McKie Error
Shirley
McKie Website-follow the erroneous Scottish latent identifications -
View Parliamentary inquiry video,
READ Transcript of evidence presented ---
Read the 2009 Scottish Public Inquiry transcripts
----December 2011
Inquiry Report Released
Smoke Free . Gov
American Cancer Society
Mesothelioma.net
Absestos.com
RehabCenters
Insomnia During Recovery
This site was last updated on 07/10/20
|