UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group web page with FIG # 29.

Updated the Smiley Files with a new submission from Melissa Graf.

Updated the Detail Archives.

Inserted KEPT (Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony) #3 - Evaluation / Sufficiency - How Much is Enough?
_________________________________________

we reviewed letters to the editor and responses on confirmation bias and other cognitive issues published recently in Fingerprint Whorld.

we rewind a few weeks to catch up with the December IAI Update:
_________________________________________
December IAI Update
by Joe Polski

Hello again from the IAI office.

Thank You Note

Many of you knew Steve Meagher who recently retired from the FBI. Steve worked for many years as a fingerprint examiner and in various supervisory positions with the FBI Laboratory. Steve was also a member of the IAI’s Board of Directors and at last summer’s conference chose not to run again for that position. Steve recently sent the following note to the IAI office and I thought I would share it with all of you:

To the IAI Board of Directors and Officers,

Thank you for the recognition and honor of receiving the John A. Dondero Memorial Award. Words alone cannot adequately express my gratitude. As you all know, you completely caught me unaware and truly surprised me during the banquet. I received the most beautiful plaque during the CBD-IAI Fall Conference and will proudly display it in my home office now that I am retired. I will always have the greatest respect for the IAI and am grateful for all that it has done for me.

Sincerely,

(Signed) Steve Meagher

On behalf of the officers and members of the IAI, I would like to express our collective thanks for all that Steve did for the fingerprint science during his tenure with the FBI. He, along with Assistant US Attorney Paul Sarmousakis, spearheaded the response to the first Daubert challenge to latent fingerprint identification and as you all know, that response was successful. Steve participated in numerous Daubert hearings involving fingerprints in the subsequent years and was the “go to” guy for those hearings as well as a primary trainer of those involved with those hearings.

We wish Steve all the best in retirement and hope he now has time to enjoy fishing!!!


National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Forensics Summit

NIJ will hold a forensics summit on December 17 and 18 in Washington, DC. I am honored to have been invited to that summit. The summit will bring together various forensic science stakeholders to discuss future directions and funding priorities. Forensic science advocates, critics, Innocence Project leadership, the defense bar and other disparate but affected stakeholders are invited. This should be a most interesting meeting. More information will be provided in future columns.


NIJ AFIS Interoperability Working Group

As noted in the last Monthly Update, NIJ is exploring the creation of a technical working group to explore AFIS interoperability between state and local AFIS systems of disparate manufacture. As you know this issue has been around for a long time and is one of the line items that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Forensic Committee has been asked to explore. The IAI has sent a list of suggested names to NIJ for their consideration for membership on this working group. At this time, NIJ leadership has signed off on the concept of the working group and it is moving forward. If it comes to fruition, there will undoubted be sub-groups that will address specific areas of interoperability. There are many issues to deal with: Legal and policy, technical, transmission modes, security etc. We are very excited that this longstanding problem is finally getting traction. More information will be provided as it is available.

FBI Advisory Policy Board (APB) Meeting

As the IAI’s representative to the FBI’s Advisory Policy Board, I had the privilege to attend the meeting that just concluded in Phoenix, Arizona. Approximately 30 topics were on the agenda. Those topics ranged from issues dealing with IFIS, NGI, US-VISIT, Homeland Security, Department of Defense biometric initiatives and many others.

A few items might be of particular interest to our members:

• The selection of an integrator for Next Generation Identification (NGI) System is set for early 2008. The specifications are complete and the FBI is ready to begin development as soon as the contractor selection process is complete.

• You will hear much more in the future about NDEx, a national data exchange program that will allow the exchange of law enforcement offense reports, to include narrative information, between law enforcement agencies. NDEx is a result of the lack of information sharing that was brought to light after 9/11. This is a very, very large system that will eventually contain offense information from most of the nation’s law enforcement agencies.

Secure access to NDEx information is of prime concern but it appears the security issues have largely been resolved using the same sort of authentication and security tools used by the banking industry.

• Folks from the US-VISIT program presented an overview of the use of ten prints vs. two prints for those persons applying for a VISA to enter the United States as well as capturing ten prints of visitors who come from other countries. These prints will be taken at the nation’s airports using a fast-capture device. A test project was recently rolled out at Dulles Airport near Washington, DC and the system is soon set to debut in Miami, Boston, Newark, San Francisco and several other large airports. There is no doubt that this capability, which will link through to shared data from IAFIS, will go a long way in identifying those individuals who may be less than desirable visitors to the US.

National Institute of Standards (NIST) Handheld Standards Project

There is no shortage of handheld fingerprint capture devices hitting the market and many agencies are purchasing or contemplating the purchase of such devices. At the present time however, there are no standards in place for those devices. As an example, a device that will work with one vendor’s AFIS system in state “A” will not work with another vendor’s AFIS system in state “B”. This is becoming problematic as agencies continue to purchase these devices and expand their use. As an example, lets say Milwaukee, Wisconsin issues these devices to their officers allowing them to take one or two prints of an individual, transmit them to the Wisconsin AFIS system and get a positive or negative response. They cannot however query Minnesota’s of Illinois’ AFIS systems due to the lack of interoperability of both the handheld device and the AFIS system itself. These devices may have limited access to IAFIS but there is much more data available in state and local AFIS systems, especially relative to minor offenses, than there is at the federal level. This is another consequence of the lack of interoperability of AFIS of different manufacture and will be compounded with hand-held devices.

NIST has created a task force to identify the issues involved with standardization of these devices. Peter Komarinski, Chair of the IAI’s AFIS Committee is the IAI’s official representative to this committee. There has been one meeting and more are scheduled. I’ll keep you updated on this initiative as it becomes available.

Thanks

As the end of yet another year rolls around, I would like to thank all those who give so generously of their time and talent to make the IAI the successful association it is today. The current membership of 7,062 is an all time high for the IAI and continues to place the IAI at the forefront of forensic organizations. The educational opportunities offered through the IAI, the annual educational conference, the networking and contacts available to our members as well as the association’s seven certification programs all combine to give the IAI unprecedented visibility. Beginning in February 2008, the association will begin to publish a newsletter titled Identification News that will be mailed to all members bi-monthly.

We say goodbye to those members and officers who have served so well and give a hearty welcome to those who are new and will carry the association into the future.

On behalf of the IAI office staff, Jennifer, Molly and me, best wishes for a wonderful holiday season, a very Merry Christmas and a happy and productive new year!!!


_________________________________________

KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #3
Evaluation / Sufficiency - How Much is Enough?
by Michele Triplett, King County Sheriff's Office

Disclaimer:  The intent of this is to provide thought provoking discussion.  No claims of accuracy exist. 

Question – Sufficiency:

How do you know when you have enough to establish an individualization?

Possible Answers:

a)      Our office uses a point standard of 10 level 2 details.

b)      If a conclusion can be verified then sufficiency exists.

c)      It’s a mental process and I know it when I see it.

d)     It isn’t dependent on a quantifiable amount of information; it depends on the cumulative information of quality, quantity, and the rarity of the level 2 and level 3 details.

e)      When you move from looking for consistent characteristics between the images to predicting that characteristics will be consistent then you’ve established sufficiency.

f)       Sufficiency is when you reach a point where a rational educated person doing a thorough examination would arrive at the same conclusion.

g)      You have a sufficient amount of information when you have enough to hold up to the scrutiny of others.

h)      I’m not only looking for consistency with this known print but I’m also trying to eliminate or rule out the possibility of any other person from leaving this latent print.  I determine if I think it’s possible to ever see this combination or sequence of characteristics from happening again. 

i)        Friction ridge individualization is established through the agreement of friction ridge formations, in sequence, having sufficient uniqueness to individualize.

Discussion:

This is one of the most common questions asked of examiners.  Many times this question is looking to see if you have an objective criteria for an individualization.  No objective criteria exists but science doesn’t require an objective criteria.  Science recognizes that we never know the ground truth but we can reliably indicate it with the diligent use of accepted principles and rigorous scrutiny.  Just because there isn’t an objective criteria doesn’t mean that we intuit when we’ve arrive at an individualization and it doesn’t mean that we don’t have standards.

Answer a:  Point standards are not a bad thing but it’s important to understand that they are more of an artificial safety net than a standard because they haven’t been scientifically established.  Often times point standards are used in technical conclusions where analytical thinking isn’t used (when computers are making individualization) or when the totality of the information isn’t understood by the practitioner. To help understand the minimum needed to arrive at a conclusion of individualizations, it may be useful to know that individualizations have been made using absolutely no level 2 details.

Answer b:  We all know of conclusions that have been verified but turned out to be erroneous.  Answer b many sound reasonable but it’s inaccurate.

Answer c:  Scientific conclusions need to have justification available if anyone should ever want it.  Many of us aren’t use to explaining how we arrived at our conclusions but it’s important to understand that this is a scientific protocol.  All conclusions don’t need to be justified but they do need to be justifiable should anyone ever ask to hear the justification.

Answers d-h:  The correct answer about sufficiency is not a quick and easy answer.  It involves a lot of scientific understanding and it’s a combination of answers d-h.  Science likes conclusions that have justification behind them and have been reviewed by others. There’s more weight given to collective opinions than in single opinions.

Answer i:  This is the standard of what is needed for an individualization but it doesn’t state how much is needed.
_________________________________________

Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners.  This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. With the exception of weeks such as this week, there are no copyrights on The Detail content.  As always, 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, 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 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 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!