UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page with a very interesting FIG #56 distortion; submitted by Toby Cross.  You can send your example of unique distortion to Charlie Parker: Charles.Parker@ci.austin.tx.us.  For discussion, visit the CLPEX.com forum FIG thread.

Updated the forum Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony (KEPT) thread with KEPT #29; Science or Technical Endeavor?, submitted by Michelle Triplett.  You can send your questions on courtroom topics to Michelle Triplett: Michele.Triplett@kingcounty.gov

Updated the Detail Archives
_________________________________________

Glenn Langenburg related a new latent print related course available for examiners.

_________________________________________
Kennewick man says mishap let killer go free, files $20M claim
by Kristin M. Kraemer, Herald staff writer
Mid Columbia Tri City Herald, Washington
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/259909.html
(http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/259909.html)
Friday, Aug. 01, 2008

Three years after his wife and teen daughter were slain in their home, Loren Moreno wants Kennewick to pay at least $20 million for a fingerprint mishap that let a fugitive killer go free.

He figures Benton County, Grant County and the state of Washington also are to blame and should help cover the payout, based on claims recently filed by Moreno against all four government entities.

Linda and Danielle Moreno still might be alive if only a Kennewick detective had ensured that James Moran's fingerprints were in the FBI's national database, Loren Moreno says in his claim.

Today, Moreno marks the third anniversary of the deaths of his loved ones.

"The city of Kennewick is responsible for depriving Linda, Danielle and Lorenzo Moreno of their constitutional right to life and liberty through its employees or agents," the claim says. "Lorenzo Moreno continues to suffer greatly from the loss of his family."

Moreno, who still lives in the family's South Edison Street home, says Kennewick authorities failed to protect Linda and Danielle from Moran, a man known to police to be an "extreme danger."

Each governmental entity now has 60 days to accept the claim or reject it, which then would clear the way for Moreno to file a lawsuit.

"The goal is to try to figure out what happened, to try to figure out what the truth is," said Chuck Pag-lialunga, Moreno's Seattle lawyer.

"At this point in time, we know that something went wrong and we know that this guy was already being sought for a double murder, but got released from jail. And it just seems so wrong that he was allowed to get out and just go and kill two innocent women at their home."

Moran was wanted in the July 2004 killings of his Kennewick in-laws, Debra and Glenn Carr, when he was picked up May 30, 2005, in Portland on suspicion of possessing cocaine. Moran, 33, then used the alias Juan Martinez.

The charge wasn't serious enough to warrant a stay in the Multnomah County jail, which has restrictions to prevent overcrowding. Instead, Martinez was booked, fingerprinted and released after several computer database checks failed to reveal he was using an alias.

Included in those checks was a search of the FBI's national database, called the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, and the Western Identification Network. The network is a multi-state database that does not include Washington, but allows access through a specific search.

Moran wasn't in either.

But his prints were on file with Washington state's separate database, called the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, after a 1999 arrest in Grant County for displaying a weapon.

When Grant County officials sent Moran's fingerprints to be included in the state's system after that arrest, they didn't send a copy to the FBI.

The state database in Olympia is managed by the Washington State Patrol. Portland police would have had to separately check the Washington database to learn that Moran was wanted for killing his in-laws.

According to the claim, then-Kennewick Detective Dean Murstig met with Benton County's fingerprint technician in April 2005 and was told that Moran's prints were in the federal system.

A Kennewick police investigation after the August 2005 murders of Linda and Danielle Moreno revealed that Murstig -- the lead detective in the Carr homicides -- wrongly assumed the year before that the two databases were one and the same, Chief Ken Hohenberg said at the time.

Hohenberg then accepted blame for the mishap and immediately changed the department's operating procedures to prevent such future mistakes.

Two months after Moran was released from Portland with a court date, he went on a road trip with Mark Tucker, picking up Carrie Blackford along the way.

On Aug. 1, 2005, the three ended up outside the Moreno home. Tucker and Blackford waited in the car, while Moran barged in and shot Linda, 52, then 17-year-old Danielle.

Tucker and Blackford heard screams coming from the home, but stuck around until Moran emerged with blood on his face and a purse in his hands. The three drove off, headed for Portland.

Moran shot himself in the head three days later after Clark County sheriff's deputies cornered him in Vancouver. He died the next day.

Both Tucker and Blackford were convicted for their roles in the crime.

Grant County has followed standard procedure by sending the claim on to the Washington Rural Counties Insurance Pool for further research, said June Strickler, the county commission's administrative services coordinator.

Kennewick City Attorney Lisa Beaton said the city also has given the claim to an insurance pool adjuster to review the facts and determine its validity.

"At this point no one knows where this claim is going to go, and I think we still need to know just a little bit more," said Paglialunga, Moreno's attorney. "We can't just say there was a mistake and we're sorry for it. ... There was a real problem with the way these fingerprints were being done."

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/259909.html
(http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/259909.html)

_________________________________________
KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #29
Science or Technical Endeavor?
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 – Science or Technology:

Are fingerprint comparisons a science or a technical endeavor?

Possible Answers:

a)      It’s a science.

b)      It’s a technical endeavor.

c)      Conclusions can be arrived at in a variety of ways but my conclusions are done scientifically.

d)     There are differing opinions on this.  Some people think it’s a science and other people say it’s a technical endeavor.  I believe……..because…….

Discussion:

Whatever answer you choose, it’s important that you’re able to back up your answer.  To do this you must be able to state the difference between a scientific endeavor and a technical endeavor.  There is no simple list of what constitutes a scientific endeavor.  Hundreds (if not thousands) of books have been written on the subject and some people even claim that the definition is evolving all the time.  This may be true but there are some very basic qualifications for something to be considered a scientific endeavor.  Usually science refers to natural phenomenon.  Scientific endeavors need to use accepted principles to arrive at the conclusion, be reproducible by others, open for others to review or scrutinize, testable, and conclusions are considered to be the best possible conclusions given the available data.  These conclusions are seldom absolute and final but they are conclusions that have gain acceptability.  Science always leaves the door open for better conclusions.  Science recognizes subjectivity and bias and tries to account for these types of things.  Science doesn’t require contemporaneous documentation, analytical documentation, complete objectivity, statistical probabilities, blind verification, or confirmation of the results. But it does recognize the benefits of all of these different tools.  Science doesn’t require a degree, anyone who appropriately uses scientific protocols can perform scientific endeavors.

Answers a and b:  Either of these answers could be true but they don’t have the weight behind them that an answer with an explanation has.

Answers c and d:  These answers sound good because they don’t give out too much information but it does sound like the practitioners can justify their conclusions and are prepared to do so.

_________________________________________

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!