Double Loop Podcast

Glenn Langenburg is joined by Simon Bunter from Keith Borer Consultants to discuss a number of cases where activity level propositions were key factors. Can a print survive after the surface is cleaned? What if the surface is painted over? Simon tells some amazing stories that should make every latent print examiner question the timeline of when a latent print was left on a surface.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are joined by Anouk de Ronde from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences to continue the discussion on activity level propositions. Anouk has published on how to construct a logical framework for considering all the information in a latent print to assist in establishing probabilities for competing hypotheses. Did he climb the railing or just lean against it? Was the pillowcase changed or was the pillow pressed down? Just like you wouldn't reach an Identification without looking at each individual minutiae, this framework allows for examination of each data point before making a conclusion on the likelihood of different activity level propositions.

In this episode Glenn and Eric dig into ‘activity level propositions’, which will start a series of episodes that takes a deep dive into this topic. We lay the groundwork for the topic by discussing fundamental forensic science papers, such as Evett, et al. “The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements” (Science & Justice, 2000) and other works by Cook and Jackson. We highlight the need for formal declaration of propositions regarding ‘source’, ‘activity’, and ‘crime (offense)’ levels. Lastly, we discuss aging (time since deposition) of latent prints and the dangers of these statements based on a visual exam alone. We reference Girod, Ramotowski, et al. “Fingermark age determinations: Legal considerations, review of the literature, and practical propositions” (For Sci Intl, 2016) for important points here. Also Glenn has some news at the beginning of the show to share with Eric regarding DNA.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg get passionate about policies. Stirred up about standards. PO'd about SDO's. After a quick refresher on how NIST, OSAC, AAFS, and ASB fit together in the Standards Development process, Eric and Glenn give an update on the draft standards for latent prints. Where are the standards that we've been waiting for? There was a recent meeting the Friction Ridge group with ASB, and things did not go well for those of us that would like to see the process move forward. While you're waiting for things to move forward, don't forget to check out the Double Loop Podcast merch store at www.doublelooppodcast.com

In this episode, Glenn and Eric interview Brendan Max, Chief of the Cook County Public Defender Forensic Science Unit in Illinois. They discuss his new article “Assessing Latent Print Proficiency Tests: Lofty Aims, Straightforward Samples, and the Implications of Non-Expert Performance” (Max, Cavise, and Gutierrez in JFI 2019;69(3)). Brendan shares his views on proficiency tests: are they meaningful? What about verifications in proficiency testing? What does it mean to ‘fail’ a test? How do lawyers and judges view proficiency tests? He describes his basic strategy for litigating forensic evidence and explains why the research in the field of latent prints is so critical. Pay attention towards the end: Eric legitimately stumps Glenn with a great question!

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg talk through the latest document out of the OSAC Friction Ridge Subcommttee. Last month they released an updated, and detailed, process map for friction ridge examinations. Follow along by downloading the pdf from the OSAC FRS website, https://www.nist.gov/topics/forensic-science/friction-ridge-subcommittee. Eric and Glenn are also happy to announce the Double Loop Podcast merch store. Go to doublelooppodcast.com, click on the Store tab, and help support the show.

This episode, the guys review and discuss a paper about resolving conflict resolution from Montani, et al. titled “Resolving differing expert opinions” (Science & Justice 2019). They explore the nuances of the recommendations from the paper and Glenn applied the principles to a recent case and conflict resolution he experienced. But before getting into the paper, Eric gushes some more about his new job and discusses a recent podcast that he guested on (“Stinker Madness”). Glenn also discusses some draft documents available through OSAC and some upcoming changes to OSAC.

Eric Ray starts the show sharing some big news with Glenn Langenburg and the listeners. The guys are then joined by AC Brogdon, president of the California State Division of the IAI for an discussion on the importance of the work that we do. AC shares some stories of his early life, and how those experiences shaped the person that he is and how that continues to inspire and motivate him. It's vitally important for examiners and investigators to remember the victims as they do their work and that it's not just another day at the office for those directly affected by the crime. Part of maintaining that motivation is to recognize that this job comes with unique stress, especially for those collecting and documenting evidence at the crmie scene. Employee assistance programs are available through most agencies to help all of us deal with the terrible things that we can exposed to every day.

In this episode, Eric and Glenn tackle the 2018 proposed OSAC Friction Ridge Subcommittee (FRS) Standards for Conclusions. They review the entire document and provide the definitions for 5 conclusions: identification, exclusion, inconclusive, and support for same/different sources. They give their thoughts and reactions to these terms and give examples of when they might apply. Glenn discusses an upcoming jury trial where he will be using these terms and how they appear in his reports. Bonus: an unexpected discussion of Downton Abbey! Upcoming classes mentioned at the end. Note: this episode has premium content for our Patreon Supporters.

Glenn Langenburg leads a panel discussion (with Eric Ray joining via phone) at the Pacific Northwest Division of the IAI / Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists Joint Conference with guests and Janis Puracal from the Forensic Justice Project and Carey Hall. The panel discussion explores the Janis's history with exonerations, innocence, justice reform, and forensic science and the challenges that face those that have been erroneously convicted. The conversation also explores the challenges that forensic scientists face in these areas and steps that they can take to ensure neutrality and that justice is served. Head to DoubleLoopPodcast.com for more episodes and look through the soon-to-arrive Merch store!

Join Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray in Reno, NV for the 2019 International Association for Identification conference. We are joined by Becca Coutant, Carey Hall, Nicole Praska, Claudine Carter Pereira, and Jason Jardine and cover a number of topics including limited examinations, defense attorney perspectives, conclusion terminology, blood prints, management, and stats. There's even a little story of Glenn losing his cool and an out-take for the blooper reel. The conference was fantastic, and big thanks to all of the new listeners that we met during the week. To celebrate 200+ episodes, an old photo of Glenn with John Vanderkolk is included.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg review a new paper that's been long in the making. "The permanence of friction ridge skin and persistence of friction ridge skin and impressions: A comprehensive review and new results" by Monson, et al. was recently published in Forensic Science International. The paper details the persistence and permanence of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level detail over multiple years. There are important takeaways from the paper although it isn't quite the level of the FBI/Noblis papers. So let's see what the guys think.

Eric Ray was recently teaching in Idaho (the ID state) and had the opportunity to sit down with Nick Craven, Katlyn Shelar, Whitney Betzel, and Tara Koho and talk with them about topics ranging from latent print exclusions, AFIS candidate lists, and the future of statistical models. Glenn Langenburg then joins Eric to continue the discussion with some follow-up points and continuing the conversation further into Exclusion policies and requirements, the nature of risk, and a preview on how to use a 5 Conclusion scale.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss the new article from Austin Hicklin, Brad Ulery, Tom Busey, and company researching latent print examiners with eye tracking equipment. Gaze behavior and cognitive states during fingerprint target group localization was published in Cognitive Research and examines what we look at and how context plays a huge part in this process. Download the paper online and follow along as we explore a great new paper.

EPISODE 200!!! - Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg celebrate the big number 200 with an overseas interview with Australian latent print examiner and friend of the show, Michael Whyte. The guys talk forensics down under, some of the travels, teaching, and technology that Michael is involved with and announce DoubleLoopPodcast.com. Check it out, and let us know how we can make it even better.

Eric and Glenn return from a couple weeks off of crazy travels with a few stories from the road including a "Men Who Love My Little Pony" ("Bronies") cosplay conference. In this episode, the guys sit down for a fantastic interview with Duke Law Professor Brandon Garrett to discuss his and colleagues' recent juror study. The most recent paper provides fingerprint proficiency test results to mock jurors to see how this information may impact their decision making and how reliable they believe fingerprint evidence to be.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg start the show talking about some exciting new classes that they have developed. Then they discuss which is more correct: 2009 "NRC" Report or "NAS" Report. Finally, they describe the available facts in the recent Archie Williams Innocence Project exoneration case. He was freed after 36 years in prison for rape based on eyewitness identifications, but an AFIS hit now implicates another person.

Glenn and Eric start with a brief chat about ethics and the recent JFI letter regarding testing and studies involving human subjects. They then jump into the main discussion on the "Review of Several False Positive Error Rate Estimates for Latent Fingerprint Examination Proposed Based on the 2014 Maimi-Dade Police Department Study" by Madeline Ausdemore, Jessie Hendricks, and Cedric Neumann. The review found that the data best fit a model of two error rates: one for when the true match is not present and one where the true match is one of the individuals presented. The article concludes with follow-up letters to the JFI from Igor Pacheco, Brian Cerchiai, Stephanie Stoiloff, Glenn Langenburg, Jonathan Koehler, Carey Hall, and Brendan Max. This episode is sponsored by GO EVIDENCE.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss post-Laura Interview thoughts after last episode's "lay person" interview. They tie in a new paper surveying mock-jurors, published by Gianni Ribeiro from Australia. Later, Gianni calls in from Oz to discuss her research. Oh, and Eric and Glenn both come up with genius ideas this episode.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray interview friend-of-the-show, Laura Keck, and dive deep into how forensic evidence is interpreted by a lay person. Does one fingerprint identification vs. 13 fingerprint identifications make a difference? What if the prints were on an inner drug baggie vs. an outer drug baggie? What is an acceptable error rate for latent prints or DNA? What if there is no other forensic evidence? Laura's perspective as a lay person (but with knowledge and interest in forensic science) and what she expects from expert testimony should lead to experts taking a close look at how they testify, what they examine, and how to prepare for court.