UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Worked out technical difficulties from
re-hosting CLPEX.com to new servers. I
have purchased and installed Microsoft Sharepoint Designer 2007 as my client
application to format and publish CLPEX.com to the new servers. This
new application opens up new potential for site re-design, but full
utilization of the Sharepoint potential will probably require more time to
fully explore. If anyone with Sharepoint experience is interested in
being associate Webmaster for CLPEX.com, touch base with me at
kaseywertheim@aol.com and we'll
discuss the potential of new
CLPEX website
file collaboration potential.
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page with FIG #36.
Inserted Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony (KEPT) #11: The Comparison Phase
- is ACE a Linear or Circular Process? Discuss this topic on CLPEX.com - a discussion has
been created for KEPT.
_________________________________________
we looked at printer resolution for the best quality printed output.
We also looked at new R&D opportunities within the Department of Defense.
we look at a the Draft for
Comment from SWGFAST regarding Simultaneous Impressions. Please note
that this document is published as the Weekly Detail on CLPEX.com and by
e-mail to permit wide dissemination of the information to interested
parties, and that some format changes and occasional formatting errors may
have occurred. It is strongly encouraged that examiners wishing to
provide comments to SWGFAST review the original version located at
www.SWGFAST.org or at the following
link: (http://www.swgfast.org/Simultaneous_Examination_
Standards_1.0_DRAFT_FOR_COMMENT.pdf)
_________________________________________
Standards for Latent Print Examinations
Involving Two or More Friction Ridge Impressions as a Simultaneous
Impression
Draft for Comment
Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology
(SWGFAST)
Preamble
This standard
addresses latent print examinations when two or more friction ridge
impressions are considered to be deposited on an object as a single act of
touch, also referred to as a simultaneous impression. The SWGFAST Glossary
defines a simultaneous impression as “Two or more friction ridge impressions
from the same hand or foot deposited concurrently.” Two or more latent
friction ridge impressions from the same hand which are consistent with
simultaneity can be used in the aggregate and considered a single impression
when reaching conclusions. Thus, the term is herein referred to as a
simultaneous impression. The use of the term simultaneous impressions, with
an “s”, infers that more than one simultaneous impression exists in a case.
This document sets forth the standard for (1) analyzing two or more friction
ridge impressions to determine whether they are consistent with having been
deposited on an object concurrently as a single act of touch, and is
referred to as a simultaneous impression (2) analyzing a simultaneous
impression to determine whether it is of value for comparison purposes and
how it will be compared (3) reaching conclusions from the comparison of a
simultaneous impression (4) documenting the examination and (5) reporting
results.
Independent of the value for individualization or exclusion, a simultaneous
impression may support the ability to infer the handling or circumstance of
touch by the fingers, hand or foot on an object. Specific circumstances
within a case may provide an expert the opportunity to offer an opinion as
to how the simultaneous impression relates to the touch or grasp of an
object, which may support or refute the circumstances of touch.
The relative weight of particular evidence for legal proceedings is known as
probative value with the potential of investigative insight as to how the
simultaneous impression relates to the touch or grasp of an object.
Before conducting a forensic case examination of a simultaneous impression,
examiners shall have completed training in the examination of latent print
simultaneous impressions.1
1. Analysis
The analysis
must include (1) the determination whether the friction ridge impressions
are consistent with a simultaneous impression and (2) the determination of
the value for comparison of each friction ridge impression within the
simultaneous impression.
The analysis will determine how the examination is to proceed in the
comparison phase, for example, each friction ridge impression can
stand-alone for reaching a conclusion, or the aggregate of some or all of
the friction ridge impressions must be considered for reaching a conclusion.
The term “stands-alone” means that a conclusion of individualization for a
single impression can be reached independent of other impressions within the
aggregate.
There is no scientific basis for requiring a single friction ridge
impression within a simultaneous impression to stand-alone for
individualization purposes [1 – 7]. This position is in harmony with the
fundamental scientific principle of biological uniqueness.
1.1. Analysis of
two or more friction ridge impressions as a simultaneous impression
The following
factors for each friction ridge impression and the aggregate shall be
analyzed to confirm or refute that the impressions are consistent with
having been deposited concurrently:
1) The object(s) upon which the friction ridge impressions exist.
One or more friction ridge impressions are present on a single or multiple
objects. Note: the use of multiple objects infers that the simultaneous
impression may actually span across more than one object, for example, a
portion of the simultaneous impression is on one sheet of paper and the
remaining portion on an overlapping piece of paper (Figures 1 – 4).
Figure 1
Simultaneous impression across two surfaces (torn piece of paper).
Figure 2
Simultaneous impression with void due to substrate gap
(shape of the revolver in this image).
Figure 3
Simultaneous impression across a semiporous surface
(label) and a nonporous surface (plastic).
Figure 4
Simultaneous impression across two pieces of paper.
2) Orientation
Determine that the orientation is consistent between (1) friction ridge
impressions within the aggregate (2) each friction ridge impression and the
hand or foot morphology and (3) the hand or foot morphology and the object.
3) Spatial relationship
Determine that each friction ridge impression within the aggregate is within
anatomical spatial tolerances of the hand or foot with the object(s).
4) Substrate (surface)
Determine that the aggregate of the friction ridge impressions is consistent
with the surface(s) on which it appears. Substrate examples are as follows:
•
A single surface
such as one side of a piece of paper on which all friction ridge impressions
appear.
•
A single surface
such as the entire surface of a cylindrical or curved object on which all
friction ridge impressions appear; three fingerprints on one side of a
cylinder and a thumb print on the other side.
•
Two surfaces such as
opposite sides of a piece of paper with one or more friction ridge
impressions appearing on each side; a thumb print on the corner of one side
and the index and middle finger on the other side.
•
Two different
surfaces on a single object, such as the paper label on a glass bottle; one
fingerprint on the paper label and two fingerprints on the glass bottle.
•
Two surfaces on two
objects, such as two pieces of overlapped paper on which the fingerprints
appear on one and the lower joints and a partial palm print appear on the
other.
5) Friction ridge skin features and anatomical features
Determine that the friction ridge skin features, for example ridge width,
ridge flow, and creases, are consistent with simultaneity.
Determine that the anatomical features, for example finger height, toe span,
and impression size are consistent with simultaneity.
6) Processing technique and matrix
Determine that each friction ridge impression within the aggregate has
similar and consistent appearance for the matrix or specific processing
technique(s) used to visualize.
7) Distortion
Determine that the friction ridge impressions have consistent appearance
related to deposition pressure, lateral pressure, and twisting. Examples, in
the order listed above, are as follows:
•
Placing a hand on a
bank counter to vault over.
•
Pushing up a window.
•
Opening a
pocketknife by the blade.
Determine that the distortion(s) within the aggregate of the friction ridge
impressions exhibit consistent appearance for the object and substrate.
1.2.
Simultaneous impression determination
In determining
whether two or more friction ridge impressions are a simultaneous impression
the examiner must consider each factor listed in 1.1, individually and in
the aggregate. The analysis of the applicable factors must support the
determination of simultaneity. The result of this analysis will result in
one of the following scenarios:
1) All friction ridge impressions are consistent with having been deposited
concurrently, and, as such are considered to be a simultaneous impression.
2) A subset of the friction ridge impressions are consistent with having
been deposited concurrently, and, the subset is considered to be a
simultaneous impression
3) None of the friction ridge impressions are consistent with being
deposited concurrently and as such are not considered to be a simultaneous
impression.
4) Simultaneity cannot be determined.
1.3.
Determination of the value for comparison purposes
The
simultaneous impression, as an aggregate of all friction ridge impressions,
should be analyzed and will result in one of the following scenarios:
1) All friction ridge impressions are of value for comparison purposes and
each stands-alone for a conclusion (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Simultaneous impression where all impressions stand-alone.
2) One or more,
but not all, of the friction ridge impressions will stand-alone.
Those friction ridge impressions which do not stand-alone must be compared
in the aggregate in order to reach a conclusion (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Simultaneous impression with three impressions that stand-alone and one
impression that must be compared in the aggregate.
3) At least one of
the friction ridge impressions will stand-alone and at least one of the
remaining friction ridge impressions only provides anatomical or spatial
information. Those friction ridge impressions which do not standalone may be
compared in the aggregate in order to reach a conclusion, whereas those
providing anatomical or spatial information may be used to support
simultaneity (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Simultaneous impression with two impressions that stand-alone, one
impression that must be compared in the aggregate, and one impression that
only supports simultaneity.
4) None of the
friction ridge impressions stand-alone but all are of value for comparison
purposes in the aggregate for reaching a conclusion (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Simultaneous impression where all of the impressions must be compared in the
aggregate.
5) None of the
friction ridge impressions stand-alone and some provide only anatomical or
spatial information. Those providing anatomical or spatial information may
be used to support simultaneity, whereas the remaining impressions may be
used in the aggregate for reaching a conclusion (Figure 9).
Figure 9
Simultaneous Impression with two impressions that must be compared in the
aggregate and one impression that only supports simultaneity.
6) The impressions
may provide anatomical or spatial information and are noted solely for
potential analytical value (Figure 10).
Figure 10
Simultaneous impression noted solely for potential analytical value.
1.4.
Continuation of the ACE-V methodology
For each
friction ridge impression determined to be of value for comparison within a
simultaneous impression the examiner should proceed to the comparison phase.
Simultaneity can be supported or refuted during the comparison, evaluation,
or verification phase. If it is refuted then re-analysis shall occur.
Prior to comparison, an analysis of the known exemplars must be performed
ensuring that all impressions are in proper sequence and attributable to the
same person.
2. Comparison of
simultaneous impression(s)
For each
friction ridge impression, stand-alone or in the aggregate, determined to be
of value for comparison, the examiner should proceed to the comparison phase
noting similarities or discrepancies between the impressions.
3. Evaluation of
simultaneous impression(s)
For each of
the scenarios provided in 1.3 an evaluation conclusion can support or refute
simultaneity. If simultaneity is refuted re-analysis is required. If the
impressions are consistent with simultaneity, standards for conclusions are
applied to each impression in an aggregate. Those friction ridge impressions
which do not stand-alone must be compared in the aggregate in order to reach
a conclusion.
Examples of evaluation conclusions are as follows:
1) All friction ridge impressions stand-alone.
2) At least one of the friction ridge impressions will stand-alone and the
remaining friction ridge impressions are used in the aggregate.
3) At least one of the friction ridge impressions will stand-alone and at
least one of the remaining friction ridge impressions provide only
anatomical or spatial information. Those friction ridge impressions that
provide only anatomical or spatial information may be used for confirmation
of simultaneity.
4) None of the friction ridge impressions stand-alone but are used in the
aggregate.
5) None of the friction ridge impressions stand-alone and some provide only
anatomical or spatial information.
For a conclusion of individualization, the details contained within all
friction ridge impressions must be in agreement across all corresponding
impressions for that person.
4. Verification
of simultaneous impression(s)
The analysis
factors of each aggregate impression must be verified as supporting
simultaneity. Each simultaneous impression resulting in individualization
must be verified. Exclusions or inconclusive decisions may be verified. Any
conflicts must be addressed within an agency’s conflict resolution process.
5. Documentation
of simultaneous impression(s)
Case note
documentation should reflect the ACE-V methodology as it applies to the
simultaneous impression examination.
5.1.
Documentation of analysis
For each
applicable analysis factor listed under section 1.1, the case note
documentation shall reflect the pertinent information. This information
shall be documented by a photograph, lift, or legible copy with sufficient
annotation in written examiner notes. The information must be sufficient for
another competent examiner to interpret what was done to allow replication
of the analysis decision.
For each analysis factor under section 1.1, there may be either factual case
information or there may be qualitative information derived during the
analysis which may be necessary to document in support of simultaneity.
1) An example of factual case information is knowing the object is a bottle
because the examiner personally processed it.
2) An example of qualitative information derived by the examiner is the
presence and consistency of lateral pressure in a friction ridge impression
or across all impressions.
There may be other factors than those listed under analysis section 1.1 due
to the unique circumstance of touch and those factors should be documented.
For each friction ridge impression within a simultaneous impression the
orientation, spatial relationship, and anatomical features shall be captured
using a photograph, lift, or legible copy and annotated. Each agency
performing simultaneous impression examinations shall establish a policy for
consistent annotations of simultaneous impressions. The following examples
are a guideline regarding annotations:
1) Distal segment of the fingerprints - Draw a horseshoe-shaped mark over
the top of the distal segment of the fingerprint with one continuous line
connecting all the fingerprints (Figure 11).
Figure 11
2) Proximal and
medial segments (commonly known as lower joints) of fingerprints - Draw one
line on each side of the proximal and medial segments with the notation "LJ"
indicating it is a lower joint. Draw one lower line to connect all LJ
impressions (Figure 12).
Figure 12
3) Distal,
proximal, and medial segments of fingerprints and palmprint - Draw a
horseshoe-shaped mark over the top of the fingerprints with one continuous
line connecting all the fingerprints. Draw a bracket at the bottom of the
palm print. Draw one line on the hypothenar or thenar side to connect the
palm print to the fingerprints or lower joint(s) (Figures 13 & 14).
Figure 13
Figure 14
4) Toeprint and
footprint – Same as fingerprints and palmprints but include footprints or
toeprints as notation (Figures 15 & 16).
Figure 15
Figure 16
For each separate
friction ridge impression contained within the simultaneous impression, the
case note documentation, either in writing or annotations on a photograph,
lift, or legible copy must reflect whether the impression: 1) stands-alone;
2) is part of an aggregate; or 3) provides only anatomical or spatial
information but supports the simultaneity decision.
1) Friction ridge impressions of value for comparison that stand-alone need
not be labeled as such (Figure 17).
Figure 17
2) Friction ridge
impressions of value for comparison that do not stand alone but
require the aggregate of all impressions will be labeled with “agg” for
aggregate (Figure 18).
Figure 18
3) Friction ridge
impressions of no value for comparison are indicated with a “NV” for no
value, but are still considered as being of value for supporting
simultaneity (Figure 19).
Figure 19
4) For each
friction ridge impression deemed to be of value for comparison, the level 2
detail relied upon in reaching that determination should be documented. This
may be done in writing or annotations on a photograph, lift, or legible
copy. This information shall be clearly indicated as “analysis” data (Figure
20).
Figure 20
Analysis photo with level 2 detail marked in red.
5) Other
impressions present on the lift or photograph which are not within the
annotated simultaneous impression are marked separately and not joined to
the aggregate.
5.2.
Documentation of comparison
For each
simultaneous impression, the case documentation must reflect all comparisons
conducted with known exemplars by name or unique identifier.
A simultaneous impression compared with other simultaneous impressions
(latent prints to latent prints) must also be documented.
For each friction ridge impression deemed to be of value for comparison the
level 2 detail, relied upon during the comparison should be documented. This
may be done in writing or annotations on a photograph, lift, or legible
copy. This information shall be clearly indicated as “comparison” data
(Figure 21).
Figure 21
Comparison photo with level 2 detail marked in blue.
This documentation
may be different than set forth in the analysis photograph and would require
separate and additional documentation, for example, a second photograph. If
it is not different, then the documentation can be modified by adding the
“comparison” indicator.
5.3.
Documentation of evaluation
Each friction
ridge impression of value for comparison contained within a simultaneous
impression will require case documentation of the conclusion reached when
compared with a known exemplar or other latent impression. The case
documentation must reflect a conclusion (individualization, exclusion, or
inconclusive) for each comparison conducted with known exemplars by name or
unique identifier.
The conclusion of a simultaneous impression compared with other simultaneous
impressions (latent prints to latent prints) must also be documented
The Standards for Conclusions2
shall be utilized. A
standard for conclusion must be applied and documented for each simultaneous
impression which has been compared.
The documentation must enable a reviewer to associate the comparisons
conducted and conclusions rendered.
1) Individualization – Document on the photograph, lift, or legible copy the
name or unique identifier of the person identified, along with the
respective finger or palm designation in direct association with the marking
as described in 5.1. This same information must be documented in case notes
(Figure 22).
Figure 22
2) Exclusion –
This information must be recorded in case notes.
3) Inconclusive – Document on the photograph, lift, or legible copy an “inc”
for inconclusive for each applicable friction ridge impression within the
simultaneous impression. This information must also be recorded in case
notes for each individual to each latent impression (Figure 23).
Figure 23
Another example would be a scenario where four individuals were compared, no
individualizations effected, and three of the four individuals were excluded
but the remaining individual, due to poor quality known exemplars or for
lacking the comparable area, resulted in an inconclusive comparison.
The “inc” indicator would not only be indicated on the photograph or legible
copy, but also recorded in case notes and specifically associated with the
name or unique identifier for that individual (Figure 24).
Figure 24
5.4.
Documentation of verification
Verification
documentation should be made on an unmarked photograph or legible copy and
also recorded in case notes.
The case notes shall reflect the verification of simultaneity and the
conclusions of the original examiner, including each individual’s known
exemplars by name or unique identifier.
Any conflict between the original examiner’s decision and the decision from
the verification process must be resolved3. Any conflicts must be
referred to the agency’s conflict resolution process and no reporting of
results should be provided until the conflict is resolved.
Blind verification shall be utilized where none of the simultaneous
impressions standalone.
6. Reporting of
simultaneous impression(s)
Any or all
simultaneous impressions may be reported as such depending on how the
impression relates to the circumstances of the touch (i.e., probative
value). A photograph (digital image, photocopy) indicating the placement of
the simultaneous impression on the evidence or lift may be returned with the
report. The report should state: “A simultaneous impression is two or more
friction ridge impressions from the same hand or foot deposited
concurrently.” The following are scenarios with examples for different
methods of reporting a simultaneous impression.
1) The analysis indicates the prints are a simultaneous impression and all
of the friction ridge impressions contain sufficient information to
stand-alone for comparison.
•
A simultaneous
impression containing three latent fingerprints of value for comparison has
been detected on Q1. The simultaneous impression has been individualized
with JOHN DOE.
•
A simultaneous
impression containing one latent fingerprint and one latent palm print of
value for comparison has been detected on Q1. The simultaneous impression
has been individualized with JOHN DOE.
2) Reporting the analysis of a simultaneous impression when no comparisons
have been conducted (i.e., no exemplars).
•
Three latent
impressions of comparison value have been detected on Q1 and are consistent
with being concurrently deposited.
Although the analysis indicated that these three latent fingerprints are
consistent with simultaneity, it should not be inferred that these latent
impressions are, in fact, placed simultaneously.
3) One or more of the impressions contains sufficient information to
standalone but the remaining are insufficient to stand-alone
•
A simultaneous
impression containing three latent fingerprints has been detected on Q1. The
simultaneous impression has been individualized with JOHN DOE.
4) At least one of the prints contains sufficient information to stand-alone
but one of the impressions within the aggregate only provides anatomical or
spatial information.
•
A simultaneous
impression containing three latent fingerprints has been detected on Q1. Two
of the latent fingerprints have been individualized with JOHN DOE. The
remaining impression within this simultaneous impression does not contain
sufficient ridge detail to exclude or individualize but is sufficient to
support simultaneity.
5) Reporting of analysis of a simultaneous impression when no comparisons
have been conducted.
•
A simultaneous
impression containing three latent fingerprints has been detected on Q1. Two
of the latent fingerprints contained within this simultaneous impression are
of value for comparison and a conclusion can be made regarding the source of
the two friction ridge impressions. The two latent fingerprints are
consistent with being concurrently deposited by the right index and ring
fingers.
The remaining impression within this simultaneous impression does not
contain sufficient ridge detail to exclude or individualize but is
consistent with and has the spatial relationship to have been the right
middle finger.
6) The analysis indicates the prints are consistent with being a
simultaneous impression and none of the prints stand-alone, but the
cumulative information is sufficient to individualize.
•
A simultaneous
impression containing three latent fingerprints has been detected on Q1. The
simultaneous impression has been individualized with JOHN DOE.
7) The analysis indicates the prints are consistent with being a
simultaneous impression and none of the prints stand-alone and one of the
impressions within the aggregate contains no ridge detail, but the
cumulative information is sufficient to individualize.
•
A simultaneous
impression containing three latent fingerprints has been detected on Q1. The
simultaneous impression has been individualized as having been made by the
right index and middle fingers of JOHN DOE. The remaining impression within
this simultaneous impression does not contain sufficient ridge detail to
exclude or individualize but is sufficient to support simultaneity.
8) The cumulative total of all the prints is insufficient for comparison or
where the prints contain no ridge detail, but the analysis indicates the
friction ridge impressions are consistent with being deposited concurrently.
The impression would be reported as a simultaneous impression only for the
purpose of providing insight as to the circumstances of touch.
•
A simultaneous
impression of the right hand consisting of three fingers and a partial palm
has been detected on Q1. It has been determined to be of no value for
individualization but may be of value for exclusion.
7. References
1) Ashbaugh,
D. R. Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis: An Introduction
to Basic and Advanced Ridgeology. CRC Press LLC:
Boca Raton,
FL, 1999, 134-135.
2) Black, J. P. Pilot Study: The Application of ACE-V to Simultaneous
(Cluster) Impressions. Journal of Forensic Identification. 2006, 56
(6), 933 - 971.
3) Budowle, B., Buscaglia, J., and Perlman, R. Review of the Scientific
Basis for Friction Ridge Comparisons as a Means of Identification: Committee
Findings and Recommendations. Forensic Science Communications. 2006,
8 (1).
4) Cowger, J. F. Friction Ridge Skin. CRC Press LLC:
Boca Raton,
FL, 1993, 154-156.
5) Ostrowski, S. Simultaneous Impressions: Revisiting the Controversy. The
Weekly Detail #13. www.clpex.com.
November 5, 2001 (accessed September 2007).
6) An Analysis of Standards in Fingerprint Identification. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin. 1972 46(6) p.1-6.
7) Method for Fingerprint Identification. Part II: Detailing the method
using common terminology and through the definition and application of
shared principles. Interpol European Expert Group on Fingerprint
Identification.
www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/fingerprints/WorkingParties/IEEGFI2/default.asp
(accessed October 30,
2007).
[Specific Footnotes]
1
Refer to SWGFAST “Training to Competency for Latent Print Examiners.”
2
Refer to SWGFAST “Standards for Conclusions.”
3
Refer to SWGFAST “Quality Assurance Guidelines for Latent Print Examiners.”
ENTIRE DRAFT WITH IMAGES:
(http://www.swgfast.org/Simultaneous_Examination_Standards_1.0_DRAFT_FOR_COMMENT.pdf)
http://www.swgfast.org/Simultaneous_Examination_Standards_1.0_DRAFT_FOR_COMMENT.pdf
_________________________________________
KEPT -
Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #11
Comparison phase
- is ACE a linear or circular process?
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 -
Comparison Phase - Is ACE a linear or circular process?
When you did your comparison did you go back and forth
between the latent and the known print?
Possible
Answers:
a)
No, because that would create circular reasoning.
b)
No, because if you do this then you’re at risk for
making the latent print fit the known print.
c)
Yes, I move back and forth between the latent and
the known.
d)
Yes, I move back and forth between the latent and
the known print, confirming the characteristics between the images are the
same.
Discussion:
This question is implying that bias is created if you
don’t do a full analysis of the latent print prior to moving to the
comparison phase. The key
factors in arriving at a conclusion of individualization are consistency
between the two prints and a sufficient amount of information to arrive at
that conclusion. ‘When’ someone
noticed a characteristic was consistent isn’t a factor in establishing if
that characteristic can or should be used.
The decision to use a characteristic should be based on the
reproducibility of that feature and any visual distortional information that
may go along with that characteristic.
Answer a: Going
back and forth is a circular process which is different than circular
reasoning.
Answer b: Going
back and forth may increase the tendency to make the latent fit the known
print and as experts we need to understand this phenomenon and account for
it. Scientific methods allow us
to use a circular process as long as we understand the shortcomings and
protect against them when it’s needed (perhaps with blind verification or
peer review).
Answer c: Some
books and articles promote using ACE as a linear process to prevent bias
from being introduced into the comparison process.
This will diminish bias but too much valuable information can be lost
by using ACE in a linear fashion.
Science promotes using a circular process by encouraging
re-evaluating your own work as well as re-evaluation of the work of others.
Science also promotes going back to the beginning of any experiment
and collecting more information to test your conclusion.
Science accounts for any bias that could be introduced by using other
quality assurance measures.
Answer d: This
answer is the same as c with the additional ‘confirmation’ statement added.
This word should be avoided because scientific methods discourage
confirmation and promote trying to falsify what we think is true.
Trying to falsify our beliefs will insure we aren’t drawn into
biasing factors and insures we aren’t trying to make the images match.
_________________________________________
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!