| Author | Message | ||
     Administrator (Admin) Moderator Username: Admin Post Number: 52 Registered: 07-2006 |
SWGFAST's Position statement covers the topic fairly well: Latent to latent automated and manual comparisons are conducted by many agencies. There is value to identifying a common donor of multiple latent friction ridge impressions despite the absence of the donor’s name or anatomical origin of the friction ridge impression. Latent to latent individualizations may link an unknown serial offender to multiple cases. Latent to latent examinations are conducted by examiners trained to competency using the same ACE-V method and resulting conclusions used in other friction ridge examinations. Because of the additional potential for low specificity of features, significant distortion, and limited comparable area, latent to latent friction ridge impression examinations are often complex, as defined in the SWGFAST Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions document. Additional quality assurance measures should occur, such as enhanced verification (e.g., a blind verification or multiple verifiers) as outlined in the SWGFAST Standards for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions and Resulting Conclusions document. Extensive documentation of the relevant features used as a basis for a conclusion shall be conducted insofar as possible to the SWGFAST Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification standard, recognizing that some elements (such as name, finger position or matrix/substrate information) may not be possible to document. Some identifications are effected where portions of the ridge detail in one impression are missing from the other. If latent to latent individualizations have linked multiple latent prints in a case and exemplars are later received, it is at the discretion of the agency whether to compare all of the latent impressions to the received exemplars. It is recommended to individually compare each of those associated latent prints to the received exemplars. It is acceptable to report latent to latent individualizations to an exemplar when only one of the latent impressions has been identified to the exemplar (Figure 1). Agency policy should address latent to latent comparisons. The above is from SWGFAST document 100 at the following URL: www.swgfast.org/Comments-Positions/121124_Latent-to-Latent.pdf | ||
| zeeshan00 (Zeeshan00) Member Username: Zeeshan00 Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2015 |
We are supposed to discuss what the different issues are and how to overcome them and not affect an erroneous conclusion. Has anyone completed latent to latent comparisons and what issues have you encountered? What knowledge have you used to "explain" these issues? Any information is appreciated! __________________________ aliii | ||
| Mandy Briscoe (Mandy_briscoe) Member Username: Mandy_briscoe Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2012 |
My co-worker and I have recently been tasked with completing a research and training project relating to the difficulties of completeing latent to latent comparisons. We are supposed to discuss what the different issues are and how to overcome them and not affect an erroneous conclusion. Has anyone completed latent to latent comparisons and what issues have you encountered? What knowledge have you used to "explain" these issues? Any information is appreciated! |
