Seminar, Webinars and Training available from Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC
Fingerprint Seminar and Training Programspresented by Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC. http://www.fingerprintconsultingservices.com/<br />Why choose Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC. Seminars or Training :<br />Cost 60% cheaper than similar training programs currently on the market.<br />Training available to everyone ; civilian or law enforcement.<br />No Travel Costs<br />No Per Diem<br />On-line training program is flexible and will fit into your schedule.<br />Equivalent of 40 hr. basic fingerprint course offered by many state and federal agencies.<br />Our company brings forty years (40) fingerprint experience at both the state / local level<br />This presentation is just a sample of the topics covered in our Seminar/Training<br />programs. Additionally our company can evaluate all areas of fingerprint case work to include <br />expert testimony at reasonable rates.<br />
Some Common Error’s found in the Fingerprint Process<br />Fingerprint search Missed Identification.<br />Erroneous Bad Identification.<br />Questionable Identification.<br />Latent not thoroughly searched in automated fingerprint system. <br />Latent image quality initial analysis incorrect.<br />Latent images destroyed based on incorrect quality analysis.<br />Criminal History contains erroneous criminal events.<br /> Latent image processing enhancement issue’s.<br />The above issue’s are discussed and explained in detail,<br />in our seminar and/or training program<br />
“Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere ”Martin Luther King Jr.<br />Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC. has developed a seminar and a basic fingerprint training program that could benefit everyone in the legal community. As you have seen over the past few years, there have been a number of high profile cases where fingerprint errors have resulted in the wrongful incarceration of an individual. These incidents are not as isolated as once thought , the Innocence Project has now cleared over 250 cases of individuals wrongfully incarcerated, based on flawed forensic evidence. Every time one of these cases is discovered different solutions are proposed as a means of preventing future occurrence ‘s they range from certification programs to re-evaluating the discipline.<br /> The problem with the solutions are they don’t prevent the future occurrence of error, if we look at the judicial process already in place the solution is already available; our adversarial judicial process . The ability for the prosecution and defense to bring in an expert to evaluate the forensic evidence and explain the results of their analysis to the court. The ability to have fingerprint evidence evaluated by an unbiased 3rd. party is the most effective tool for minimizing missed and incorrect fingerprint identifications. The seminar and training programs offered our company are designed to give you or your staff a better understanding of fingerprint evidence and when or if a latent fingerprint examiner should be engaged. The benefits from our seminar or basic fingerprint training course would be a great tool just as useful to a county attorney as it would to a defense attorney. <br />
Erroneous Identification<br />Today the automated systems are searching unidentified latent images against databases containing as many as 600 million fingerprint images. These automated systems produce a large number of identifications, unfortunately a large number of suspects with similar minutiae and minutiae orientation to the latent image being searched. When you factor in the lack of clarity and distortion in most latent images, you can understand why you are seeing more erroneous identifications. This is just 1 of the possible reasons for an erroneous identification, in the seminar/course we go into more detail and the other common causes of an erroneous identification. There is no research that gives us an idea on how many bad identifications are not being discovered and corrected. <br />
Missed Identification<br />A much more common problem are missed identifications. A missed identification occurs when the latent image is searched and the examiner fails to identify the latent image to the exemplar on file in the database. Many examiners feel a miss is not as serious as a bad identification, which is a misconception. If latent images are developed at the crime scene the ability to identify the latent images may be the only physical evidence associating or clearing an individual from that case, so it is critical that all latent's be identified.<br />
Understanding the Automated Fingerprint Identification <br />National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) a few years back tested the search accuracy of the major AFIS vendors and discovered an accuracy rate of between 54% and 85%. This means that a latent image could be put in for a search and the exemplar could be in the database and the system not produce it high enough on the suspect list to have a latent examiner make a comparison. There are many cases where the latent had to be entered multiple times before the suspect was produced and an identification was completed. As an attorney on a case with unidentified latent images it is important to know how many times the latent's were searched in the automated system with a good understanding of the latent image quality.<br />
Training and Proficiency<br />More critical than certification are the training <br />and proficiency testing procedures an agency <br />has in place. Many agencies because of <br />budget or a lack of understanding of the skill <br />sets required for a latent fingerprint examiner, <br />do not have qualified and properly trained <br />latent examiners. <br />
Latent Facts<br /><ul><li>Average size of a latent fingerprint fragment about 20% of a full fingerprint.
Typical latent fingerprint has between 15 and 35 minutiae (points of identification).
Typical inked fingerprint contains between 75 and 175 minutiae (points of identification).
latent images recovered from crime scenes are of poor clarity, increasing the likelihood of mistaking the type of minutiae being observed.
30% of crime scenes have usable latent images.
30% of the images from a crime scene are palm images.
A palm print has approximately 800 minutiae (points of identification).
20% of identifications at local lab's are now generated by the automated fingerprint search system.
Latent search accuracy can be as low as 54% on a large database, to mid 80% with good image clarity under controlled conditions. </li></li></ul><li>Seminar/ Basic Pattern Recognition & Verification Techniques <br />Our company is available for seminars, webinars and training in-house or on-line. The seminar/webinar would cover all the common errors listed on slide #2 going into detail on each error category. The training is a basic course that covers everything a fingerprint examiner should learn and we go over the individualization process in detail. A sample of part of the on-line training is contained in the next few slides to give you an idea of the information the course can provide you.<br />Other services offered by Forensic Biometric Identification Solutions LLC. In today's electronic society you are no longer limited by geographic area in obtaining competent and experienced latent examiner case work. Latent case information and images can be sent via e-mail or certified mail and be evaluated by our company and a detailed report returned expeditiously. <br />Experience FBIS can offer clients:<br />15+yrs Latent Fingerprint Experience<br />15+yrs AFIS Experience<br />40+ yrs Fingerprint <br />4 yrs planning installation NYS 10 print AFIS<br />IAFIS Remote BETA Testing Site<br />Assisted with the Nebraska AFIS RFP<br />
Glossary of Terms<br />Bad Identification – examiner identifies a latent to the wrong tenprint card. <br />Backward Bias – examiners’ interpretation of some features is adjusted or influenced by reasoning “backward” from features that were visible in Mayfield’s known prints. <br />Confirmation Bias- focusing on minutiae that confirms pre-conceived expectations while ignoring data that doesn't confirm ones beliefs. <br />Lights out functionality- System electronically individualizes a fingerprint.<br />One Discrepancy Rule- a single difference in appearance between a latent print and a known fingerprint must preclude an<br />identification unless the examiner has a valid explanation for the difference.<br />Peer Investigative Pressure – other examiners or investigative information to influence a comparison<br />Questionable Identification: Identification based on to few minutiae for the clarity of the image.<br />Single Verification- Many state agencies use a single verification procedure on arrest card processing error.<br />
THE SCIENCE OF FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION-<br />Friction Ridge Identification is generally understood to be the individualization of the ridge detail found on the end joints of the fingers, since those areas are taken for record and/or filing purposes. The technique of identifying fingerprints is equally applicable to identifying any of the other ridged areas of the hand or foot <br />Sample of Training Module # 6<br />
Importance of a correct individualization<br />Thousands of fingerprint cards are processed and identified on a on a daily basis. Many <br />of the larger states process over a million fingerprint transactions in a year. Background <br />checks for non-criminal applications has been a major factor in the increased number <br />of fingerprint transactions processed at the local, state and federal levels. The <br />AFIS system produces suspects based on the degree of correlation between the minutiae <br />and its location on the search print with the suspect information stored in the system <br />matchers. AFIS can produce suspects that are very similar to the images being searched and <br />not be an identification, since most fingerprints have between 75 and 150 points of <br />identification, a comparison of a ten print transaction usually has more than enough <br />minutiae to insure an accurate individualization. Errors have occurred and for a number of <br />Reasons:<br />High volumes of work<br /> Poor training <br /> Not adhering to policies and procedure<br />While errors are infrequent the ramifications of an error can have devastating results. <br />The accuracy of local, state and federal fingerprint systems is based on competent capture <br />of fingerprint cards often captured by poorly trained and often underpaid individuals.<br />
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENCE<br />The International Association for Identification in 1973 stated "No valid basis exists at this <br />time for requiring that a predetermined minimum number of friction ridge characteristics <br />must be present in two impressions in order to establish positive identification”.<br />The basis of fingerprint identification is the premise that the configurations formed by the <br />raised ridges of the palmar surface of the hands are unique and do not undergo any natural <br />changes, except growth, from fetal life until decomposition. Individualization is the process <br />of comparing friction skin ridge impressions from fingers or palms to determine if the <br />impressions are from the same finger or palm. The flexibility of friction ridge skin means that <br />no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike (never identical in every detail), even two <br />impressions recorded immediately after each other. Fingerprint identification/individualization <br />occurs when an fingerprint examiner determines that two friction ridge impressions originated <br />from the same finger or palm based on the agreement of friction ridge formations, in <br />sequence, having sufficient uniqueness. The sequential relationship of all elements must be the <br />same; the Print must be devoid of any unexplained discrepancy; there must be sufficient <br />uniqueness to individualize. This element requires an assessment of both quality and quantity <br />of information contained in both the unknown print and the known exemplar." There must be <br />an agreement of fiction ridge formation. At a minimum, level one and level two detail must <br />correlate. Level three detail can be used as necessary and is generally relied upon during the <br />comparison process, but commonly not during the identification decision, unless the quantity <br />of level two detail is minimal and the quality of level three detail provides sufficient clarity." <br />
Visual Component of Identification<br />When a human looks at a number, letter or other shape, neurons in various areas of the <br />brain’s visual center respond to different components of that shape, almost instantaneously <br />fitting them together like a puzzle to create an image that the individual then “sees” and <br />understands. The eye lens, is perfectly clear, perfectly curved and is capable of focusing on an <br />incredible amount of data. But vision is only partly to do with the retina, lens, and cornea. <br />Understanding what we see, happens in the brain, which is why a person with perfect vision is <br />still susceptible to optical illusion. Our visual nervous system approximates color, shape, and <br />dimension. The process of seeing begins with the presence of light, an image formed on the <br />retina, and an impulse transmitted to the brain, but there are many other factors that play a <br />part in how we perceive visually. Our perceptions are influenced by our past experiences, <br />imagination, and associations. In a tenth of a second, we can recognize something we see as <br />an animal or not. Studies show this immediate, rough impression probably depends on <br />recognizing just one or more individual parts of what we see. Fine discriminations – such as <br />recognizing individual faces – take longer to happen, and the studies suggests that this delay <br />depends upon emerging signals for combinations of shape fragments. The brain has to <br />construct an internal representation of an object from disparate pieces.”<br />
Example Visual Interpretation<br />In the image to the right you could interpret it as a portrait <br />of an older man, but when you look closer you’ll see a <br />number of faces, images and silhouettes of faces. Why does <br />our mind interpret the images we see in this way? <br />The simple explanation is our mind assimilates the image <br />we see and compares it with information already stored in <br />our brain. In a recent Cambridge University study it was <br />found that as long as the 1st. and last letters in a word were <br />correct it didn’t matter if the other letters were mixed, a <br />person could still read the paragraph or sentence correctly <br />interpreting what the writer meant. An example of how our <br />perceptions are influenced by our past experiences, <br />imagination, and associations which can create a <br />dilemma when doing fingerprint comparisons. It is critical <br />you are objective when doing your analysis and evaluation <br />of ridge detail, you cannot expect to see something based <br />on past knowledge/experience. You have to work at being <br />completely objective. The best way to accomplish an <br />unbiased comparison is by following the analysis, <br />comparison, evaluation and validation procedure.<br />
Objective Analysis<br />When doing a fingerprint comparison your going to be asked to make an objective <br />decision based on what you see in front of you and not be influenced by subjective <br />reasoning. The brain will attempt to assist you in recognizing images, it could give you a <br />perception of something that is not there.<br />How many of us read A Bird in the Bush, not noticing THE is repeated<br />
Fingerprint Examiners are allowed to make positive identifications with:<br />Appropriate Training<br />Appropriate Experience<br />Appropriate Ability<br />Following agency policy.<br />There is not a required minimum number of minutiae required for an experienced examiner to individualize a fingerprint comparison. Individual agencies may have policies and procedures on what they feel constitutes an individualization. In this training course I will require 12 points for identification, similar to Locard theory on identification. Requiring a set number of minutiae is a training aid, to insure the student understands the value of minutiae along with gaining experience in minutiae analysis/comparison. The individuals taking this course may have no or limited experience in the individualization of friction ridge detail. The average fingerprint contains between 75 and 150 points of identification and since we will be dealing with mostly very good images, a 12 point minimum will work well. I would encourage students during the training to exceed the minimum the course requires.<br />
The Verification Process<br />The process of making a fingerprint comparison <br />between a search fingerprint image and the <br />suspect fingerprint image. Whether you are <br />doing a comparison of one (1) image or <br />multiple fingers the process is always the same:<br />Analysis<br />Comparison<br />Evaluation <br />Validation process<br />
Referred to as the Scientific Method of fingerprint individualization.<br /><ul><li>Analysis – the qualitative and quantitative assessment of Level 1, 2, and 3 detail to determine their proportion, interrelationship and value to individualize.
Comparison – to examine the attributes observed during analysis in order to determine agreement or discrepancies between two friction ridge impressions.
Evaluation – the cyclical procedure of comparison between two friction ridge impressions to effect a decision, i.e., made by the same friction skin, not made by the same friction skin, or insufficient detail to form a conclusive decision.
Validation- It is highly recommended that all fingerprint identifications be validated by 2nd. examiner or electronically in an AFIS.</li></ul> <br />
Only possible results from a fingerprint comparison<br />You will come to one of the following conclusions:<br />The fingerprint images an Individualization (Identification).<br />The fingerprint images are not from the same individual. <br />An individualization cannot be made due to the quality or lack of detail of one(1) or <br />more images. If you cannot verify an identification it is considered a non-ident.<br />One other note, another examiner could come to a different conclusion because the <br />image quality is often a subjective determination. Latent examiners like all professions <br />have some very good examiners and many that lack experience and the skill sets <br />required.<br />
Fingerprint comparisons rely on Three (3) levels of detail !<br /><ul><li>Level 1 detail -- Ridge flow/pattern type
Level 3 detail -- Ridge path deviation (ridge structure or formation, which includes ridge width, shape, pores and other details) </li></ul>Level I detail is the pattern and ridge flow. As an examiner looks at the pattern type and observes the ridge flow, they can gather a lot of helpful information for use in your comparison. All the information gathered will help them determine when to take a closer look at a suspect. You could consider the Level I detail as your 1st. filter. The individualization is established by the Level II (minutiae) detail.<br />
The next few slide deal with the Mayfield Case <br />Most of you are aware of the case of the Oregon Attorney whose fingerprint was identified to a <br />latent image the Spanish police developed in the Madrid bombing. The case was evaluated by <br />four(4) experienced latent examiners three (3) from the FBI and one (1) retired from San <br />Francisco PD. All four (4) came to an incorrect identification to Mayfield. In the identification report <br />the FBI noted 10 points of level II detail and 7 points of Level III detail. In a follow up report <br />investigating the error the following slides discuss some of the reasons given for the error. I <br />would also point out Mayfield was developed as a suspect based on an AFIS search. The search <br />compared his finger to close to 600 million fingers in the database and while not the same there <br />were some similarities. That said there is no reason the error should have occurred. I would also <br />point out that if the Spanish examiners had not strongly disagreed with their FBI counterparts Mr. <br />Mayfield would’ve been convicted based on the fingerprint. In a seminar or training situation we <br />will go into these causes for the error in more detail.<br />Our seminar/training program will assist you in insuring the fingerprint evidence in your case is <br />accurate and reliable.<br />
THE ONE(1) DISCREPANCY RULE#1<br />Every examiner knows, search and exemplar (database) images are never exactly the same. The <br />reasons are many; how the exemplar was recorded or temporary or permanent damage to the fingers, <br />etc. The fingerprint examiner during the analysis and evaluation must be able to understand and <br />explain any discrepant points found in either the search or exemplar images. The 1 discrepancy rule , <br />if there is 1 unexplainable discrepancy in either the search or exemplar image an individualization <br />cannot be made. These images are from the same card the rolled and plain impression of the right <br />thumb.<br />
SIMILARITY OF MINUTIAE CONSTELLATIONS #2<br />The 2nd. major area of concern is suspect images produced in today’s automated <br />fingerprint systems often have very similar constellations or points of similarity. Despite <br />the unusual similarity in the relationship between points in many prints, the prints may not <br />be a fingerprint identification. The enormous size of today’s AFIS databases and the <br />power of the search algorithms can find a confusingly similar print to the one being <br />searched. As databases increase and algorithms improve, there will be more suspects <br />produced, that will have unusual similarity between points but will not be the individuals <br />print. So can this type of error be prevented ? The answer is “yes” we can minimize the <br />numbers of these type errors with good training and adherence to procedure.<br />
BACKWARD BIAS#3<br />The 3rd. Area of concern is when an examiner uses "backward " reasoning. In effect <br />allowing themselves to be influenced by the search print, working backward from <br />the suspect print. The examiners will find features in the print being searched and then <br />look for them in the image being searched. The danger is in poor quality images murky or <br />ambiguous points may be erroneously identified. When an examiner is dealing with a <br />poor quality latent that lacks clarity, it is tempting to look at the exemplar and work <br />backward but it can have disastrous results. <br />
OVER RELIANCE LEVEL III DETAIL#4<br />To much reliance on Level III detail. Level III detail can include a number of things from <br />ridge shape and pores to scars and this information can be beneficial in individualization <br />when properly used. While level III detail can be helpful, it becomes less helpful as clarity <br />decreases. Latent images by their very nature are normally images that lack clarity and <br />when Level III detail is used with a poor quality often distorted image problems can occur. <br />
If you have any questions please contact us:<br />Phone:<br />402 321-3933 or 402 717-9013<br />E-Mail:<br />email@example.com<br />Mail:<br />P.O. Box 562<br />Boys Town NE 68010-0562<br />Web sites:<br />http://www.linkedin.com/in/fingerprintconsultingservices<br />http://www.fingerprintconsultingservices.com<br />