3260

Output of known analysis: Known(s) deemed suitable to compare

4220

Inputs: Latent(s) or known impressions deemed suitable for comparison and available contextual information

5000

Select a single latent to compare with another latent, one known, or a set of knowns from a single individual (see known selection criteria box below) 

5010

5020

Note similarities and dissimilarities in level 1 detail and document per agency policy 

5030

Is there sufficient level 1 detail agreement to continue with the comparison? 

5040

Consider whether distortion, scarring, or clarity could be impacting the interpretation of level 1 detail

5050

5060

Are the data sufficient to exclude based on agency policy?

5070

5080

5090

Document impact of distortion, scarring, or clarity on the interpretation of level 1 detail

5100

Select target group in latent and attempt to locate it in the compared impression(s)

5110

Was the target group found in the compared impression within your established tolerance?

5120

Would searching a new target group be beneficial, necessary, available, or required?

5130

5140

5150

5160

Is there additional information that would influence my evaluation?

5170

5180

5190

Document additional information used (e.g., CCTV footage showing how the weapon was handled)

5200

5210

5220

5230

Is there additional information that would help me determine orientation? 

5240

Document contextual information used (e.g.,CCTV footage showing how the weapon was handled)

5250

Have I conducted a 360 search for the target group? 

5260

5270

Assign the relative value of the similarities and dissimilarities in all available friction ridge detail given the estimated weight of all available information including potential influential contextual information

5280

Note similarities and dissimilarities per agency policy 

5290

Am I restricted to only comparing impressions that are of value for ID?

5300

Does the data support different source more than same source?

5310

5320

5330

5340

Obtain additional knowns from individual? 

5350

5360

5370

5380

5390

Search for additional similarities as well as dissimilarities between latent and compared impression within established tolerance

5400

Note similarities and dissimilarities in level 2 detail and document per agency policy 

5410

Assign the relative value of the similarities and dissimilarities in friction ridge level 1 and level 2 detail given the estimated weight of all available information including potential influential contextual information

5420

Will level 3 detail be beneficial to your evaluation? 

5430

Does data support same source more than different source?

5440

Was the candidate retrieved from AFIS search?

5450

Consider the possibility of incidental similarity

5460

Are the data sufficient to the exclusion of all others?

5470

5480

Is the data in correspondence sufficient that you would not expect to see it in a different source?

5490

5500

5510

Is the reproducibility of level 3 detail sufficient to support comparison? 

5520

Note similarities and dissimilarities in level 3 detail and document per agency policy 

5530

Assign the relative value of the similarities and dissimilarities in friction ridge level 3 detail given the estimated weight of all available information including potential influential contextual information 

5540

Inputs: Comparison conclusions, suitability determinations, and available contextual information

6000

Guidance on Cognitive Bias (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Ensuring That Forensic Analysis is Based Upon Task-Relevant Information

Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications - ScienceDirect

A practical tool for information management in forensic decisions: Using Linear Sequential Unmasking-Expanded (LSU-E) in casework

Comparison/Evaluation

Best Practice Recommendation for Comparison and Evaluation of Friction Ridge Impressions

Standard for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions

Known Selection Criteria: 

How do I select which latent to latent or latent to known to compare first/next?

Select the applicable criteria: 

Guidelines for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

Gaze Detection Article – Episode 201 | The Double Loop Podcast

The GYRO System - A Recommended Approach to More Transparent Documentation

Gaze behavior and cognitive states during fingerprint target group localization - PubMed (nih.gov)

Virginia Department of Forensic Science Latent Print Procedures Manual

The GYRO System — A Recommended Approach to More Transparent Documentation

OSAC Research Need: Assessing the Sufficiency and Strength of Friction Ridge Features

White Box Exclusion paper – Episode 149 | The Double Loop Podcast

Idaho Interviews – Episode 202 | The Double Loop Podcast

Differing Conclusions Article – Episode 232 | The Double Loop Podcast

Accounting for individual differences among decision-makers with applications to the evaluation of forensic evidence - Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (forensicstats.org)

Houston Forensic Science Center Latent Print Section Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification Methodology

More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification (northwestern.edu)

Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Conclusions

Best Practice Recommendation for Comparison and Evaluation of Friction Ridge Impressions 

Factors associated with latent fingerprint exclusion determinations - ScienceDirect

Why do latent fingerprint examiners differ in their conclusions? - ScienceDirect

Review of article on Conclusion Scales – Episode 231 | The Double Loop Podcast

Interexaminer variation of minutia markup on latent fingerprints - PubMed (nih.gov)

Example of finding a target group between compared impressions as indicated by the green markings (i.e., five dots) in an exemplar (left) and in an unknown latent print (right).  

Searching for target group during comparison

Latent Fingerprints: Reducing Erroneous Exclusions – Forensic Technology Center of Excellence (forensiccoe.org)

R&D 2014 – Fundamental Forensic Science Research-Part II – Forensic Technology Center of Excellence (forensiccoe.org)

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

FBI's New Approach – Episode 148 | The Double Loop Podcast

Documenting and Reporting Inconclusive Results

Fast and quantitative analysis of level 3 details for latent fingerprints

Level 3 Details and Their Role in Fingerprint Identification: A Survey Among Practitioners 

Example of incidental similarity from the Brandon Mayfield/Madrid Train Bombing case c. 1966 showing an exemplar from Mayfield (left) and an unknown latent print collected from the crime scene (right).  

Comparison/Evaluation

Controls

Comparison/Evaluation