fingerprint consulting services

Click to view full Presentation

As with any profession there are degree’s of competence. Not every latent fingerprint examiner has equal skill sets, these are developed by full time commitment to latent fingerprint comparison work.
What you should look for in a latent fingerprint expert is their knowledge. Does the latent fingerprint expert understand the science behind the fingerprints , what training has the individual satisfactorily completed? Does the expert have the experience of training other fingerprint examiners especially in more advanced fingerprint training?
What is the examiners experience? Latent fingerprint examiners are often accepted as expert based on limited comparison experience. A latent fingerprint examiner should spend the majority of the day doing comparison work.
Is the expert a full time latent examiner? with today’s limited budgets, many latent experts handle a multitude of duties and may not be as competent as you would expect from an expert.
Make no mistake, the comparisons being produced by the automated systems are producing many more challenging fingerprint comparisons. These more challenging comparisons come as training budgets and staffing in latent units are being cut back, a perfect storm for comparison errors.

As I’ve mentioned many times in my Blogs, the best way of insuring accurate fingerprint evidence is have it evaluated by a competent unbiased latent fingerprint examiner. In theory it is a good solution but in reality it could be cost prohibitive. I’ve developed a basic fingerprint course that is not only meets the needs for tenprint examiners and latent examiners; but could be used by a criminal attorney’s office as well. The clerk or attorney upon completion of the course, would have a good understanding of the automated fingerprint systems, what is meant by unidentified latent case prints and enough individualization skills to evaluate fingerprint evidence. Essentially the person that completes the training would be able to determine when the office should invest in a latent fingerprint expert. The skills acquired in the course would be just as beneficial to a Public Defenders office as they would be for a County Prosecutor or District Attorney.

Course outline:

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training

Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC

One of theme that runs through most of my blogs is the importance of having fingerprint evidence evaluated by a fingerprint expert. In theory this is a reasonable request, but practically, it may be cost prohibitive. An alternative is to have someone in the office receive the same basic training that a fingerprint expert would receive. The trained individual while not an expert would e the knowledge to evaluate a fingerprint case and:

know when to contract a fingerprint expert.

know if all the fingerprints were searched properly.

understand the importance of unidentified latents.

The training would be invaluable for a prosecutor or defense attorney’s office. A course has been developed by FBIS-LLC available on-line in mid-January, that would offer the flexibility required to allow someone from a busy attorney’s office to complete this type of fingerprint training. The training program is similar to what a new fingerprint examiner would receive at the state or federal level. Since the course is on-line there are no set hours of attendance or timetable for completion.

I also want to point out the training could be used by state and local law enforcement agencies and student’s (criminal justice and para-legal programs), as a a basic fingerprint training course, with the ability to utilize the training in an agency remediation program. If you have any questions please visit our website http://www.fingerprintconsultingservices.com/ or contact us at fbis@cox.net

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC

As every examiner knows, latent and exemplar images are never exactly the same. The reasons are many; how the exemplar was recorded or where the latent was deposited, etc. The experienced examiner during the analysis and evaluation must be able to understand and explain any discrepant points found in either the latent or exemplar images. In this case we had experienced examiners determine the discrepant points of identification were the result of latent distortion, probably caused by the bag. The examiners made a subjective determination which was incorrect. The panel noted the FBI examiners failed to follow the 1 discrepancy rule , if there is 1 unexplainable discrepancy in either the latent or exemplar image an individualization cannot be made. In this case the examiners did re-evaluate the prints and tried to get the Spanish examiners to agree with the FBI examiners individualization, I don’t think they ignored the rule , they felt they could explain the discrepancies. The examiners would have given the Spanish examiners their interpretation of reasons for he discrepant points.

The thing to remember is if highly skilled and experienced examiners, which each of these examiners is can make this type of mistake, what about the less skilled and experienced examiners. Most individualization’s are done by examiners with much less experience and training than the FBI examiners. Currently the most effective prevention is for the defense or court to have the fingerprint evidence re-evaluated by an unbiased 3r party.
Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

In the Mayfield case the FBI examiners increased the total minutiae they felt they had from 10 points of Level II detail to 15 total points utilizing level III detail. Level III detail can include a number of things from ridge shape and pores to scars and this information can be beneficial in individualization when properly used. It would appear that they continued the ” circular reasoning ” utilizing the level III detail. The examiners justified the the ten level II points based on the level III detail; ridge shape,pore placement and incipient dots. While I did not see the original images, from what I was able to see, the latent lacked clarity. On poor quality images it is very difficult to obtain reliable level III detail, the such small ridge characteristics are usually compromised by background clutter and distortion. The FBI had several different copies of Mayfields know prints and some of the level III detail was not present in all the copies, which should have caused the examiners concern. While level III detail can be helpful, it becomes less helpful as clarity decreases. I want to emphasize how important it is to utilizie multiple copies of an inked image if they are available when working poor quality images.

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC

The 2nd. significant factor noted by the OIG was the examiners of some features adjusted or influenced by “backward ” reasoning. In effect after determining 10 points of “unusual similarity” the examiners found additional features by working backward from Mayfields file print. The examiners found features in the exemplar and then looked for them in the latent image resulting in “murky or ambiguous details” being erroneously identified as points. When an examiner is dealing with a poor quality latent that lacks clarity, it is tempting to look at the exemplar and work backward but as is clear from the Mayfield case it can have disastrous results. This backward or circular reasoning allowed the examiners in Mayfield to report up to 17 points of identification. A jury or defense attorney presented with a case like Mayfield would be ill equipped to determine that an error had occur ed and then convince a jury of the error.

If you watch any of the shows that highlight current criminal trials ,you’ll often hear the analyst talk about having 8 points in fingerprints as a standard, they indicate if there are 8 points the print is an identification. I would suspect many lawyers are under the same impression that if there are 8 points case closed, as we see in Mayfield this is not the case. I would also go back to the point I’ve made numerous times in the past; the examiners in the Mayfield case all had more training and experience than most examiners testifying in court today. Even highly experienced latent examiners with training can make an identification error, the only way to prevent the error from causing disastrous on sequences is to have the evidence evaluated by an experienced examiner.

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

One other point I would like to make so it’s not lost in item 1 of the FBI report. The 10 of the points of identification finally used to identify Daoud,were also used by the FBI to incorrectly identify Mayfield. Why is this significant? most cases of fingerprint identification accepted in court today are brought in by latent examiners with less experience and training than the FBI examiners. With no “systematic study of the rarity” of finding such a constellation of similar points of identification, how can we expect less experienced examiners to make identifications on similar difficult identifications.

Went back over the executive summary on the Mayfield error back in 2004 and want to discuss what the Office Inspector General determined were the causes of the error as well as what the OIG suggested to prevent similar errors in the future.
The report listed six (6) causes for the error and in this blog I’d like to discuss the 1st. major contributing factor in the error. The OIG found the primary cause of the error was the similarity in Mayfield’s print with the latent found in Spain. ” Despite the unusual similarity in the relationship between points on the Mayfield and Daoud prints, Mayfield and Daoud did not have identical fingerprints.” It also pointed out there are no studies on how often situations similar to this occur but anecdotal reports this as a rare occurrence. The identification was an IAFIS suspect and as the OIG pointed out “The enormous size of the IAFIS database and power of the IAFIS program can find a confusingly similar print.” The OIG in my opinion was correct in highlighting this as the major factor in the error. As databases increase and algorithms improve there will be more suspects produced, that will have unusual similarity between points but will not be the individuals print.
So can this type of error be prevented ? There will continue to be similar errors we can minimize the numbers with training and utilization of fingerprint experts for the defense. In the Mayfield case you had four (4) experienced and well trained fingerprint examiners that made this bad identification.

Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.

The following article brought out a number of good points;
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1781113,2_1_AU21_PRINTS_S1-090921.article
“And of course, he wants the assailant caught as soon as possible, which is why the seven-month wait for a fingerprint match has him upset. Police do have a match on the suspect now, he said, but now they’re asking his relative to identify someone she hasn’t seen in seven months. ” A backlog causing a delay like this not only increases the likelihood of additional criminal activity by the criminal but also the possibility of an escalation in the violence in future crimes.
The other point made by this article: “Aurora’s crime lab doesn’t: an Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or AFIS. According to Leroy Keith, an Aurora alderman who also works as assistant director of DuPage County’s crime lab, the equipment itself costs about $50,000. But that’s not the big expense: You also need people trained to make the final matches.” As indicated in earlier blogs having trained latent fingerprint examiners requires 2 yr’s minimum of full time training to become a competent examiner. The expense and time can often tempt smaller agencies to not fully commit to the required training increasing the possibility for error.
While technology continues to improve we should expend similar resources to insure the individuals working with the automated systems are the highly trained individuals required for the systems.
Bob McAuley
Dir. Operations/Training
Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC.