Examination of Firearms Review: 2007 to 2010 - Interpol

Busey and Loftus discuss bias in eyewitness testimony and fingerprint comparison
contexts, based on past research (170).
Charlton et al. explore the satisfaction in doing fingerprint comparisons through
interviews with 13 experienced fingerprint examiners. In particular, they highlight the
job satisfaction which is related to the sense of pride the examiners have with respect
to their skills, and also satisfaction with crime solving. Finding a match is described
as a buzz, a really good feeling, and examiners like to see cases through to
conclusion; there is a need for closure (171).
Discussions on validity of fingerprint comparisons and ACE-V
A special issue of Law, Probability & Risk, which appeared in 2008, is anchored
around the ACE-V process. After an introduction (55), the validity (interpreted as both
validity and reliability here) of the ACE-V method is discussed. This discussion
includes proposals to carry out testing for validity. Perhaps most importantly and
contrary to the current evolution of evaluation procedures, they propose the use of a
numerical standard for evaluation (without defining it), but also, alternatively, a
‘training and experience’ standard (56). The use of a numerical standard is also
defended in (194), as a safeguard, and to protect the infallibility of fingerprint
evidence. The reaction by Champod (57) to the article by Haber and Haber (56)
clarifies that ACE-V is just a protocol, which is general to the forensic comparison
sciences ; it does not insure reliability. A discussion of the usefulness of statistical
models, specifying the selectivity of fingerprint features, is presented, along with a
call for transparency including the spelling out of the ACE-V protocol. Cole (58), also
in reaction to the Haber’s article (56), denies ACE-V the status of a methodology and
discusses the irrelevance of the scientificity of the approach, highlighting the
importance of validation (and reliability). Mnookin (59) estimates that indeed,
research is necessary but that fingerprints could be used in court without the actually
unfeasible testing Haber and Haber require “so long as the fingerprint community has
done as much as it reasonably can do to establish the validity of its approach and the
accuracy of its practitioners’ conclusions”. She considers particularly problematic that
such feasible research has not been carried out by the fingerprint community. Haber
and Haber react to these articles, and the arguments presented therein (60). They
are also the authors of a book which describes the forensic use of fingerprints, how
fingerprint work is carried out, revises court-related issues, error rates and accuracy,
bias, training issues and finally fingerprint testimony (172). A book review by Bono
has just been published (195).
Cole emphasizes that it is the validity of the process that needs to be considered
(173). Here, the author argues that expert testimony (not expert evidence) needs to
be thought about, and that “evidentiary claims stand along a continuum of
trustworthiness” rather than being clearly separable into reliable and unreliable
evidence. In particular, rather than considering admissibility of evidence, according to
the author, attention should be paid to over- or under-claiming during testimony. He
then analyses fingerprint testimonies of 34 case transcripts (173), focussing on the
“source attribution moments”. These were then divided into Process Statements (the
mark was identified/matched to the inked impression), Source Attribution Statements
(the defendant made the print/defendant could be the only source) and Identity
Statements (the fingerprint was one and the same with the mark). It is considered
241