This week, we will deal with the identification evidence base of what we now call pattern matching evidence. The overall objective of this week is to discuss with you the elements that are necessary in order to identify a person from a mark. During this week, we will see that the identification process goes well beyond the sole assessment of the results because it's a definitive conclusion, require not only an inferential model, but decision also. Equipped with this element, you will understand why identification has been declared outside of the scope of the ENFSI guidelines on evaluative reporting. You will know what are the elements one has to consider if you want to decide whether or not a person is the source of a trace. You will also understand the position of organization or specific statement in specialized reports, and we'll be able to justify why experts should not be allowed to identify. This week, we will be organizing three videos, each dedicated to a case where the identification evidence has been dispute. In the first video, we will concentrate on Earmark and identification. In the second and third video, we will revisit the concept of identification, but with finger marks. We will also discuss the cause of error and how to avoid them when working with pattern matching evidence. So, in the first video, we will talk and hear about the Dallager case. This is a case where evidence associated with earprint has been disputed. Christophe, you were involved in the case, weren't you? Yes, I was involved as an expert instructed by the defense and testified at the Court of Appeal in 2002. Beyond the discussion on the merits of earprint evidence, at the end of a video regarding the Dallager case, Tasha will discuss the additional DNA tests carried out but have led some to believe but it proved that Dallager never left the earmark. Because in this case experts have claimed to be able to individualize based on the comparison between the marks and the print, Alex will then explain what is the underlying factor and the necessary condition for such a decision to be taken. We will continue with two cases of misidentification involving fingerprints. The first case is known as the McKie/Asbury case that occurred in Scotland. The second is a US case where Brandon Mayfield has been falsely identified based on mark recovered in Spain. Christophe, were you involved in this case as well? Yes, I've been involved in the judicial inquiry associated with the McKie/Asbury case, and I have prepared reports for the inquiry team and testified in Scotland. I was not involved in the Mayfield case, but followed it very closely. For both cases, we will have further interviews to show the impact of forensic errors on the individuals and on their families. We will hear Iain McKie, the father of Shirley McKie. Her father has been instrumental to fight against the wrong conviction and the wrongdoing of the Scottish Criminal Record Office, acronym SCRO. We will hear Brandon Mayfield and his daughter. But to put context to these cases, let us go on a mock crime scene to see how earmarks, finger marks are detected as it was done in the Dallager case and in the McKie case. So we are at the top of our building where we have our mock crime scenes and these are the scenes we used with our students to train them in crime scene investigation. So welcome to one of our room that we have set up for training crime scene examiners. We have different type of floor, windows, point of entry, and that door is the door on which we will show how we detect marks and ear prints using powders. So let me show you the typical box used by crime scene examiners to go on crime scene and take all of the necessary measures, and I will show you only the material we're going to use for this detection of earmarks and finger marks. Typically, on crime scene, we use powders, and they come in little jars like this one. These powders are used to detect the marks. The mechanism of detection is simply adherence of the powder to the greasy residue left either by the fingerprints or by the earmarks. The powder is applied by brushes like this one in fiberglass, and these brushes are simply dropped into the jar and applied on the surface of interest. The brushes come in different kinds. Then once the marks are detected, we need to collect them. The typical way of collecting them in Switzerland is to use gelatin lift. These lifts black gelatin, we will apply on the surface, and that will just take off the residue of powder and we will have here an inverted image of the mark that we will detect on the scene. I will show you how we detect marks on various substrates such as a door or a frame. The reason why we leave finger marks or earmarks is because our skin is covered with sebum and other secretions which we put from our sebum on the skin down to the fingers or we have a lot of glands on the ear that will charge the surface and offer some residue to be transferred on the surface. So now I will do the mock exercise of leaving marks and then we will detect them. So I'm leaving very obvious finger marks by touching the surface. In the context of burglaries, it happened that people may not only touch but also listen to a window or to a door to see if there is presence inside the apartment. That's what happened in the case involving ear prints. So I'm listening to the door, and of course, because you want to improve how you can hear, you will apply your ear very close to the door, leaving the cheek mark, potentially, and the earmark, and that's the mark we will try to detect afterwards. So in very first examination we will do and should be done on any crime scene is optical examination using appropriate light. Here we have a white light, we can look for potential traces on the surface, and quite readily observe that there is marks on the window, finger marks which have been laid down here, and these marks will be recorded photographically before doing anything to secure this current stage without the risk of damaging the mark when we come with a fingerprint powder. The same applies to any other marks, and here I have the ear mark, which is clearly visible, alongside with the cheek mark below, which are readily visible without any treatment. Again, it will be good practice to record these images photographically first. Another good practice would be to secure a DNA sample from the cheek marks because there is some DNA residue which might have been transferred here. We will concentrate on the ear mark, but the cheek mark is rich in terms of potential DNA traces and these traces can be secured immediately directly on the crime scene, before applying the powder to detect the mark per itself. And the next one is the other ear marks here. Again, we have a cheek impression. So, we'll do photographic recording of these marks. First, a general view to locate the mark overall on the surface. Then a specific view of mark, and only then we'll start with powders. So, now I will powder the marks by gently applying some black powder, in attempt to detect. So, there is the palm impression just here, the fingers, the ear impression, the ear mark just here. So, now we are ready to lift the marks. As you can see, we have labeled them with a ruler, they have been photographed in situ before the lifting. And now I will apply the gelatine lift. So, I have chosen white gelatine lift because we have used black powder to enhance the marks, and I simply apply the lift directly on the surface. Yes, we love bubbles. Do the same for the series of finger marks, and I will try to include the palm impression that is associated with them. Now, on each of these lift, we will put all vindications regarding the case. My name as the operator, the date, the case number, the surface, the room in which it has been recovered, and we may provide the mark number, so we call it ear mark number one, and that number will follow the mark all the way through as a chain of custody. The more we mark on these labels in situ, that allow to ensure that there is no breakage in the chain of custody from the scene to the courtroom. So, these labels are critically important because I can attest at this point, at the mark that I have lifted on this white gelatine lift is indeed coming originated from that window. So, if you want to describe left window, right window, outside, to make clear that it is outside, and another thing which is important with ear marks is to measure the distance between the floor and the mark itself. So, we can have an indication of the height of a person involved. So, the height will be something that will be annotated. The same will apply to a second, before we lift it. So, now I going to lift. So, here we have the lift of the finger marks, we can see the four fingers, phalanges coming down and some elements of the palm. There is additional fingerprints that were on this area of the wooden painted parts, which are down here. In the Mayfield case, the marks were developed on a plastic bag using chemical techniques. In our laboratory, we'll show how to proceed with such a case. There is a larger scope of methods that can be used to detect marks and we will see how these methods work in this laboratory. Getting marks is one thing, analyzing them, comparing them with prints, and concluding is another. With the help of our students, we will show how it is done. Before delving into the material, just a recap of our objective this week. At the end of this session, you will be able to expose why identification decision goes beyond the assessment of the results, and why expert should not identify. Second, you will be able to discuss what are the causes of error associated with pattern matching evidence and how to avoid these errors. Thank you for watching.
