Eric and Glenn are back from a little summer break, prepping for the 2024 IAI Conference in Reno. They do a final “Where in the Whorld?” game. Then they jump into a recent paper on “Inconclusive” decisions (Swofford, et al. (2024) “Inconclusive Decisions and Error Rates in Forensic Science”, Forensic Science International: Synergy (vol 8; 100472)) authored by several members of NIST. The paper proposes a method for computing and communicating error rates when “inconclusive” decisions are made. The paper also focuses on making clear distinctions between “method performance” versus “method conformance”. The guys discuss their views on the method and the implications the paper may have for fingerprint examiners and their agencies. Swofford, H. , Lund, S. , Iyer, H. , Butler, J. , Soons, J. , Thompson, R. , Desiderio, V. , Jones, J. and Ramotowski, R. (2024), Inconclusive Decisions and Error Rates in Forensic Science, Forensic Science International: Synergy, [online], https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100472, https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=957335 (Accessed August 31, 2024) Link to open source paper here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100472

Glenn and Eric are joined by Angela Hilliard to discuss her experiences with a cold case from the Pacific Northwest. Genetic genealogy provided a suspect's name from a cold case double homicide, and a latent palm print was left on the victim's van. Angela walks us through her initial erroneous exclusion, the subsequent identification, court testimony, and the resulting press coverage. A must-listen episode for examiners on how to handle erroneous conclusions, even in high-profile cases. (Apologies for the audio in this episode. We did not realize until later that some of audio was poorer quality than normal.)

Eric and Glenn respond to the recent allegations that a computer science undergraduate at Columbia University, using Artificial Intelligence, has “proven that fingerprints aren’t unique” or at least…that’s how the media is mischaracterizing a new published paper by Guo, et al. The guys dissect the actual publication (“Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning” in Science Advances, 2024 by Gabe Guo, et al.). They state very clearly what the paper actually does show, which is a far cry from the headlines and even public dissemination originating from Columbia University and the author. The guys talk about some of the important limitations of the study and how limited the application is to real forensic investigations. They then explore some of the media and social media outlets that have clearly misunderstood this paper and seem to have little understanding of forensic science. Finally, Eric and Glenn look at some quotes and comments from knowledgeable sources who also have recognized the flaws in the paper, the authors’ exaggerations, and lack of understanding of the value of their findings. Gabe Guo et al. ,Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning.Sci. Adv.10, eadi0329(2024). DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adi0329 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0329 https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/news/ai-discovers-not-every-fingerprint-unique https://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/ https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/world/fingerprints-ai-based-study-scn/index.html

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray return to the annual IAI conference in San Antonio to talk to attendees about the interesting lectures and workshops that they've seen this year. Morgan Hays from Florida talks about how he stays current with the field as a supervisor and how the exclusion and verification topics were covered at the conference. Do you trust your verifier? Linda Manigault from Nevada then joins the conversation and discusses the workshops on FRStat and statistical models that she attended. Glenn ends the episode with a BIG announcement!

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray wrap up the three-part discussion on the AAAS Report on the Quality and Gap Analysis of Latent Fingerprint Examination. Surprisingly, the guys agree with many of the recommendations and conclusions in the document with an occasional quibble or clarification. As was hinted in the past two episodes, there are more serious concerns with the report's suggested language and proposed limitation of the word "identification".

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue the discussion on the pros and cons of the AAAS report. Carey participated with the review of the report and discusses the positive recommendations and the limitations that come from the report not being published in a traditional peer-reviewed journal. After that discussion wrapped up, Carey, Eric, and Glenn get a little off-topic and talk about attending AFIS Users' Conferences. Carey and Glenn presented at the most recent Idemia conference on the benefits of the Case AFIS system. Eric talks about a local AFIS conference and user discussions on how data analysis can lead to improved search practices.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray finally get around to discussing the report on latent fingerprint comparisons from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. John Black (from Black and White Forensics) was on the committee that wrote the report and joins the discussion on some of the merits and limitations of the paper. While many of the research recommendations are the next steps that the latent print field needs, they are also the same recommendations made by other reports. One of the report's main failures is the suggested wording for the identification decision.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Della Wilkinson from Canada to discuss the final resolution of the Bornyk case from British Columbia. Originally, Judge Funt (see Double Loop Podcast episdoe 10) ruled that the fingerprint evidence would not be admitted after conducting his own study of latent prints and his own comparison. The Crown appealed and a new trial began with the original examiner, the verifier, Della, and Simon Cole. This episode the Double Loop Podcast also pays tribute to Tony Cantu. He will be missed.

Eric Ray sits down for an interview with Simon Cole from the University of California Irvine. Simon explains how he first became interested in forensics and in latent print comparisons in general, and then outlines the history of his criticisms of the field. Glenn Langenburg later joins Eric for a review of the interview and some of Glenn's perspectives on how Simon's criticisms and the latent print response have both evolved over time.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue their interview with Matt Marvin from Ron Smith and Associates about the erroneous identifications and eventual exoneration of Beniah Alton Dandridge. This video (available on YouTube via RayForensics.com) goes through an in-depth and technical review of the latent prints, the errors, the exclusions to Dandridge, and the eventual identifications to the victim's son (who discovered the body).

Eric Ray hosts a live Double Loop Podcast discussion at the 2017 Florida Division IAI Conference in Panama City Beach, FL, and Glenn Langenburg joins via phone for the discussion. The audience hit Eric and Glenn with a variety of questions and the conversation swings from AFIS automation to using AFIS as a support for an identification decision. From the requirements that Florida courts put on latent print examiners to how to keep improving yourself so that you can make that jump into a career in forensics.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are joined by Matt Marvin of Ron Smith and Associates to discuss in greater detail the details of the Beniah Dandridge case. Matt discusses how he and RSA got involved in the case, the history of the Manning murder, the original investigation, the Dandridge trial, his appeals, RSA's involvement, and Dandridge's eventual release. Check back to RayForensics.com soon for a YouTube video detailing the comparisons in this case.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss two forensic cases that have been in the news in the past few years. First, the guys talk about the recent Golden State Killer case. How did DNA testing and genealogy combine to solve these 40 year old crimes? What databases were accessed and was it ethical to do so? Secondly, Eric and Glenn discuss how accessing profiles of Y chromosomes from online sites led Idaho Falls detectives to Michael Usry, Jr. In 1996 Angie Dodge was murdered and Chris Tapp has been in prison for decades, but things get turned upside down when new technology comes into play.

In this episode, Eric and Glenn interview Caitlin Rough, a Masters student at the University of Western Sydney. Glenn saw Caitlin present at the IAFS conference back in November 2023. She comes onto the podcast to discuss her research project involving the interactions of latent prints (sebaceous residues) and blood. This work is near and dear to Glenn because of his previous work with Praska (see reference below). Caitlin discusses her observations with blood and a new twist of applying blood through various blood stain pattern mechanisms, such as swipes, spatter, pooling, and dripping. She observed the blood’s lipophobic reaction to the sebaceous ridge detail, which re-distributes the blood (often into the furrows of the mark). She also observed intermittent reactions of the blood with unknown components in the residue (as Glenn and Praska previously did). The guys discuss the implications of the research and next steps with Caitlin. Praska, N. and G. Langenburg. “Reactions of latent prints to exposed blood.” Forensic Science. International. 2013. (224): 51-58. 77 Bloody fingermark training available at www.EvolveForensics.com https://learn.evolveforensics.com/product-category/webinars/

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray tackle two articles in one fantastic episode. First, "Lay Understanding of 'Identification': How Jurors Interpret Forensic Identification Testimony" by Henry Swofford and Jessica Cino from the Journal of Forensic Identification. Secondly, the guys tackle a paper from the Journal of Forensic Sciences, "Comparing Categorical and Probabilistic Fingerprint Evidence" by Brandon Garrett, et al. The big question is: should we say "identification" or should we express the same conclusion in a probabilistic manner?

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg continue their discussion with Alicia Wilcox on her research into how juries hear forensic testimony. This time we focus even more on questions of opposing experts, error rates, and what's the most important thing for an expert to have. A degree? Years of experience? An accredited lab?

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray join with Dr. Alicia Wilcox from Husson University in Bangor, Maine in a discussion of her research juries and their understanding of forensic testimony. Even though forensic scientists may try to present data in precise and sometimes mathematical way, jurors tend to interpret forensic testimony according to whether the evidence fits well into the story that they have constructed of the crime.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss last year's article, Using the PCAST Report to Exclude, Limit, or Minimize Experts by Eric Alexander Vos published in Criminal Justice. We note the extreme bias of the article to exploit the emotions of the judge and jury instead of logic, reason, or data, and we find the serious flaws in many aspects of the paper.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray follow up from last week's discussion of Glenn's recent Daubert hearing with a 2016 article from Jonathan Koehler entitled, Intuitive Error Rate Estimates for the Forensic Sciences. As Glenn suspected, the findings of this article are suspiciously close to the center of the group of choices that participants were presented with. Although there are some larger themes that are interesting, the exact values of the error rate estimates from potential jurors do not match personal experience or even some of the cited prior works.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray return after another hiatus to share travel stories and then to discuss a Daubert hearing that Glenn recently testified in. Short version: having all this new research is way better than when we didn't have it.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray continue their interview with Anja Einseln regarding the merger of ASCLD-LAB and ANAB. Validation of methods and reasons for labs to choose accreditation are some of the many topics covered this time around.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray first revisit a couple of additional aspects of our previous discussion on defense interviews in Illinois before diving into the deep end of accreditation. Anja Einseln joins the Double Loop Podcast as our guest expert on ASCLD/LAB, ANAB, and all things accreditation. In the first half we talk about some of the changes that will be coming with the recent merger of ASCLD/LAB and ANAB and what it means for latent print units in accredited labs.

Eric and Glenn tackle a topic that will be a major concern of labs across the country in the next few years, the merger of ASCLD-LAB and ANAB. Some of the changes include the elimination of Latent Print Appendix, the elimination of the Administrative Review requirement, and slight wording changes that may result in huge changes to latent print reports and notes.

Glenn and Eric continue to discuss the 2017 International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics. This time Glenn tells about some troubling trends emerging from Illinois where forensic scientists are refusing to answer questions related to the foundational validity of the discipline. He also touches on new work on a different type of Likelihood Ratio approach from Cedric Neumann and colleageus.

Eric and Glenn discuss their holiday parties and preparations, play another round of "Where in the Whorld?", and then interview a guest all the way from Sydney, Australia. Teneil Hannah, a PhD candidate at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), joins the podcast to talk about some of her recently presented research on fingermark grading/quality scales. These are scales used by practitioners or researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of potentially new processing and visualization techniques to develop latent fingerprints. Whenever a laboratory is deciding to adopt a new treatment or change an existing one, the lab is expected to perform testing to evaluate the technique. There are a number of scales available to assess latent prints. Teneil walks us through what the most common scales are, who is using what, why are these scales important, and what modifications can be made to existing scales to improve their wide spread adoption and usage. References from Episode: CAST Scale Bandey, H.L. and Gibson, A.P., The Powders Process, Study 2: Evaluation of Fingerprint Powders on Smooth Surfaces, in Fingerprint Development and Imaging Newsletter. 2006. UNIL Scale Becue, A., Moret, S., Champod, C., and Margot, P., Use of quantum dots in aqueous solution to detect blood fingermarks on non-porous surfaces. Forensic Science International, 2009. 191: p. 36-41. UC Scale McLaren, C., Lennard, C., and Stoilovic, M., Methylamine Pretreatment of Dry Latent Fingermarks on Polyethylene for Enhanced Detection by Cyanoacrylate Fuming. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2010. 60: p. 199-222. IFRG Guidelines International Fingerprint Research Group, Guidelines for the assessment of fingermark detection techniques. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2014. 64: p. 174-197. Hockey, D; Dove, A; Kent, T. Guideline for the use and statistical analysis of the Home Office fingermark grading scheme for comparing fingermark development techniques. For Sci Intl 318 (2021) 110604. Hanna, T; Chadwick, S; Moret, S. Fingermark quality assessment, a transversal study of subjective quality scales. For Sci Intl 350 (2023) 111783.

Glenn discusses the recent 2017 International Conference on Forensic Inference and Statistics that was held in Minnesota. Specifically, Glenn helped lead a project that looked at how lay people from different backgrounds interpreted different types of forensic results and how those interpretations were used in a courtroom setting.

Eric sits down with Amanda, Harres, Vanessa, Jack, and Judith from the Austin Exclusionology class to talk about latent print topics and to ask questions back at the Double Loop Podcast. Glenn later joins Eric in commenting on how the discussion went and to give his own comments on conclusion language, GYRO, and how juries interpret our results.

Eric and Glenn sit down for an interview with Sandy Siegel and are also joined by a crew of Texas examiners (and one from San Diego). Sandy talks about her start in the field, her time in Austin, and then her new position with the Houston Forensic Science Center. The HFSC is a public/private entity that is separate from the police department and may be a new example for how to structure crime labs in many other jurisdictions.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray follow some good advice from Niki Osborne and interview Dr. Theresa Stotesbury from Trent University in Ontario. Theresa has developed a synthetic blood substitute using sol-gel for use in bloodstain pattern analysis training. We learned a lot and can't wait to find out more.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg catch up after an extended hiatus and then review the recent PCAST report. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a scathing report calling for the end of many forensic disciplines. The Double Loop Podcast responds.

Glenn and Eric first cover the new resolution that came out of the IAI 2016 Conference. They then perfectly segue into a conversation on the recent decision to order the release or retrial of Brandon Dassey based on problems with his confession and initial attorney.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray finish their discussion of the OJ Simpson trial, the FX OJ dramatization, and the OJ 30 for 30. Mark Fuhrman, Lance Ito, Dennis Fung and all the rest, and how the climate in LA at that time directly led to the verdict.

After the success and interest of Making a Murderer episodes, Glenn and Eric travel back to the 90s to discuss the physical evidence from the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and the trial of OJ Simpson.

Glenn and Eric received some more emails about the Avery case and fill out yet another episode with the topic. They even manage to debunk a fingerprint myth from the case.

Glenn and Eric read a couple of emails from non-examiners that came across our Making a Murderer episodes. We ended up spending this whole episode talking about the ideas and comments from those emails. Unrelated to the episode is the image thumbnail. This is the Christmas gift to our patron in Indianapolis. Turn the image upside-down and it says 'fingerprint'.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray spent the past few months traveling to conferences far and wide. This episode they catch up with each other on recent travels, stories from the road, and some of the presentations that they saw over the past few months. It's a laid-back episode, so join us for as we catch up with each other. (There's also a big reveal in this episode. Can you figure it out before Eric does?)

Glenn and Eric answer some questions from an email that came in after the Making a Murderer episodes. Is all the extra time used to shield ourselves from bias worth the effort? Do the fact-finders and the general public want our conclusions expressed as associations instead of identifications? Which of our customers decides? The officers, accreditation boards, judges, attorneys, jurors, legislatures?

Eric and Glenn continue their discussion of the popular Netflix documentary including further discussions of the physical evidence, the EDTA test, things not discussed in the documentary, and the entire concept of true crime as entertainment.

Glenn and Eric start a two-part podcast discussion on the twisty case of Stephen Avery, now an extremely popular documentary on Netflix. As they wind their way through this very interesting case, the guys try to keep the focus on the physical evidence available and how that all played in to the convictions in this case.

Eric and Glenn complete their series on the Madrid Bombing Fingerprint Error from the FBI. Even more than 10 years after the error was revealed, there are still very interesting things to learn about this error that led to so many changes and improvements in the latent fingerprint comparison field.

Glenn and Eric continue through the timeline of the Madrid Error or the Brandon Mayfield erroneous fingerprint identification. The guys learn all sorts of new things from the full OIG report that sometimes reveal a new understanding and sometimes contradict the commonly held beliefs of the public and the experts.

Glenn and Eric begin a 3-part review of the full report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on the Madrid Bombing or Brandon Mayfield error from the FBI. This episode starts with a general overview and begins looking at the timeline, including some common misconceptions and inaccuracies that have been taught in fingerprint training classes.

Eric and Glenn talk through the recent news that Beniah Dandridge was wrongly convicted for murder and has served 19 years in an Alabama prison after an erroneous fingerprint identification and other bad witnesses led to his conviction. Major legal issues are coming to light as the courts continued to refuse to re-hear the case even after evidence of Dandridge's guilt was refuted.

Glenn and Eric interview Teresa Wu from 3M/Cogent about the company and new research into preventing errors and statistical models. This episode sponsored by 3M / Cogent

Eric interviews Glenn about how he got started in latent prints and his favorite time teaching. The guys then discuss regional differences in the latent print field including terms, definitions, and powder color.

Glenn and Eric discuss the McCluskey case out of New Mexico involving testimony on identification to the exclusion of all others, an article on how forensic labs are paid per conviction from the Huffington Post, and Glenn interviews Eric in Part 1 of "Who the Hell are Glenn and Eric?"

Eric and Glenn return with a super-sized episode where they trade courtroom stories. Glenn had two cases in 2023 where the judges and decisions were rather surprising. From being hurried, harried, and harassed, there were some oddball moments for Glenn. Eric similarly shared a few unusual court moments for him. We also encouraged our listeners to share their moments whether you were a witness, attorney or even as a juror, we’d like to hear your stories too!

Eric and Glenn share their adventures at the 2023 International Association for Identification conference held in August in National Harbor, MD in the Washington D.C. area. They discuss various lectures and workshops they attended. They also discuss Becca running the Double Loop Podcast “merch” booth and this year’s hot selling fingerprint tee-shirt. Becca interviews several attendees and gets some of the international flavor that is so much a part of each IAI annual conference.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are at the 2023 IAI conference in National Harbor, MD with Erin West and Ashley Church of Gap Science. They've developed a series of classes and an entire virtual conference dedicated to training for forensic supervisors and management. How many people should be reporting to one supervisor? What resources are available to forensic professionals? What if you're supervising a discipline that you're not trained in? Listen to the discussion and then join the FREE conference during Forensic Science Week.

To start the episode, Glenn tells Eric a story relating to Edmond Locard and Galdino Ramos, a doctor with an interesting connection to the history of fingerprints. Later in the episode the guys take on a listener question “What forensic discipline is the most reliable?” In order to address the question, they do a quick recap of various studies that attempt to estimate how lay people assess the reliability of different disciplines and contrast those data with black box error rate studies for each discipline, when available. Finally, Eric and Glenn discuss a new paper on DNA from Hicklin, et al. dealing with the accuracy of DNA analysts determining the number of contributors (NOC) to a DNA mixture. This study, and several other DNA papers, tie into the comparison between fingerprints and DNA, and which one they think is more “reliable”. All in all, a good general discussion for lay people and forensic scientists regarding what is meant by “reliable” in the eyes of jurors and what do these studies tell us about the accuracy of these different forensic techniques.