UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group (FIG) page with FIG #57; movement, pressure and substrate distortion; submitted by Sandy Siegel.  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 #31; Quality assurance during the comparison phase - Originals or Copies?, submitted by Michelle Triplett.  You can send your questions on courtroom topics to Michelle Triplett: Michele.Triplett@kingcounty.gov

Updated the Smiley Files with 2 new smileys, submitted by Ted Gibson of the Lamar County Sheriff's Office and Michael Williams of Chautauqua County Sheriff's Office. You can send your smileys to the Smiley Czar, Bill Wolz at: ridgeranger21@yahoo.com.

A post this week on the CLPEX History forum by Gerrit Volckeryck (Belgium) exposes what could be the earliest published instance (1863) of the proposition of use of chemically developed (iodine fumes) unique ("infinitely variable") latent prints to prove a crime (forgery).  Gerrit points out publication by Louis Figuier in the Journal de Toulouse, dated 29/12/1863, of the research of  M. Coulier.

Updated the Detail Archives
_________________________________________

we looked at the importance of knowing our AFIS databases.

_________________________________________
Forensic Digital Asset Management; An Overview and Search for More Information
by George Reis

This paper is an outline of ideas that I plan to expand in the coming few weeks – with your help. Please read this paper, and provide feedback to me via e-mail at reis@imagingforensics.com or via my survey at: <http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=RxA9Yzqwk_2b831d148FngAg_3d_3d>

What is digital asset management? In the simplest of terms, it is the method we use for archiving and retrieving our digital photos, scans, videos, and other digital files. It will consist, at minimum, of some sort of hardware (to store the assets) and some fort of filing method. In more complex scenarios, it may include secure networks, encrypted files, authentication software, database integration with other systems, etc.

Solutions range in price from free (except for the cost of the storage – hard drive space, for example) to tens of thousands of dollars.

The free solutions can provide image security, easy retrieval, image browsing and a simple interface. Modest priced solutions will include all this, plus they may include a database of both searchable metadata terms and low-resolution images. Off the shelf, commercial applications such as Extensis Portfolio or Canto Cumulus, can also integrate with other databases using common protocols like SQL. The most expensive solutions are marketed as “law enforcement solutions” and may include some extras like storing the files on a hidden drive.

When I consider the options, I often wonder what the considerations are that users consider when planning their digital asset management and storage solutions – why they choose one option over another. When I worked for a police agency, we used the free method, and it worked well from 1992, when we incorporated it, to the present. I’ve seen other agencies incorporate systems costing tens of thousands of dollars that don’t seem to offer any benefit over what we did for free.

There are a few choices to make when storing our images. We need to pick the media to use, the downloading method (from drag-and-drop to custom windows that include HASH logging), the level of security, whether to add keywords to search for images based on crime type, location or photographer, whether we integrate this system with a records management system, etc.

For images to be used in court, they basically need to represent what they purport to represent. No requirements exist for special “law enforcement” security or for software-based authentication. This doesn’t mean that we don’t need to use good practice, but it does mean that there are many ways to meet and exceed court requirements.

Whether you currently use a law enforcement solution, a commercial application, or have simply done it yourself – I would really appreciate your feedback on either why you have made the choice you have, whether you are considering something different (and why), and what features are important to you in making this decision.

_________________________________________
KEPT - Keeping Examiners Prepared for Testimony - #31
QA during the comparison phase - Originals or Copies?
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 - Originals or copies:

How does using a copy affect the comparison process?

Possible Answers:

a)      Copies of the originals are somewhat degraded from the original image and this may have an affect on a conclusion.  Conclusions may be possible with originals that aren’t possible with copies.

b)      Latent images can be enhanced through the use of computer programs.  Once an image is enhanced then additional individualizations can be made that may not be possible when using the original image.

c)      Copies can be used for comparison purposes and it’s up to the person doing the comparison to decide if the copy has the quality needed to be useful.

Discussion:

Answers a and b:  Both of these answers are correct but it’s the examiners responsibility to use what’s necessary to do a thorough job.  If the appropriate tools cannot be used, for a variety of reasons, then this should be stated in the result, “Inconclusive – computer enhancement may aid in arriving at a conclusion”.

Answer c:  I think this is the most accurate answer.  As stated with answers from other questions, it’s important to give the most comprehensive answer because multiple examiners may be testifying in the same case.  This may not be known if one of the examiners is testifying for the prosecution and another examiner is testifying for the defense, therefore it’s wise to always assume another examiner may be testifying in all of your cases.

_________________________________________

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!