The Annals of Applied Statistics

Fingerprint science

Joseph B. Kadane

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

This paper examines the extent to which data support the source attributions made by fingerprint examiners. It challenges the assumption that each person’s fingerprints are unique, but finds that evidence of persistence of an individual’s fingerprints is better founded. The use of the AFIS (Automatic Fingerprint Identification System) is problematic, because the algorithms used are proprietary. Additionally, the databases used in conjunction with AFIS are incomplete and not public. Finally, and most crucially, the finding of similarities between the mark found at a crime scene and a fingerprint on file does not permit estimation of the number of persons in a given population who share those characteristics. Consequently, there is no scientific basis for a source attribution; whether phrased as a “match,” as “individualization” or otherwise.

Article information

Source
Ann. Appl. Stat., Volume 12, Number 2 (2018), 771-787.

Dates
Received: July 2017
Revised: November 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 28 July 2018

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1532743476

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/18-AOAS1140

Keywords
Fingerprint uniqueness fingerprint persistence AIS source attribution individualization match

Citation

Kadane, Joseph B. Fingerprint science. Ann. Appl. Stat. 12 (2018), no. 2, 771--787. doi:10.1214/18-AOAS1140. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1532743476


Export citation

References

  • Arkowitz, H. and Lillefield, S. D. (2010). Why science tells us not to rely on eyewitness accounts: Eyewitness testimony is fickle. and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate. Sci. Am. Available at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/.
  • Cecil, M. (2014). Hoover’s FBI and the Fourth Estate: The Campaign to Control the Press and the Bureau’s Image. Univ. Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
  • Cole, S. A. (2005). More than zero: Accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 95 985–1078.
  • Cole, S. A. (2014). Individualization is dead, long live individualization! Reforms in reporting practices for fingerprint analysis in the United States. Law Prob. Risk 13 117–150.
  • Committee on Assessing the Needs of the Forensic Science Community (2009). Strengthening the Forensic Sciences in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  • Committee on Scientific Assessmant of Bullet Lead Elemental Composition Comparison (2004). Forensic Analysis Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  • Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  • DeGroot, M., Fienberg, S. E. and Kadane, J. B. (1983). Statistics and the Law. Wiley, New York.
  • Department of Justice (2006). A review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield case. Unclassified executive summary. Available at https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0601/final.pdf.
  • Department of Justice (2018). Approved uniform language for testimony and reports for the forensic latent print discipline. Available at https://www.justice.gov/file/1037171/download.
  • Doyle, C. (1903). The adventure of the Norwood builder. Strand Magazine and Collier’s Magazine, later published as Chapter 2 in “The Return of Sherlock Holmes”.
  • Dror, I. E. and Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. J. Forensic Identif. 56 600–616.
  • Dror, I. E., Charlton, D. and Peron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci. Int. 156 74–78.
  • Dror, I. E. and Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. J. Forensic Sci. 53 900–903.
  • Dror, I. E., Champod, C., Langenburg, G., Charlton, D., Hunt, H. and Rosenthal, R. (2011). Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a ‘target’ comparison. Forensic Sci. Int. 208 10–17.
  • Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M. and Risinger, M. (2015). Lettter to the editor—Context management toolbox: A linear sequential unmaksing approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. J. Forensic Sci. 60 1111–1112.
  • Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychol. Rev. 87 215–251.
  • Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis, Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Fauld, H. (1880). On the skin-furrows of the hand. Letter in Nature, October 8, 1880. Available at http://www.clpex.com/Articles/History/Faulds1880.htm.
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (1985). The Science of Fingerprints: Classification and Uses. Available at www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19022.
  • Fienberg, S. E., ed. (1989). The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in Court. Springer, Berlin.
  • Fienberg, S. E. (2005). Forensic science: The nexus of science and the law. In Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia of the National Academy of Science, November 1618. Available at http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/forensic-science-the-nexus-of-science-and-the-law.html.
  • Fienberg, S. E. and Straf, M. (1982). Statistical assessments as evidence. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 145 410–421.
  • Florida v. S. Hayes (2015). 15CJ109, August 24, 2015. Tampa, Florida.
  • Galton, F. (1888). Letter in Nature: Personal identification and description. May 25, 1888.
  • Galton, F. (1892). Finger Prints. MacMillan, London.
  • Haber, L. and Haber, R. N. (2008). Scientific valitation of fingerprint evidence under Daubert. Law Prob. Risk 7 87–109.
  • Herschel, W. (1880). Skin furrows of the hand. Letter in Nature, November 28, 1880. Available at http://galton.org/fingerprints/herschel-1880-nature-furrows.pdf.
  • International Association for Identification (1979). Resolution 1979-7.
  • International Association for Identification (1980). Resolution 1980-5.
  • International Association for Identification (2007). IAI position concerning latent print identification. November 29, 2007. Available at http://onin.com/fp/IAI_Position_Statement_11-29-07.pdf.
  • International Association for Identification (2010). Resolution 2010-18.
  • Kadane, J. B. and Koehler, J. J. (2018). Certainty and uncertainty in reporting fingerprint evidence. Daedalus (in press).
  • Langenburg, G. (2011). The Fingerprint Sourcebook 14: Scientific Research Supporting the Foundations of Friction Ridge Examinations. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
  • Langenburg, G. M. (2012). A critical analysis and study of the ACE-V process. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Lausanne.
  • Langenburg, G., Champod, C. and Genessay, T. (2012). Informing the judments of fingerprint analysts using quality etrics and statistical assessment tools. Forensic Sci. Int. 219 183–198.
  • Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P. and Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science 208 1335–1342.
  • Liu, Y. and Srihari, S. N. (2009). A computational discriminability analysis on twin fingerprints. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computational Forensics. Springer, The Hague.
  • Maceo, A. (2009). Friction ridge skin: Morphogenesis and overview. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. DOI:10.1002/97804700061589.fsa358.
  • Moses, K. R. (2011). The Fingerprint Sourcebook 6: Automated Fingerprint Identification. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225320.pdf.
  • Mustonen, V., Hakkarainen, K. and Tuuainen, J. (2015). Discrepancies in expert decision-making in forensic fingerprint examination. Forensic Sci. Int. 254 215–226.
  • National Institute of Justice (2011). The Fingerprint Sourcebook. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225320.pdf.
  • National Research Council (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  • Neumann, C., Champod, C., Yoo, M., Genessay, T. and Langenberg, G. (2013). Improving the understanding and the reliability of the concept of “sufficiency” in friction ridge examination. Award Number 2010-DN-BX-K267, NIJ. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=271468.
  • Pacheo, I., Cerchai, B. and Stoiloff, S. (2014). Miami–Dade study of the ACE-V process: Accuracy and precision in latent fingerprint examinations. National Institute of Justice Final Report Document #248534, Miami–Dade Police Department.
  • President’s Council of Advsors on Science and Technology (2016). Report to the President, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-comparison Methods.
  • Roeder, K., Escobar, M., Kadane, J. B. and Balzas, I. (1998). Measuring heterogeneity in forensic databases using hierarchical Bayes models. Biometrika 85 269–287.
  • Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis. Standards for examining friction ridge impressions and resulting conclusions. Version 1 (Latent/Tenprint). Available at http://clpex.com/swgfast/documents/examinations-conclusions/111026_Examinations-Conclusions_1.0.pdf.
  • Specter, M. (2002). Do fingerprints lie? The gold standard of forensic evidence is now being challenged. New Yorker May 27.
  • Srihari, S. N., Srinivasan, H. and Fang, G. (2008). Discriminability of fingerprints of twins. J. Forensic Identif. 58 109–127.
  • Swofford, H. J. (2015). Use of the term “Identification” in latent print. Information Paper.
  • Tangen, J. M., Thompson, M. B. and McCarthy, D. J. (2011). Identifying fingerprint expertise. Psychol. Sci. 22 995–997.
  • The Detail (2006). Available at http://www.clpex.com/legacy/TheDetail/200-299/TheDetail254.htm. Accessed 28 July 2016.
  • Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M. and McCarthy, D. J. (2013). Expertise in fingerprint identification. J. Forensic Sci. 58 1519–1530.
  • Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M. and McCarthy, D. J. (2014). Human matching performance of genuine crime scene latent fingerprints. Law Hum. Behav. 38 84–93.
  • Twain, M. (1883). A thumb print and what became of it. Later published as Chapter 31 in “Life on the Mississippi”.
  • Twain, M. (1894). The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson and the Comedy of Those Extraordinary Twins. American Publishing Company, Hartford, CT.
  • Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, A. R., Buscaglia, J. and Roberts, M. A. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 7733–7738.
  • Yoon, S. and Jain, A. K. (2015). Longitudinal study of fingerprint recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 8555–8560.
  • Zabell, S. L. (2005). Fingerprint evidence. J. Law Policy 13 143–179.
  • United States Census Bureau (2017). World population, more than 7.5 billion on May 25, 2017. Available at https://www.census.gov/popclock/world.