The History
of
Fingerprints
of
Fingerprints
Identification
As of 2016, the term positive identification (meaning absolute certainty) has been replaced in forensic reports and testimony by most agencies/experts with more accurate (evidence-centric) terminology, including variations of wording such as the following:
Examination and comparison of similarities and differences between the impressions resulted in the opinion there is a much greater support for the impressions originating from the same source than there is for them originating from different sources.
In July 2023, OSAC pushed a "Standard Guide for Image Comparison Opinions" to ASTM for potential ASTM standards development. Although that Standard Guide for Image Comparison Opinions was created by OSAC's Face and Iris Identification Subcommittee (including some dual-discipline friction ridge experts), it includes wording OSAC is leaning towards. Under the above-linked OSAC standard wording, what latent print examiners previously referred to as "positive identifications" would be "Strong Support for Same Source" and elimination opinions would be stated as "Strong Support for Different Sources."
In general, forensic guidelines for expressing opinions are moving toward evidence-centric wording instead of conclusion-centric wording.
Click here for the current OSAC Lexicon
A link to the latest list of OSAC Preferred Terms is at the bottom of this page.
Current US Department of Justice Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for the Latent Print Discipline are online here.
A related 2014 paper titled "Individualization is dead, long live individualization! Reforms of reporting practices for fingerprint analysis in the United States" by Simon Cole, Professor at University of California, Irvine is linked here.
Professor Cole's 2020 paper recommending use of the word "findings" in forensic reports instead of conclusions, decisions, and other terms is linked here.