1. LATENT FINGERPRINTS ASSUMPTIONS Uniqueness - 75-175 points per digit Permanence – absent injury Identification can be reliably intuited from a very small percentage of a whole print

2. How much is enough? Kathleen Hatfield identified as deceased based on fingerprint taken from dead body 16 points - Commonwealth v. Cowans 15 points - Mayfield, In re: Federal Grand Jury Proceedings 03-01 14 points - Stoppelli 11 points – State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1982) 12 points – Cooper At least 16 points (Britain): - Lee - Chiory - McNamee - McKie and Ross - unidentified Manchester case Simon A. Cole, More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification; 95 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 985, 1001-1016 (2005)

3. NIJ Solicitation (in part)

4. Comm. v. Patterson: latent fingerprints 1, 2, 3 and 4

5. Patterson latent print 2

6. Patterson: latent print 3

8. Assumption: ACE-V insures reliability Analysis Comparison Evaluation Verification Reality: ACE-V is only a description -Not evidence of reliability of the underlying assumptions

9. Latent Print

11. Subjectivity What is a point of significance? A - differences between examiners: state and FBI in examiners in Patterson - what is an artifact, as opposed to an exclusion? What validly compares between a damaged C distorted latent print and a rolled print? - Patterson When is the totality sufficient to warrant an E opinion of identification? - Patterson All of the above performed by a supervisorV

12. Lack of Scientific Method No testing as to “how much is enough” No standard as to the number, quality or kind of matching marks needed to declare a “match” No databases No reporting as a statistical likelihood Purely subjective conclusion No repeatability in the sense of scientific method No measurements No error rate or calculation of standard deviation

13. Confirmation Bias Knowing the identity of the suspect Being told there is information as the suspect or weapon Knowing the first examiner’s opinion Participating in the investigation No blind testing See Itel Dror, etc. – in the written materials - examiners given “Mayfield” case

14. Judicial Rationalizations The forensic “sciences” form “relevant scientific/technical communities” - Reality: this is a tautology – the reliability is assumed. Is astrology an acceptable community? Reliable disciplines, such as radiology, rely upon subjective judgments - Reality: fingerprint and toolmark analyses rely upon quantity – absent quantitative analysis or comparison

15. Judicial Rationalizations There are few cases where the evidence was disproven - Reality: no one knows what the true answer is and we overwhelmingly know only of cases where convictions resulted, not acquittals, dismissals, non-prosecutions These disciplines are tested every day during case work - Reality: one cannot test astrology by having other astrologers confirm the results - Reality: casework is never an experiment. Experiments attempt to predict the future, casework attempts to explain the past.

16. Recent Cases Com. v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 (2005) - latent fingerprints in general and simultaneity specifically -relied on Frye analysis U.S. v. Green, 405 F. Supp.2d (D.Mass. 2005) - firearms toolmark analysis