Charles Parker wrote:The following are the views of the author and not necessarily those of any public agency or non-profit organization.
Mitch I have several theories why people do not answer anymore:
1. Their agencies really frown on them communicating anything that their agency does not have full control over----that is why so many are make believe names. This is sometimes called a god complex or squashing freedom of speech.
2. They are really concerned over the comments that Defense Attorneys and Defense Experts swim these waters trying to pick up little tidbits here and there that can be used against them.
3. Most fingerprint people are like hard core poker players and hold their cards close to their chest and out of sight and will only share them if someone pays for it.
4. Most fingerprint people could care less, and they are more into it being “A JOB” and not a profession. They are more interested in weight lifting, YMCA, donuts, Academia, and what others think and not what they think.
5. Most fingerprint people have gone underground into what I call e-mail cells where there are groups who communicate with those who have like beliefs but not those with different beliefs. You have the Elite Cells, the Academic Cells, the Science Cells, the Non-Science Cells, the Federal Cells, the State Cells, and the Plain Jane Cells.
Mitch those are my views on why no answer. I would send you mine but we are currently re-writing them for ISO. Give me six months and send me an e-mail and I will send you what I have.
Most generalizations are too broad to be of any value. I do suspect, though, that each description above would/could apply to a specific instance at one time or another.
However it is my belief that when we speak to each other, in this type of format, we do it like we are next to each other and not standing in front of an impanelled body of some sort. That is, we are speaking to each other in everyday english and not legal-eeze. Then to exacerbate that, individuals who have polarizing opinions, or ulterior motives, will cull empirical data from the text and draw disingenuous if not wrong conclusions. Then years later a law clerk will pull that statement, from a format just like this one,for a trial and the meaning is now out of context and will be lost to time. Just look at all of the stuff in appeals court regarding: "weapon of like kind", or ambiguous and unambiguous statements made around around miranda (exclamation of disbelief awareness of situation and even where the conjunction or participle was located. On and on ad nauseam...)
I do not speak like I am publishing a legal brief and neither do most people. So why be pulled into court years later for a statement lost to memory and time.
I know many CLPEX's and all of them without question work hard to provide a solid product and to pass on knowledge and information to others in the field.