UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group web page with FIG # 35.

Inserted KEPT #9 - On-Line Forums:  Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has been created for KEPT.

Goodbye to Newz-man Jon Stimac, who has been pulling together our weekly news for the last 6 years!  He has recently stepped up as the Editor of the IAI's new publication Identification News and this will be his last week of pulling together links for the Weekly Detail.  Thanks, Jon, for all the hours... it was quite a run for 6 years.  I appreciate all the information sharing and knowledge you contributed to for so long.  I'm happy to see you taking that to the next level with ID News and  I wish you the best in all your information sharing endeavors.  Thanks again for everything you have done and that you continue to do for our community.

If anyone else is interested in pulling together the top 4 weekly articles for the audience of the Weekly Detail, please reply to the e-mail or send me a note with your technical approach to how you could/would accomplish the Newz: kaseywertheim@aol.com.  There are many features associated with news services these days that might make this an easier task than it used to be.  Another option is for us all to simply refer to the News link that stays at the top of the CLPEX.com forum.

Speaking of the forum, Due to technical difficulties, the board was down half of the week but it is back up at this time.  I apologize for not being able to provide you with your daily fix of interaction!  I am in the process of having my website re-hosted to a new platform with a new version of PhpBB to support our forum.  Until then, we may have to live with a few more glitches over the coming weeks / months.
_________________________________________

Steve Ostrowski brought us a summary and links regarding the New Hampshire Supreme Court's appeal of State v. Langill.

I have often wondered what we would see if a prominent critic of latent print identification were the victim of a crime-against-persons where prosecution hinged on a latent print identification.  We all doubt the critic would drop the charges and allow the individual to walk; rather we would like to see them break down and admit they know the science is valid and allow justice to be served in their case.  Cully Stimson of the Heritage Foundation does a great job of framing the importance and many uses of fingerprint identification in an article that makes us back up a level and realize the success of our discipline.
_________________________________________
What's this?  Fingerprint evidence cannot be trusted?
By CULLY STIMSON
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

A trial judge in Maryland recently ruled that the prosecution couldn't use fingerprint evidence in a murder trial. Why? Because, according to her, fingerprint evidence isn't reliable. Never mind that the defendant's fingerprints were found on the car of the person he allegedly shot. Does this ruling make sense? Fingerprint evidence has been a reliable crime-fighting tool for more than a century. Police officers, security experts, prosecutors, defense attorneys — all rely on fingerprint evidence. Indeed, its use and reliability isn't limited to the courtroom. Many parents, for example, have their children fingerprinted so that if they are abducted, law enforcement has a set of prints to use in the investigation.

Fingerprints are also used to keep track of sex offenders. Under the Adam Walsh Act, convicted offenders must register with local officials, and their conviction and image is posted on a national Web site so the public can know where they are. But they don't just register — they have to submit their fingerprints to the authorities.

Communities rely on the authenticity of those fingerprints.

As combat operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, coalition forces continue to engage the enemy. As in all wars, some enemy fighters are captured. Often, they are hard to identify, because they refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions by wearing a uniform and identifying themselves once captured. Those elusive terrorists are identified by their fingerprints. The military relies on this evidence. In fact, they stake their lives on it.

Foreign visitors to the United States are required to place their finger on an electronic reader when they arrive. Their print is instantly compared against a database of other prints. The system was put in place after Sept. 11 to determine whether someone should be allowed into our country. The Department of Homeland Security relies on fingerprint evidence to protect all of us.

In many states, convicted criminals are required to provide their fingerprints to the government so that, in the future, if they commit another crime, authorities can compare the known prints to the new prints. Authorities do this because many career criminals use multiple aliases. States rely on fingerprint evidence to hold recidivists accountable.

In some of the most secure business, government and military buildings, you have to place your fingers and palm into a reader to gain access to sensitive areas. Since, as we all know, no two fingerprints have ever been proven to be the same, there is a high degree of confidence that the person presenting her fingerprint to the reader is the person actually authorized access to the top-secret area. Security experts rely on fingerprint evidence, and for good reason.

It would be a different story if fingerprints were an untested practice. In our criminal justice system, it is right and proper to test the validity of new scientific techniques. The last thing anyone wants to see happen is for an innocent person to be detained or convicted based on unreliable scientific methods. We must keep an open mind when a criminal defense attorney tests the prosecution's attempted use of a new scientific technique in court whose reliability has not been established. Techniques that have been accepted in the relevant scientific community as reliable have been and should be admitted. Unreliable techniques, and quackery, should be excluded.

But defense attorneys, too, have relied on fingerprint evidence for years. They routinely argue that the lack of fingerprints in a case, or the presence of a third parties' fingerprints at the scene of the crime, is valuable — reliable — evidence for a jury to consider.

Fingerprints, in short, have a long and dependable history. The science of reading a fingerprint has proved to be reliable to judges in every country, and indeed in every state in the United States. You and I rely on fingerprint evidence everyday to keep us safe. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion written in 1969 by Justice William Brennan said that fingerprint evidence is a "more reliable and effective crime-solving tool than eyewitness identifications and confessions."

Perhaps the Maryland trial judge forgot to read that case.

About the writer: Cully Stimson, a former prosecutor and defense attorney, is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Readers may write to the author in care of The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; Web site: www.heritage.org.

_________________________________________

KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #9
On-Line Forums
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 – On-Line Forums:

This could relate to any information on the internet or information in a newspaper article.

Possible Answers:

a)      An on-line chat board may not be a reliable source of information because answers aren’t always as accurate or as comprehensive as they should be.

b)      An on-line chat board may not be a reliable source of information because the answers may just be someone’s opinion and may not be tested or valid.

c)      I’d have to read the entire thread to understand the context of this conversation.

d)     I’m unfamiliar with forum and cannot comment on what was said.

e)      Yes, I did say that but I meant…..

f)       I can’t comment on this because I don’t know if they were referring to a specific incident, a specific case, or rules that only affect a specific jurisdiction. 

g)      I am aware that this was said but I don’t know what this person was basing this information on.

h)      I’ve seen this image on the internet but I can’t vouch for the authentication of the image. 

Discussion:

I’ve heard several people state that attorney’s are bringing up information from on-line forums during interviews or testimony.  Some people use this as a reason not to post on these forums and others use this as a way to slight those who do post.  On-line forums or blogs can be very informative and therefore I don’t believe people should discourage their use.  It’s more important that we understand the context of the information and not be afraid to answer to this if this comes up in court.

Answers a, b, c, d, f, g and h:  These are all appropriate answers.

Answer e:  I would discourage any discussion that sounds like the examiner is being defensive.  These on-line forums are a valuable source of information but need to be kept within the appropriate context.  Although they may be valuable at a specific time for a specific topic, the information from these conversations may not be as useful during a trial or to determine the expertise of a practitioner.

_________________________________________

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!