Utilizing AFIS searching tools to reduce errors in fingerprint casework

Langenburg, Glenn; Hall, Carey; Rosemarie, Quincy

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.07.054

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the number of inconclusives increases, so does the potential number of missed identifications and eliminations. If there is enough information for the correct ground truth conclusion to be made, then the examiner must make a decision about the source of the unknown cartridge case(s) [35]. Consensus is more difficult to assess in casework when a single examiner (potentially multiple with a verification step) analyzes the evidence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions

Law

Morris

2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forensic science pattern comparison areas, including fingerprints, footwear, and firearms, have been criticized for their subjective nature. While much research has attempted to move these disciplines to more objective methods, examiners are still coming to conclusions based on their own training and experience. To complement this subjectivity, black box studies are necessary to establish the accuracy of these featurecomparison methods. However, when cartridges are fired by a firearm to create cartridge case test sets there may be significant variability within the resulting impressions. This can result in different participants receiving test sets with varying levels of difficulty based on differences in impression quality. Therefore, comparison of accuracy between examiners is not straightforward. To compare accuracy between examiners, a method called double-casting was used to create plastic cartridge case reproductions. Double-casts of twenty-one test sets of master cartridge cases were created and mailed to firearm examiners. The double-casts ensured that all participants were comparing exhibits with the same level of detail. The examiners were tasked with determining if the unknown cartridge case in each set was fired by the same firearm as the three knowns. Automated comparisons were also used to compare the cartridge cases within each set. The results from this study showed that there are differences in examiner conclusions when examining the same evidence. Furthermore, it was shown that automated comparison metrics would benefit examiners as a quality control measure to correct any potential errors and strengthen conclusions. K E Y W O R D Sblack box study, breech face, cartridge case variability, congruent matching cells, doublecasting, error rates, firearm tool mark, firearms identification Highlights• Comparison accuracy was analyzed between examiners using cartridge case double-casts.• Automated comparisons were performed to compare to the examiner conclusions.• Variability in examiner conclusions when evaluating the same evidence was observed.• Automated methods would fit well into the comparison process as a quality control measure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In casework, automated comparison systems, such as the ACCF MAX and CMC metrics, could be useful as a quality control measure to help reduce errors. Previous research in fingerprints used a case‐specific AFIS system in a similar manner [35]. For example, the cartridge cases from Set 16 show up in a case.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions

Law

Morris

2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, inconclusive decisions may be tempting to make, as a way out of a conclusive decision, that will be scrutinized, perhaps challenged in court, and open to error. Indeed, and not surprising, data show that inconclusive decisions are not rare and have been shown to include errors . In fact, approximately 10% of the time, an examiner viewing the same set of fingerprints twice (Level 5 in Dror, HEP expert decision hierarchy, ), will reach different conclusions (same examiner, same set of fingerprints), will waver between a conclusive determination and declaring that the comparison is inconclusive .…”

Section: Four Issues With Inconclusive Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, the FBI engages in such practice . Langenburg, et al demonstrated that a surprising number of errors (unjustifiable inconclusive decisions) were found in inconclusive decisions in actual casework. This is further illustrated in the FBI black box study that found that 10% of the time, the same expert will reach different conclusions on the same set of prints (see Level 5 in Dror HEP decision‐making hierarchy ).…”

Section: Proposed Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Cannot Decide”: The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide

Dror

Langenburg²

2018

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inconclusive decisions, deciding not to decide, are decisions. We present a cognitive model which takes into account that decisions are an outcome of interactions and intersections between the actual data and human cognition. Using this model it is suggested under which circumstances inconclusive decisions are justified and even warranted (reflecting proper caution and meta-cognitive abilities in recognizing limited abilities), and, conversely, under what circumstances inconclusive decisions are unjustifiable and should not be permitted. The model further explores the limitations and problems in using categorical decision-making when the data are actually a continuum. Solutions are suggested within the forensic fingerprinting domain, but they can be applied to other forensic domains, and, with modifications, may also be applied to other expert domains.

show abstract

“…With the large amount of data that had to be processed in a very short expectation of time, a human error such as a false positive or false negative conclusion, is more likely to be made. The use of AFIS technology in this setting can help reduce the number of erroneous conclusions [26].…”

Section: The Role Of Afis In Mh17mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital capture of fingerprints in a disaster victim identification setting: a review and case study

Johnson

Riemen

2018

Forensic Sciences Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of victims following a mass fatality is conducted by collecting and analysing a series of scientific identifiers and contextual information of each decedent. Recently, there has been a paradigm shift demanding that this complex identification process be accelerated to meet the needs of the surviving families, politicians and even the media. Postmortem fingerprint identification is a fast and efficient means of victim identification, and through the use of new advances in technology, the digital capture of fingerprints in a disaster victim identification (DVI) setting will play a strong role. This paper provides an overview of current technology and explains how this technology can adapt to current DVI procedures. The Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) incident is a recent example of a DVI event that utilized new digital fingerprint capture technology and further demonstrates why such technology is warranted in future mass fatality operations.

show abstract

Utilizing AFIS searching tools to reduce errors in fingerprint casework

Cited by 17 publications

References 9 publications

Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions

Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions

“Cannot Decide”: The Fine Line Between Appropriate Inconclusive Determinations Versus Unjustifiably Deciding Not To Decide

Digital capture of fingerprints in a disaster victim identification setting: a review and case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About