03.11.2025 | Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations by Bradford T. Ulery et al.
“What constitutes sufficiency for an examiner to reach an individualization determination is a critical question that has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate for many years; recently, this question has received increased attention as a result of critiques of the forensic sciences, a series of legal challenges to the admissibility of fingerprint evidence in the U.S. and publicized errors. In order to understand the bases for examiners’ determinations, the Authors designed an experiment to investigate the relationship between the clarity and quantity of features in fingerprints and examiners’ determinations.. .”
See full presentation here
______________________________
02.24.2025 | What’s in a Name? Consistency in Latent Print Examiners’ Naming Conventions and Perceptions of Minutiae Frequency by Heidi Eldridge et al.
“Fingerprint minutia types influence LPEs’ decision-making processes during analysis and evaluation, with features perceived to be rarer generally given more weight. However, no large-scale studies comparing examiner perceptions of minutiae frequency to empirical counts exist. Additionally, examiner naming conventions for minutiae vary, increasing confusion over minutia types. The Authors report Phase I of ongoing research – a survey of LPEs that measured consensus in minutiae naming, perceived minutia type frequency, and casework use of frequency information …”
See presentation here .
______________________________
02.10.2025 | Changes in latent fingerprint examiners’ markup between Analysis and Comparison by Brandon T. Ulery et al.
“When comparing prints, after establishing anchor points of potential similarity, an examiner looks back and forth between the latent and exemplar to assess the similarity of each potentially corresponding region. This process has been described as involving “forward” comparison (from the latent to the exemplar) and “reverse” comparison (from the exemplar to the latent) [8,10]. Reverse comparison in search of potential discrepancies is necessary, but the examiner needs to be alert to the risk of confirmation bias or circular reasoning. Once an examiner sees a possible alignment between the latent and exemplar, the process of following individual ridges and marking correspondences may result in changes to the latent markup simply because more time and effort is expended, and because additional features may be suggested based on the similarity; when the examiner is unable to find any potentially corresponding areas, there is less basis for such revisions. A notable example of the problem of bias from the exemplar resulting in circular reasoning occurred in the Madrid misidentification, in which the initial examiner reinterpreted five of the original seven Analysis points to be more consistent with the (incorrect) exemplar: “Having found as many as 10 points of unusual similarity, the FBI examiners began to ‘find’ additional features in LFP 17 [the latent print] that were not really there, but rather suggested to the examiners by features in the Mayfield prints. ”
See full article here .
______________________________
01.23.2025 | Lecture notes; Understanding Exclusion and Sufficiency Decisions by Glenn Langenburg & John Black.
“Dissimilarity refers to a difference in appearance between two friction ridge impressions. These differences are due to distortion (in tolerance)… Discrepancy on the other hand refers to the presence of friction ridge detail(s) in one impression that do not appear in the corresponding area of another impression. Such originate in the source skin and the term is used as a description when the perceived difference(s) cannot be attributed to distortion (i.e out of tolerance). “
______________________________
01.09.2025 | Testing the accuracy and reliability of palmar friction ridge comparisons – A black box study by Heidi Eldridge et al.
“Typically, testimony about error rates is given in respect to ground truth – after all, if one is discussing accuracy, the matter of interest is whether the correct conclusion was reached. However, we only have the luxury of knowing ground truth in structured studies like this one. In the real world, we never know ground truth. Thus, constructing an error rate based upon knowledge of ground truth does not give a complete picture about how examiners might perform in the real world, where the truth is uncertain. In the real world, the “rightness” of an answer is generally determined by verification – or whether one or more colleagues agree with the decision. “
See full article here .
______________________________
12.11.2024 | Documenting and Reporting Inconclusive Results by Alice Maceo.
“An “incomplete” result (Figure 2) will occur when the exemplar prints are inadequate (quantity or quality). The latent print may or may not have limited detail consistent with the exemplar prints. Additional exemplar prints will be required and may permit the analyst to reach a definitive conclusion.. . It is suggested that “incomplete” comparisons, particularly if detail is found consistent, be verified by another analyst. If there are additional subjects compared in the case, the results of these comparisons should be documented, verified, and reported as well. “
See full article here .
______________________________
11.18.2024 | Factors associated with latent fingerprint exclusion determinations by Ulery et al.
“SWGFAST defines the term “exclusion” to mean “the determination by an examiner that there is sufficient quality and quantity of detail in disagreement to conclude that two areas of friction ridge impressions did not originate from the same source”.. . Explicitly dividing the old non-identification determination into inconclusive and exclusion determinations reduces ambiguity, but in operational casework the distinction is often not important. Occasionally, the distinction between an inconclusive and an exclusion may be important for exculpatory evidence, if the latent is of high probative value (e.g., on the handle of a knife), or if the latent indicates that another person was present at a crime scene. However, the probative value of an exclusion is usually minimal because excluding a person does not mean that the person did not touch an object. In most casework, an exclusion has the same operational implications as an inconclusive, and an erroneous exclusion usually has the same operational implications as a missed ID. “
See full article here .
______________________________
11.06.2024 | Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint) Document #10.
“The determination of suitability is based on the assessment of the discriminating strengths of the features and their arrangements. Suitability is the determination that there is adequate quality and quantity of friction ridge features in an impression for some further process step. The assessment is made based on the quality of features (clarity of the observed features), the quantity of features (amount of features and area), the specificity of features, and their relationships. “
See full article here .
______________________________
10.27.2024 | Clues in Friction Ridge Comparisons: Tonal Reversals by Sergio Castellon.
“Tonally reversed impressions may be deceptive in that they may appear to be standard (black ridges, white furrows), when in fact, they are not. Fortunately, clues are present in such impressions that will aid the examiner and ensure that accurate information is being observed. “
See full article here .
______________________________
10.21.2024 | Techniques for Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Fingerprint Identification by Elizabeth Reese.
“Cognitive biases come in many forms, and their classifications are not mutually exclusive. Confirmation bias, for example, is “the tendency to test a hypothesis by looking for instances that confirm it rather than by searching for potentially falsifying instances. It results from a heuristic based on expectation – the natural tendency of human beings to see what they expect to see. Contextual bias, on the other hand, occurs when decision makers are influenced by exposure to extraneous information that is no it necessary to make the decision at hand… Decision makers subject to the overconfidence bias have an “inflated belief in the accuracy of their knowledge”, resulting in a miscalibration between confidence and accuracy that can hamper judgment.”
See full article here .
______________________________
10.14.2024 | Factors that make up the Daubert Standard by U.S Supreme Court, 1993.
“Whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested,
Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication,
The degree of its known or potential error rate,
The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation,
Whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.”
______________________________
10.07.2024 | Opinion Testimony by R. Kevin Lawson, IAI 2012 President.
“…Opinion Testimony is NOT the personal opinion of the witness. Scientific opinions must be based in objective and observable data and should result in conclusions that can be substantiated by others.”