Last week
we looked at the Scientific Principles of Friction Ridge Analysis, by Tom Ferriola and we started the "Close Calls" page.  If you haven't checked them out yet, pay a visit and send your CloseCalls to captainpdclose@yahoo.com.

Also, one correction on the dates for the upcoming Ridgeology Science Workshop in Florida... the course is being held in West Palm Beach, January 31 - February 4, not the dates posted last week.

This week
we look at a couple of things.  Firstly, there has been a lot of posting about a possible IAI resolution that addresses in some way the circumstances surrounding the McKie situation.  Several people have mentioned privately that the IAI Board of Directors will probably never pass a resolution that comments on or gives direction in an individual case.  However, the IAI can comment on the position of the organization with respect to certain scenarios that may or may not be acceptable in our discipline.  Therefore, several people (myself included) have contributed to the following draft that outlines this concept in non-case-specific terms.  Some may feel this is not enough, but surely others will feel that even this is pushing the limits; therefore, I feel this may be the best compromise that has a good chance at actually getting passed as an IAI position statement or resolution in St. Louis, and possibly looked at by our friends across the pond at the Fingerprint Society.

Before I propose wording for consideration, ask yourself the following questions:

1) Can one latent print originate from two sources?

2) Can one latent print originate from a source and at the same time not originate from the same area of that same source?

3) Do you feel that individualization and exclusion are both absolute conclusions? (as opposed to inconclusive determinations)

4) Do you feel it is acceptable for one examiner to feel confident and therefore "call" a match (individualization) while another expert does not feel comfortable and therefore does not "call" the match (inconclusive)?

5) Do you feel it is acceptable for one examiner to feel confident that two prints were not made by the same source (exclusion) while another expert doesn't feel sure enough to exclude (inconclusive)?

6) Do you feel that it is acceptable for two examiners to hold conflicting (opposite) conclusions (individualization versus exclusion)?

7) Do you feel an examiner who has made an erroneous identification should continue to work cases until a determination has been made regarding why the error occurred?

8) Do you feel that a claimed "erroneous" identification should be looked at by more than 1 other person (i.e.. a "panel")?

9) What should happen to an examiner who maintains an incorrect conclusion (as determined by a panel)?

10) What should happen with the print or identification in a case where an examiner maintains an opposing conclusion?

Let's discuss the following wording of a possible resolution on the message board, or you may send your comments to me privately.  This is by no means a final draft... this is just food for thought as we forge ahead toward the conference.  I would like to get a proposed resolution in the hands of the resolutions committee before the conference, and it would help if latent print examiners and also the Latent Print Subcommittee had worked out the wording ahead of time.  Also, I am sure there are Board members who could offer insight on the discussion board before anything is proposed.  I am sure the Board would rather the details be worked out before it officially got to them anyway!

It is my intention to present wording (with any modification by CLPEX members from the message board or private e-mails) to the Latent Print Subcommittee for their approval before it is submitted to the Resolutions Committee... and I would like all of that to happen within the next two weeks, if possible... so please comment this week if you have feedback on the following:

****************************

Whereas the ______ of the International Association for Identification, in conference in St. Louis this ____ day of August, 2004, has considered the issue of conflicting opinions in fingerprint examinations, and

Whereas it is not scientifically possible for one latent print impression to originate from two or more different sources, and

Whereas it is not scientifically possible for one source to have both been the origin and not been the origin of a single latent print impression, and

Whereas individualization (identification) is the determination that two impressions were made by the same source, and

Whereas exclusion is the determination that two impressions were not made by the same source, and

Whereas individualization and exclusion are both absolute conclusions, not inconclusive determinations, and

Whereas it is possible to have differing conclusions regarding the sufficiency or insufficiency of similarity for individualization (individualization versus inconclusive), and

Whereas it is possible to have differing conclusions regarding the sufficiency or insufficiency of dissimilarity for exclusion (exclusion versus inconclusive),

Therefore be it resolved that while sufficiency may be a matter of opinion, fingerprint individualization or exclusion is a matter of scientific conclusion and two conflicting conclusions in friction ridge examination are not acceptable, and

Be it further resolved that any examiner found to have made an erroneous individualization or an erroneous exclusion should be immediately removed from further examinations, a panel of qualified examiners should be immediately convened to resolve the issues, determine why the conflict arose, and make recommendations for change to avoid recurring errors, and

Be it further resolved that in any situation in which two qualified examiners maintain conflicting conclusions, they should both be immediately removed from further examinations, an external panel of independent qualified examiners should be immediately convened to determine the correct conclusion, and

Be it further resolved that in any situation in which two examiners maintaining conflicting conclusions were both removed from further examinations and an external panel of independent qualified examiners has determined that the conclusion of one of the examiners was correct, that examiner should be immediately allowed to conduct further examinations, and

Be it further resolved that in any situation in which an examiner has been found to have maintained an erroneous conclusion by an external panel of independent qualified examiners, they should remain removed from further examinations until a determination can be made to the cause of the error, corrective action taken to avoid the possibility of recurring errors, and an admission has been made by the examiner that they made an erroneous individualization or an erroneous exclusion, and

Be it further resolved that in any situation in which an examiner continues to maintain an erroneous conclusion after corrective action has been taken, that they should remain removed from further examinations.

__________________________________________

To send thoughts privately, e-mail me at kaseywertheim@aol.com.

If you post on the CLPEX message board, please try to follow "threads" and keep similar thoughts together.  Also, before you start typing consider what you are going to say and type a short, specific, basic, and focused subject line entry about your response:

A few things about subject lines (to keep post events semi-organized and searchable):

1) keep them short. With many replies, long subject lines may wrap 2-3 times and take up valuable screen space

2) make them specific. Interested parties should not have to click on your thread to know generally what it is about

3) distill to the basics. It should be specific and detailed, yet distilled to it's most basic form

4) stay focused on the concept. A reply should answer a question or build on a previous comment. For new concepts, start a new "reply" to the "LIVE" parent thread or appropriate sub-thread and label the subject line accordingly.

Message Board tip: if you are reading a thread and want to go back to the main message board thread page, click the "BBS Index" button at the bottom left corner of the screen.

Enjoy the CLPEX message board!

_______________________________________________________

To discuss this Detail, the message board is always open: (http://www.clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2)

More formal latent print discussions are available at onin.com: (http://www.onin.com)

_______________________________________________________
FUNNY FINGERPRINT FIND

You carry forever the fingerprint that comes from being under someone's
thumb. --Nancy Banks-Smith

Submitted by Steve Howard
July 1, 2004

_______________________________________________________
MANAGEMENT CIRCLE

Help staffers break out of a slump

You've noticed that your staff seems less enthusiastic and productive lately.  There may be several reasons for the lackluster performance, so try a variety of approaches to break your staff our of the doldrums.

1) Eliminate boredom.  If your employees meet goals - but show little initiative to take on new duties - they may be bored.  Strategy: Raise the ante.  Set a goal that's difficult - but not impossible - to attain.

2) Quell conflict.  A group that's mired in conflict won't progress.  Usually, only a few staffers are responsible for most of the dissension.  Strategy: Urge employees involved in the conflict to acknowledge the problem.  Then hold the entire staff responsible for ending the conflict.  Whenever employees see their adversarial co-workers in a dispute, they should note the incident and bring it up at the next staff meeting.

3) Challenge perceptions.  If your department has been a top-performing unit for a while, employees may see no reason to push themselves.  Strategy: Challenge your team to top their own record or beat the records of others outside your department or company.

-From the Editors of Communication Briefings, March, 2004, 800.722.9221, briefings.com. _______________________________________________________

UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Detail Archives

Updated the Newzroom

Updated the SmileyFiles

Updated the CloseCalls page

_______________________________________________________

Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners.  This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. There are no copyrights on The Detail, and 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, send a blank e-mail to: theweeklydetail-subscribe@topica.email-publisher.com)  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!