|
|
|
THE `N' WORD Much dialog has been espoused in recent years regarding numbers, as they relate to quantitative aspects of Galton details. Theories abound as to the origination of an established pre--set number of points of identification necessary to conclude that an identification has been effected. A majority of the fingerprint analysis community is in agreement that no established minimum numbers are required. This edict has been well documented as per the proclamation issued by delegates to the International Symposium on fingerprint detection and identification in Ne'urim, Israel June 29, 1995 which states “no scientific basis exists for requiring that a pre--determined minimum number of friction ridge features must be present in two impressions in order to establish a positive identification”. This doctrine was embraced and nurtured by members of the technical working group on friction ridge analysis, study and technology (TWGFAST) which, as part of the quality assurance guidelines for latent print examiners, states “ there is no scientific basis for requiring that a minimum number of corresponding friction ridge features be present in two impressions in order to effect an identification.” We must now rise to the challenge of abandoning past practices, and altering not only our own methodology, but more importantly, addressing the issue with those in the judiciary, including attorneys and judges. A good starting point toward that end is to explore the feasibility of training the trainers. This could be accomplished by interacting with legal profession institutions where most attorneys are first exposed to the erroneous numbers principles of friction ridge identification that they carry with them into practice. A formidable task indeed, but one that merits consideration. Implementation of a training program for lawyers could make our own future courtroom experiences less confrontational.
Bill Corson
This article was printed in “THE PRINT” |