No major updates on the website this week
Added 5 new smileys to the Smiley Files. Thanks to Beth Dooley for all the submissions!
we looked at Joe Polski's August 2010 IAI Update
we look at a book review by Joseph Bono in the Journal of Forensic Sciences of the book "Challenges to Fingerprints" by Ralph and Lynn Haber.
__________________________________________
REFERENCE: Haber L, Haber NH. Challenges to fingerprints.
The evaluation of friction ridge pattern individualization (FRPI) has been a much discussed topic during the past year. The National Research Council of the National Academies report ‘‘Strengthening Forensic Science in the
Before beginning a review, there are some basic corrections that must be addressed:
• The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors ⁄ Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD⁄LAB) is the correct accrediting body for forensic science laboratories. The authors refer to ASCLD, which is not an accrediting body, and is in fact a separate organization.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is NOT housed within the NIJ (National Institute of Justice). The FBI is a part of the Department of Justice.
• The NIJ does not ‘‘overview’’ FRPI. It does, however, provide funding for laboratories and research.
Basic misstatements like these impact the credibility of the authors of any authoritative text. One requirement for an authoritative text is that the authors be ‘‘authorities.’’ The academic degrees of the authors (both have a Ph.D. degree) appear on the cover; however, there are no statements specifying their field(s) of expertise. Aside from taking some basic courses, real world laboratory training and experience required of most FRPI examiners seems absent from their credentials. The authors also state ‘‘that [FRPI examiners] rarely, if ever make an erroneous identification in court.’’ They then proceed in the next 192 pages to delineate errors in every phase of a FRPI. Page after page is replete with what is done improperly in the laboratory. This reviewer could not find any examples of what constitutes an inherently validated protocol currently in use. The only review of a profession, which is more questionable than one in which the author(s) claims that everything is ‘‘right,’’ is one which the author(s) claims that everything is ‘‘wrong.’’ The ‘‘everything is wrong’’ approach is quite evident in this text.
Chapter 3 contains some basic descriptions of images FRPI examiners evaluate in the laboratory. The text does not reference the source(s) of this information; however, the narrative and photos could have come from any introductory text describing FRPI and they do appear to be accurate.
The authors’ reference to the term ‘‘error rate’’ (ER) appears in almost every chapter. The authors dictate to the reader that the absence of this factor from a report or testimony is grounds for challenging a FRPI analysis. There are plenty of reasons for challenging any kind of forensic analysis. This certainly applies to FRPI, and many of those challenges are justified. What is not justified is repeatedly challenging someone with an undefined term. The authors inform the reader that a ‘‘computation of an error rate for fingerprint conclusions based on court data cannot be performed.’’ Without defining the numerator or denominator required for any ‘‘rate’’ computation, they emphasize that a calculation or ER for FRPI casework is not available. This reviewer believes that such a calculation based on proficiency tests cannot be used to extrapolate this ‘‘rate.’’ The question then becomes: What is this nebulous term which has taken on a life of its own in the literature by those whose arguments are based on a philosophical perspective rather than on empirical data and images?
The authors are correct to point out that examiners should not claim that ‘‘zero errors’’ are the norm in FRPIs. It would be more valuable for the discipline if the authors had included a statement that errors do occur and provide suggestions for eliminating these errors. Then again, the authors are not examiners and they might not have suggestions for how to improve this forensic science discipline.
In Chapter 6, the authors discuss the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and the issues inherent to this system. The authors rightfully ‘‘ensure’’ (they mistakenly and repeatedly use the word ‘‘insure’’) the reader that AFIS does not make ‘‘identifications.’’ Then, they follow with: ‘‘AFIS is already being used as an identification system for tenprints.’’ This simply is not true. These kinds of contradictory statements appear throughout the text. An AFIS search will provide a list of friction ridge patterns with a prioritized listing of algorithm ‘‘matches.’’ This search does not identify anyone. That is the examiner’s job.
This text is devoid of substance for anyone seeking solutions for developing thresholds for the individualization of a friction ridge pattern to a particular person or for ways to ‘‘strengthen’’ FRPI. Most interested parties already understand the challenges; the real value in any text that evaluates this discipline will lie in providing solutions. This reviewer cannot recommend the text because it is a restatement of what most already know about what must be strengthened, and it contributes very little to finding the solutions to the ‘‘challenges.’’
__________________________________________
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! FAIR USE NOTICE: This newsletter contains copyrighted material from the public domain, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner (in this case, the Journal of Forensic Sciences). www.clpex.com makes such material available in an effort to advance scientific understanding in the field of latent prints, thus constituting a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is displayed without profit to those who wish to view this information for research and/or educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the original copyright owner.
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 "whitelist" the Weekly Detail. 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!