Breaking NEWz you can UzE...
compiled by Jon Stimac
Rivets Crowd –
OREGONIAN, OR - July 16,
2005 ...Mayfield was arrested
as a material witness and jailed for two weeks before the FBI conceded
the mistake and apologized...
Demands FBI Return Copies of Files –
KGW.COM, OR - July 15, 2005
...wrongly linked to the 2004 Spain train bombings,
Mayfield demands that the FBI return paper and computer files seized
from his home...
FBI Note Cited Little Evidence to Arrest Mayfield –
OREGONIAN, OR - July 14, 2005
...if he "gets outed by the media,"
the FBI would detain him as a material
New Inked Prints –
BEAVER COUNTY TIMES, PA - July 14, 2005
...Police obtained a set of prints,
including those from fingertip, palm and wrist areas, of a man who is
a "person of interest" in a doctor's shooting death...
we look at a recent line of questioning in court
involving IAI certification and the individuals involved in the erroneous
Brandon Mayfield identification.
we continue to look at different perspectives on
this same topic.
Re: IAI Certification Issues
Paul Truedson and Ronan Shouldice
Regarding the " Letter to the IAI RE:
Certification Issues," from Ronan Shouldice, Monday July 11th, 2005.
From Criminalist / LPE / Deputy Sheriff, Paul Truedson
IAI member # 18928
Forensic Science Department
Washington County Sheriff's Office
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123-3874
For God sakes man, stop whining! The United States Constitution guarantees the
right of the defense / the accused, to not only put on a vigorous defense, but
the right to confront witnesses. You are a witness. An expert witness.
[Editor comment: in a separate quote, the author states "If you knew me, you
would find that I do have a weird sense of humour, and even though this may come
across somewhat like a cold slap in the face to some, I did not mean it in a
You wrote in the Weekly Detail, " I have recently been in the position of having
to defend my Certification in the courtroom..." So what. That's life. Every time
you take the stand the defense has the right to question the evidence, every
word written in your report, and every word that you utter while testifying. Did
you expect anything less ? Did you not anticipate this ? Did you expect that you
could hold up your Certification and not be questioned about your knowledge,
training and abilities ?
( " Having worked hard to attain CLPE status, I am extremely upset by having to
defend it!" ) The test you took for your Certification is merely a snapshot in
time. Every time you testify you have to be qualitied on the stand as an expert
witness. Bruce Lee once had a student who held the rank of black belt come
whining to him after a bout, in which the student was defeated. "But you don't
understand...I have a black belt, and I lost." Bruce asked him if he thought the
mere act of having the belt would have made him prevail. Would it have somehow
miraculously undid itself from his waist, and attack and defeat his opponent.
Don't whine to the IAI. You got beat on the stand. ( By beat, I mean you did not
get your point across to the jury, and make them understand, in order to win the
argument.) The reason; knowledge is fixed in time, whereas knowing is a
movement. Think...react...anticipate. Before you testify you should think about
the different ways the defense could attack your Certification, and how you
would handle those questions. You put yourself in the position of being the
quintessential " Deer in the headlights." The defense, how dare they, questioned
your IAI Certification? That is their job. I guarantee that they would have
questioned you if you were not certified; if you took the Certification test and
did not pass it; what your score was, and/or why you did not get 100%, etc,etc...
You wrote,"Simon Cole was retained by the defense and was allowed, by a visiting
judge, to testify." Okay...that's their right. Not being familiar with Simon
Cole, I assume he is a latent print expert, and a latent print examiner. Which
would lead me to the following questions. Did Simon Cole compare the latent palm
print impression on the cashbox, with the defendants rolled inked impressions,
and if so, did he agree or disagree with your positive identification ? If he
agreed with your positive identification, did he author a report of his
conclusions, present that to your ADA, and testify as a prosecution witness ? If
he did not compare the latent impression to the inked, but was afforded the
opportunity to do so, did your ADA cross examine him about that fact. Brandon
Mayfield is an all too convenient smoke-screen.
The defenses options are to attack the source of the latent, the age of the
latent, the science, or the examiner. It is clear which way they went.
The Brandon Mayfield case. My thought is, " Get over it!" Did you do the
comparison work in that case? No. Do you always use the original evidence when
you make comparisons? Yes..or you should...or your lab should have a policy in
place that you do. Not having first-hand knowledge of the case, from reading the
accounts of the Mayfield case, have you formed any sort of opinion? The FBI
apparently used copies of original evidence to make their comparisons and
identification, something that I would not be permitted to do, and they realized
their mistake only after viewing the original latent impression. I believe it
was in an IAI publication that I read, "If a pilot error causes an airplane to
crash, that does not mean the scientific principals that explain flight are
flawed." This might have been a fitting anology for you to have used on the
In your letter you stated that," defense refused to stipulate to expertise and
immediately initiated a line of questioning regarding the Mayfield case." Did I
mention that Brandon Mayfield lives in our county ? Local reaction...if
synchronized panic were an organized sport, several of our Deputy District
Attorneys would be in the Olympics. I guess I'll just have to deal with it.
You wrote,"The assistant DA, who is very capable, addressed all the usual areas
in the qualifications phase, including IAI Certification, and went into some
detail about the difficulties in attaining CLPE and the relative few there are."
And the defense did not stipulate to your expertise ? Shocking! Your DA opened a
door the size of a Mack truck, and invited the defense right in. This is not a
knock on the IAI, ( I am a member ) but as I understand it, any latent examiner
who has X # of years on and/or college education can take the Certification
test. How many thousands of examiners who are not certified, are, as of this
moment, eligible to take the test? The finest latent print examiner I have ever
known, retired a few years ago. He had 32 years on as an LPE. I asked him why he
never took the Certification test. He told me it was for several reasons. He was
nearing retirement. The county did not pay him anything extra to obtain his
certification. The county would not pay for the test. The test put a limit on
the amount of time each applicant could spend making the comparisons, and in
actual case work, he was not under such a time restraint. The IAI used copies of
latent prints in their testing, and he was not allowed to use copies in his
casework. And finally, he said that the Certification would only hold so much
weight on the stand, and not be the end-all of his lifelong work in the science
Look above at my somewhat lengthy official title. Notice it reads LPE and not
CLEP. I am not certified. I am currently eligible to take the IAI Certification
examine. I think if I chose to do so, I could pass the test and obtain my
certification. I have many years on, made hundreds of thousands of comparisons,
testifed as an expert in Circuit Court and U.S. District Court, and have
attended several latent print schools, including the old FBI advanced three week
latent print examiners school at Quantico, Virginia. I can be questioned about
not being certified, just as you can be questioned about being so. I think I am
prepared to anticipate and answer most questions put to me on the stand.
I have only addressed the subjects in your letter that really torqued me off,
although your idea that the IAI or JFI publish "any change in an examiner's
Certification status," ( Gee, I wonder what that change would be, or what caused
that to occur?) I find ridiculous and irresponsible. ( Also see lawsuit, if/when
the publishing results in the examiner not being hired or retained by an agency
in the future.) The reasons for erroneous identifications, though rare, do
occur, and for different reasons, including " bookkeeping errors." An erroneous
latent print identification can be a career buster. But on the other hand, some
agencies discipline, re-train, or keep their examiners on, following the
mistake, with certain limitations such as requiring the examiner to have
multiple verifiers of their work, or not being allowed to testify to their
conclusions in court.
In conclusion...the IAI is not going to take the stand with you. Don't wrap
yourself in your Certification when you testify, and don't blame the IAI. Your
certification is only one piece of your background, and as you know by now,
everything you testify to can and will be challenged. Afterall, that is our
criminal justice system, and the American way.
I also believe that you should be proud of your Certification, because you did
put in your dues to attain it, and the IAI is a fine and respected body. My
purpose of writing this letter was not to discourage anyone from taking the
Certification test, or obtaining their Certification. I know I have exceeded the
analogy limit, but I will leave you with a final one. " The mighty dragon,
stranded in shallow waters, amuses the frogs."
After a brief lecture from my supervisor about my supposed "anger control
problem" ( My misjudgement in having him proof read this e-mail. ) I finally end
with this caveat . The opinions and views of this Criminalist are not
necessarily those of the Washington County Sheriff's Office, their subsidiaries,
or their employees.
Dear Mr Truedson,
I have read, and re-read, your lengthy reaction to my letter and I have to
admit that your penchant for missing the point is manifest.
Naturally, every time one of us testifies (certified or not) we expect,
increasingly it seems, rigorous cross-examination and refusals to
stipulate. That is as it should be, because if you are going to testify
you should be prepared for any line of questioning. I happen to enjoy the
challenge and am all for the maintenance of high standards, awareness of
continuing challenges, and ongoing training. I am not in the habit of
waving certification around in the expectation that it will make my life
easier. Rather the contrary. My experience, certification, knowledge,
background, training and track record are all fair game in the courtroom.
Do you think I am unaware of this? Your condescending redundancies, and
peculiar analogies, would suggest that you are preaching to a novice
rather than an experienced examiner, and I don't appreciate it. The
strident tone and finger-wagging sermonising of your correspondence would
have me believe that you are more an apologist than a realist, though
I expect that your writing style masks otherwise good intentions...
Your blithe interpretation of my complaint as "whining" was both insulting
Regarding the Brandon Mayfield case, your suggestion that we just "get
over it" showcases your apparent lack of understanding of what is going on
in courtrooms accross the country, and indeed worldwide.
Your ignorance of Simon Cole's role in contemporary argument in your
chosen field is testimony to your cobwebbed professional standing.
Your self-congratulatory belief that you are "prepared to anticipate and
answer most questions" put to you on the stand is curious. If you were
asked about your professional affiliations, you would no doubt proudly
proclaim your IAI membership. If you were asked about your general
knowledge of the Mayfield incident, I assume you would be able to respond.
I can guarantee you that if you were then asked about the reaction within
the IAI, following review of all the particulars in the case, and the
subsequent action taken and papers published etc..., you would not
have had an answer. Nobody did.
I would agree with you on two issues only. One is the fact that the vast
majority of latent examiners are not certified by the IAI. I would further
agree that this in no way diminishes their ability, professionalism, or
dedication. The pursuit of certification tends to be a personal choice,
unless it is mandated by your Department. I understand that most
Departments, including my own, do not compensate for certification, or for
the study material or test fee, so many examiners do not undergo the
process, and that is fine. Those of us who have taken the time to
challenge ourselves, and have succeeded, deserve, at the very least, the
courtesy of response from the IAI when inquiring as to their position on
the Mayfield case more than ONE YEAR after the fact. (yeah, I know....'get
over it'). In fact, ANY member of this organization has the right to
request this information.
The second issue that provoked a nod of agreement was the wisdom of your
If you ever "choose to" pass the certification test, you might discover
that it is something worth defending, and that the IAI should feel
I wish you well, and would invite you to re-review my original letter for
content and substance.
message board is always open: (http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=2).
For more formal latent print discussions, visit
UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated literally thousands of links on CLPEX.com to reflect the new Message Board
Don't worry... technology made this possible in about 45 seconds.
Added 3 new smileys to the Smiley Files, updated by the Smiley Czar, Bill Wolz.
Thanks as always to Bill for his work.
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 from the e-mail address you wish to subscribe, to:
email@example.com) 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
firstname.lastname@example.org and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!