How many verifications make an identification?

[rmcase]

I have been asked by my employer to conduct some research around the 3 check verification practice that is currently in place in the UK.

Although there is substantial documentation around standards, there is very little mention of the verification procedure and when key decisions were made.

The earliest reference I have is from the National Conference of Fingerprint Experts in 1975 recommending 2 verification checks.

I would be grateful if anyone has any info. I am also very keen to know how many verification checks are required internationally before an identification can be released to officers?

Regards,

Richard Case

[Cindy Rennie]

Hello Richard.

It is our procedure to have each latent identification verified by one other qualified member of the Unit. (A member becomes qualified upon two years of training and the passing of a series of written tests.) Once verified, the investigator is notified and the identification is passed on to the Forensic Identification Services officer who attended the scene (or to the SOCO Case Manager if the scene was attended by a SOCO - 'Scenes of Crime Officer' - a uniformed officer who attends crime scenes, photographs it, gathers evidence and latent impressions but is not a full-time forensics officer).

The FIS officer/SOCO Case Manager also verify the identification, since they are the ones who will testify to the identification in court.

[Graham F]

Cindy

For clarification are all your Forensic Identification Services officers and SOCO Case Managers, qualified/considered as fingerprint identification experts?
If so, are your latent print crime scene retrieval ratios from these personnel better (or worse), then retrieval ratios from scenes examined by officers who are not qualified as experts?

[Charles Parker]

Dear RM

When identifications are made in my Section it then goes to another LPE (civillian) for review or verification.

Once the latent print has been verified the original LPE will write a report detailing the results of their examination.

Although the case will go through Admin and/or Technicial Review the identification is not examined by a 3rd examiner.

On some rare ocassions when a LPE is faced with a real border line latent print the entire section may review the latent print and offer their conclusions. This happened yesterday with a difficult palm print ID.

[rmcase]

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your response.

I was wondering if your section has the same policy as other US fingerprint departments. I.e. Are there any national guidelines from SWGFAST on verification specifying how many LPE's would be required to check an identification and whether any of these LPE's would need to be certified?

Given your scenario of getting everyone in your unit to review a different mark, which I know is a very common occurrence. Does your unit document every persons opinion, and also would you need to disclose these if evidence was ever required?

In the UK, that kind of review would need to be disclosed to the defense council.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Dear Richard,

For what it's worth, my observation is that the more verifications required, i.e., the greater the number of people who are required to confirm an identification, the more the individual responsibility is diluted in the minds of the verifiers. In other words, nothing is gained by requiring three verifications instead of one and, in fact, the three verifiers may each be less cautious because they rely on each other to catch the mistakes rather than taking full personal responsibility.

I like the Dutch system. Twelve or more points (not just lines and numbers to points only the "expert" can see) and a single verification is required. But if the number of clear points drops below twelve, the verification goes to a committee of three senior experts. They discuss the identification as a committee, pointing out to each other the things that match and the things that don't. The verification has to be made by a unanimous vote of the three. Any one of them has veto power if he is uncomfortable with the identification. Caution is the order of the day, not peer pressure to verify.

I can think of several recent cases in which multiple verifications did not prevent an erroneous identification. The Brandon Mayfield case comes to mind, among others.

I would believe it better to have a single verification with the clear understanding that the verifier's career is on the line with each verification. That way caution rules and there is nobody else to point the finger at.