John R. Vanderkolk - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
John R. Vanderkolk - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
John R. Vanderkolk - National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
C H A P T E R 9 Examination Process<br />
There is much more to prints than the arrangement of<br />
Galton points. The examiner must use knowledge and<br />
understanding gained from training and experience to<br />
make judgments about the features of the sources and<br />
details in prints to reach a conclusion about the origin of<br />
the print in question.<br />
Cognitive science explains the processes of perception,<br />
decision-making, and development of expertise. Research<br />
in cognitive science is helping to explain how experienced<br />
examiners differ from novices [Palmer, 1999; Busey and<br />
<strong>Vanderkolk</strong>, 2005]. A philosophy of how examiners can<br />
determine or exclude a source of a print must be established<br />
for an examination method to be effective. Examiners<br />
draw from many philosophies to develop a particular<br />
examination method.<br />
9.1.1 Philosophy of Uniqueness<br />
Pattern formations in nature are never repeated in their<br />
morphological structures (or, as the saying goes, “nature<br />
never repeats itself”) [Kirk, 1963; McRoberts, 1996]. This<br />
statement is supported and explained in part by biology,<br />
chemistry, and physics, and through practice and experience<br />
of observing natural patterns [Ball, 1999]. The morphogenesis<br />
of friction skin and the many developmental<br />
factors that influence the unique arrangement of friction<br />
ridges prior to birth provide the fundamental explanation<br />
of why volar skin is unique.<br />
Basic print minutiae are defined and used in mathematical<br />
formulas for traditional classification, statistical modeling,<br />
and automated fingerprint identification systems<br />
(AFIS). These formulas consider some of the variations in<br />
friction ridge skin arrangements, but not all of the detail<br />
that is present. In spite of these limitations, no model<br />
and application has provided evidence that prints are not<br />
unique. Instead, the study of pattern formations in nature,<br />
and pattern formations in friction ridge skin in particular,<br />
have determined the formations in friction ridge skin to be<br />
unique. The friction ridge skin features of creases, furrows,<br />
scars, cuts, and natural imperfections are also unique.<br />
9.1.2 Philosophy of Persistency<br />
The morphological surface structure of friction ridge skin is<br />
persistent. Often, the friction ridge arrangement (ridge flow<br />
and minutiae) has been described as permanent. However,<br />
the cellular surface of the friction ridge skin is not permanent.<br />
Surface cells are replaced on a regular basis. The<br />
9–4<br />
competing forces of regenerating skin cells and the effort<br />
of maintaining the form and function of the organ of skin<br />
produces a persistent, not permanent, naturally patterned<br />
surface with all of its minute and microscopic features. In<br />
other words, the process strives to reproduce, but cannot<br />
perfectly reproduce, the patterns of the preceding cells so<br />
that the arrangements of replacement cells can follow the<br />
form and function of the replaced cells. Microscopic variations<br />
do occur. Aging of skin is an example of persistency;<br />
although patterns in friction ridge skin are not perfectly<br />
permanent, they are remarkably persistent over time.<br />
For friction ridge skin to be valuable for the examination<br />
of two prints, the unique features of ridges, creases, scars,<br />
and imperfections in the skin that had been recorded as<br />
details in two prints must be persistent between the two<br />
occurrences when each print was made. Persistency is all<br />
that is needed, not permanency.<br />
9.1.3 Philosophy of Examination Logic<br />
Deduction, induction, and abduction are three types of logic<br />
[Burch, 2001; McKasson and Richards, 1998, pp 73-110]<br />
an examiner can use to determine answers to questions<br />
in friction ridge examinations. A simple explanation of logic<br />
and inference could be found in the statements:<br />
if A and B, therefore C<br />
if B and C, therefore A<br />
or<br />
if A and C, therefore B<br />
Replacing “A” with “Case”, “B” with “Rule” and “C” with<br />
“Result”, the examiner can explain which logic is used.<br />
9.1.3.1 Deductive Logic. “Case and Rule, therefore<br />
Result” becomes “The two prints came from the same<br />
source and individualization is possible because the<br />
features of friction ridge skin are unique and persistent,<br />
therefore, the details in the two sufficient prints agree.”<br />
Deductive logic starts with and infers the general and ends<br />
with the particular. Deductive logics infers that the particular<br />
of the details between two prints agree if the examiner<br />
knows the two sufficient prints did come from the same<br />
source, or a specific area of skin, and that friction ridge skin<br />
is unique and persistent. Deductive logic is used in training<br />
examiners. The trainer and trainees know the two prints<br />
came from the same source, the trainer and trainees know<br />
the rule of uniqueness and persistency of friction ridge