Double Loop Podcast

Eric and Glenn return from a hiatus to have a more relaxed catch-up episode. They share an adventure or two including the great Arizona Treasure Hunt that they participated in. Eric shares some experiences from the User Conference he worked. And finally the guys talk about the Double Loop Podcast booth experience at the 2022 Omaha IAI Educational Conference. They play a bunch of clips and recordings from our “Correspondent” Rebecca Coutant who was running the booth and playing “(Wo)Man on the Street” to get some attendee perspectives.

Eric and Glenn interview returning guest, and newly minted PhD, Dr. Henry Swofford on his recent paper, with co-author Prof. Christophe Champod: “Probabilistic reporting and algorithms in forensic science: Stakeholder perspectives within the American criminal justice system” (For Sci Intl Synergy 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100220). The new article discusses interview responses from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, scholars, and forensic laboratory managers regarding their perspective on how to validate, implement, litigate, and communicate probabilistic tools and algorithms in American courts. They discuss different quotes and perspectives from the paper and relate that to their own experiences and observations. Henry also makes an important reference to a companion paper, that provides concrete recommendations and a strategy towards implementation by practitioners: “Implementation of algorithms in pattern and impression evidence: A responsible and practical roadmap” (FSI Synergy

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray sit down with Brianne Breedlove from Uncover Forensics to discuss online training and how things have changed in professional forensic training over the past few years. What are the challenges in this new format? What are the benefits that we could never do before? At the beginning Eric and Glenn finish off last episode's discussion on disclosure. Make sure to check out the new shirts and other merchandise at DoubleLoopPodcast.com.

Today, Eric and Glenn FINALLY review the Stephan Cowans case, a case of an erroneous identification from Boston where a fingerprint identification was critical evidence used to convict Cowans in 1998. This case is one of the few Innocence Project cases where there was an erroneous fingerprint identification but DNA was able to exonerate Cowans in 2004 (and the true source of the latent print was later identified). Eric and Glenn go through the major elements of the case and the subsequent review of the Boston Police Department Latent Print Unit by an external consultant. At the end, they discuss the critical improvements and advancements made in the wake of the error and why these cases are still important today to review and remember.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg go round and around on the topic of how to disclose errors to defense. Should your errors be listed in your CV? Should they be disclosed to defense automatically? Only on request? They guys finish the episode reading an email from a listener about their experience with QC after an erroneous identification.

In this episode, the guys interview fingerprint examiner, multi-book author, and instructor, Hillary Moses Daluz . Hillary discusses her new book "Courtroom Testimony for the Fingerprint Examiner" (CRC Press; 2021). They discuss some of the difficult hot topics that examiners struggle with during testimony and how keep testimony training positive and optimistic.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg catch up on a mix bag of topics in the first episode of 2022. Emails on the new conclusion proposal, setups for photography with transmitted light, and the main topic on "qualitative statements". ANAB accreditation requires agencies to include a statistic or a qualitative statement when reporting an association. What does that mean? What qualifies as quantitative? Is this a new thing? Thanks for listening for another year!

In this episode, the guys talk about Thanksgiving: Eric’s amazing food preparation and Glenn’s travel to Canada to teach. Eric also gives a plug for Kasey Wertheim’s fingerprint book library that is up for auction. In the main segment, they discuss two of the new ASB proposed standards out for public comment. Specifically, they examine differences with these documents and those proposed by OSAC, noting the pros and cons between the two versions. They discuss the ASB 013 – “Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Conclusions” and ASB 144 – Best Practice Recommendations for the Verification Component of Friction Ridge Examination. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss the recent paper on Blind Proficiency Testing from the Houston Forensic Science Center: "Latent print quality in blind proficiency testing: Using quality metrics to examine laboratory performance" by Brett O. Gardner, Maddisen Neuman, and Sharon Kelley. The paper describes the results of over two years of blind proficiency testing in the latent print unit. No false positive errors were detected over all samples when the examiners were not aware that they were being tested. The paper also describes the use of LQMetric in measuring the Quality of the sample latent prints. A fantastic paper and a great model for other agencies to imitate.

The long awaited/dreaded return of the “Dad Joke Intro”! In this episode, Todd Weller (firearms expert) returns to the show to talk to Eric and Glenn about the article on inconclusive decisions by Itiel Dror and Nicholas Scurich [(Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science; Forensic Science International, 2020; 2:333-338]. Todd gives his views on how the article mischaracterizes the error rate computations and designs of various firearms studies. The guys try to relate it back to their view on the article and fingerprint studies.

Return with Glenn and Eric to the IAI Conference in Nashville, TN. The guys are joined by Josh Connelly, Kurt Aebersold, JP Rodriguez, and Claudine Carter Pereira. New accuracy studies, open field research, and stat talk. And we're already looking forward to next year's conference in Nebraska!

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray review the 2020 article from Itiel Dror and Nicholas Scurich. "(Mis)use of scientific measurements in forensic science" was published in Forensic Science International: Synergy. The article criticizes published accuracy studies in the latent print and firearms disciplines and suggests an alternative method for handling inconclusive decisions and calculating an error rate for the field. The episode details factual errors in almost every part of the article and suggests the real motivation behind these arguments. But first Eric and Glenn read some emails and catch up on our return to conferences.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray discuss how to testify in court after an error occurs. Examiners nervous about upcoming testimony can find tips whether you made the error or a co-worker made an error and whether it was an erroneous identification or an erroneous exclusion. The court and juries do not expect us to be perfect, and we should claim to be. It's important to be able to discuss the Quality Assurance protocols that our labs have in place. Watch Eric and Glenn compare fingerprints here - https://youtu.be/C5KmM6cAKpk And join us for Wed Happy Hour here - https://discord.gg/b39pp6j

In this episode, the guys return for Round 2 with Dr. Heidi Eldridge and Prof. Christophe Champod. This time, they discuss the second paper arising from the palm print black box study (discussed in DLP Episode #234). The focus in this episode is “Mind-set – How bias leads to errors in friction ridge comparisons” by Eldridge, de Donno, and Champod in Forensic Science Int’l 318 (2021). This paper explores how instances of false positives and false negatives may have resulted from cognitive biases and assumptions formed about the latent print during the examination. The authors discuss some of the differences between mindset in false positives versus false negatives. They end the interview with suggestions for breaking mindset and reducing errors. Link to paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110545

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Todd Weller to discuss the firearms/toolmarks discipline. Todd was involved in the NY firearms case from Episode 227 and shares his experiences there. The guys then talk through accuracy studies for firearms examiners and similarities and differences between firearms and fingerprints. Lots to cover in an extra-long episode.

In this episode, Eric and Glenn are joined by Dr. Heidi Eldridge and Prof, Christophe Champod, the authors of "Testing the accuracy and reliability of palmar friction ridge comparisons - A black box study". The guests describe the design, the aims, and the results of the study. We get into discussions about the meaning and usefulness of error rate statistics and confidence intervals from performance studies such as this. Link to the Article (open source): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110457 Link to study results in shinyapp: https://cchampod.shinyapps.io/Results_BBStudy/ Link to confidence interval tools in shinyapp: https://cchampod.shinyapps.io/app_CI/ Link to error rate primer prepared by Champod, Eldridge, Lambert: zenodo.org/record/3734560#.YB8Ki5NKhbt

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray finally get back on track with a review of a recent article on GYRO markings. "Evaluating the Accuracy and Weight of Confidence in Examiner Minutiae Annotations" was written by Jeremy John and Henry Swofford and published in the JFI. The study measured whether examiners placed minutiae markers on true minutiae using Green, Yellow, and Red markers. It then compared the color choices of examiners against the color choices of the automatic LQMetric and DFIQI algorithms. Eric and Glenn will soon be publishing videos of themselves conducting comparisons, using GYRO, and discussing their similarities and differences. Keep an eye out for those coming soon. Also, the 8pm (ET) Wednesday night virtual Happy Hour continues at https://discord.gg/b39pp6j

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray review the newest article from Austin Hicklin, Bradford Ulery, Madeline Ausdemore, and JoAnn Buscaglia. Why do latent fingerprint examiners differ in their conclusions? reviews data from the Black Box, White Box, and Eye Tracking papers, summarizes trends through all of that research, and recommends changes for the fingerprint field.

After some Halloween talk, Eric and Glenn discuss this episode’s research article: “The Utility of Expanded Conclusion Scales During Latent Print Examinations” by Carter, Vogelsand, Vanderkolk, and Busey in J Forensic Sciences (online, 2020). This study examines the results of 27 experts who completed 30 comparisons under a 3-point SWGAST scale versus 30 comparisons under a 5-point OSAC scale. The guys discuss error rates, changes in apparent decision thresholds, and the rate of misleading evidence of “support for…” decisions. Article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1556-4029.14298?af=R Interpol Paper Reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X20300139

In this Halloween episode, Eric and Glenn discuss a new paper published by Koehler and Liu titled “Fingerprint error rate on close non-matches” (Journal of Forensic Sciences, Sept. 2020). The paper raises a lot of discussion between the guys regarding close non-matches, inconclusives, training, and testimony. They each have a different take on some of the key issues in the paper, but in the end identify what common ground on which they agree.