Monday, August 2
Download Agenda (PDF, 284kB) »
Registration 7:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m.
Continental Breakfast 7:00 a.m.–8:00 a.m.
Fingerprint Examination 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Summary and Resources»
Instructors will present on the comparison and methodology used for simultaneous impression examinations, admissibility challenges to latent prints, split testimony rulings in other forensic cases, intentional fingerprint mutilation, the changing role of the ten print examiner, and the repeatability and reliability of the comparison process.
Moderator: Leonard Butt, Forensic Scientist, Forensic Sciences Division, Maryland State Police, Pikesville, MD
Presenters:
- John P. Black, Senior Consultant, Ron Smith and Associates, Inc., Collinsville, MS
Presentation
PDF 3.9MB - David R. Cotton, Training Administrator, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, WV
PresentationPDF 248kB - Melissa R. Gische, Physical Scientist/Forensic Examiner, Latent Print Operations Unit, FBI Laboratory, Quantico, VA
PresentationPDF 1.7MB - Glenn Langenburg, Forensic Scientist, Latent Prints, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, St. Paul, MN
PresentationPDF 2.3MB
Report on the GYRO System (Draft)PDF 8MB - Laura Tierney, Senior Fingerprint Specialist, Forensic Document Laboratory, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, McLean, VA
Presentation - Intentionally Mutilated FingerprintsPDF 8.1MB
Presentation - Split TestimonyPDF 68kB
Firearms/Toolmarks 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Summary»
This hands-on workshop will present lessons learned in firearms and toolmark examination using actual casework examples. The topics that will be addressed include:
- Can the quality of two brands of ammunition fired from the same handgun produce a significant level of variation in imparted physical characteristics? Is this enough variation to obfuscate the individualization process, and what other characteristics can be examined to circumvent this potential issue?
- What do you do in situations when the sub-class characteristics between two cartridges discharged from different firearms are indistinguishable?
Moderator: Nicholas D.K. Petraco, Associate Professor of Forensic Science, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY
Presenter: Carl Rone, Forensic Firearm Examiner, Delaware State Police, Dover, DE
The Examination and Evaluation of Footwear Design and Physical Size 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Summary»
Examination of footwear impression evidence begins by first evaluating whether the specific design and physical size of that design present in the crime scene impression does or does not correspond with the known footwear. Size and design class characteristics have their origins from the way in which the molds are made as well as other manufacturing steps used in producing the sole. The majority of shoe soles made today have molded soles that are computer designed, allowing for many different design and size configurations. Some soles are still made utilizing older techniques including soles that are cut out instead of molded. In any style of footwear, the specific design and physical size features may vary from one mold to another and definitely will vary between sizes. Knowledge of footwear mold features and current manufacturing methods as well as the use of proper methodology is essential for the examiner to conduct this portion of the examination. During this workshop, an extensive look at the current manufacturing methods of footwear will be covered as they apply to case examination. Examples of several common brands and off-brand shoes will be used and displayed to illustrate the physical characteristics that a footwear examiner may find and that might vary from one size or mold design to another. Actual examples from casework will be shown to illustrate some design and physical size features and the conclusions that were reached. Other influencing factors that must be considered during the examination such as the inaccuracies of scales through improper photography, improper lifting techniques or materials, partial impressions, and movement during the impression making process will be addressed regarding their affect on size evaluation. In addition, the topic of estimating the size of footwear based on the information left in the crime scene impression will be addressed. After basic instruction and examples are provided, hands-on casework exercises and photographs will be used to allow each participant to independently strengthen their knowledge. At the conclusion of the workshop, the results of the exercises will be displayed and the significance of the class characteristics will be discussed.
Presentation PDF 3.6MB
Moderator and Presenter: William J. Bodziak, Owner, Bodziak Forensics, Palm Coast, FL
Presenter: Christine Snyder, Crime Scene Analyst, Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, Sanford, FL
Non‐Practitioners Workshop 8:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Summary and Resources»
Introduction, for non-practitioners, to four major impression and pattern disciplines. The four workshops will provide an overview of the methodologies and capabilities of experts in forensic firearm analysis, document examination, tire and footwear impression, and latent print evaluation.
Moderator and Presenter: Jules Epstein, Associate Professor, Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE
Presenters:
- William J. Bodziak, Owner, Bodziak Forensics, Palm Coast, FL
PresentationPDF 2.7MB - Lauren E. Cooney, Examination Services Lead, Biometrics Identity Management Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, Clarksburg, WV
PresentationPDF 4.2MB - Peter Diaczuk, Director of Forensic Science Training, Center for Modern Forensic Practice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY
PresentationPDF 2.9MB - Diana Harrison, Unit Chief, Questioned Documents, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quantico, VA
Lunch on Own 12:00 p.m.–1:30 p.m.
Uncertainty, Probability, and Statistics 1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Summary and Resources»
While it is clear that testimony in forensic evidence is headed in the direction of expressing the degree of uncertainty present, the best methods of doing so are still being discussed among scientists. On the one hand there is the DNA style of stating that the chance that a randomly selected person would have the same pattern as observed in the evidence is 1 in a very large number. On the other hand one states a likelihood ratio—which is based on an evidence similarity measure conditioned on the prosecutor and defense hypotheses. This workshop will present these approaches, their relative advantages/disadvantages, opinion scales and associated statistical/computational issues.
Moderator: Sargur Srihari, Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY
Presenters:
- Christophe Champod, Professor, Institut de Police Scientifique, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
PresentationPDF 11.4MB - Glenn Langenburg, Forensic Scientist, Latent Prints, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, St. Paul, MN
Presentation PDF 2.8MB
Draft SummaryPDF 1.1MB - Cedric Neumann, Assistant Professor in Statistics, Forensic Program, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA
Standardized Test Methods and Insuring Quality in the Laboratory Relating to the Comparative Forensic Sciences 1:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Summary and Resources»
An effective Quality Assurance system is a vital component in the crime laboratory. The NAS report references this issue and makes this an important subject facing forensic examiners. This workshop will provide information on several aspects of addressing quality assurance and implementing quality processes in the comparative sciences. Topics presented will include ISO requirements and accreditation issues as they pertain to the comparative sciences, current and future SWGTREAD, SWGFAST, SWGGUN and SWGDOC documents and projects, and an overview of existing certification programs for shoe print/tire track examiners, latent print examiners, firearm examiners and document examiners.
Moderator: Sandy Parent, Forensic Scientist, Crime Laboratory, Texas Department of Public Safety, Austin, TX
Presenters:
- Ted M. Burkes, Forensic Document Examiner, FBI Laboratory, Quantico, VA
PresentationPDF 500kB - Leonard Butt, Forensic Scientist, Forensic Sciences Division, Maryland State Police, Pikesville, MD
PresentationPDF 72kB - Lesley Hammer, Forensic Scientist, Hammer Forensics LLC, Anchorage, AK
PresentationPDF 540kB - Lisa Hanson, Forensic Document Examiner, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Department of Public Safety, St. Paul, MN
PresentationPDF 2.1MB - Greg Klees, Firearms and Toolmark Examiner, National Laboratory Center, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Ammendale, MD
PresentationPDF 372kB - John K. Neuner, International Program Manager, ASCLD/LAB - International, Garner, NC
PresentationPDF 964kB - Rodney A. Schenck, Technical Leader, Latent Print Branch, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, Forest Park, GA
PresentationPDF 28kB - Lyla Thompson, Supervisor, Latent Print Section, Crime Laboratory, Johnson County, Kansas Sheriff's Office, Mission, KS
PresentationPDF 224kB - Robert M. Thompson, Program Manager, Forensic Data Systems, Office of Law Enforcement Standards, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
PresentationPDF 208kB
Analysis Reports: Do Your Written Conclusions Reflect Your Testimony? 1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Summary and Resources»
Crime laboratories are standardizing their report format to meet accreditation requirements and the requirements listed under the National Academies Report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Although the format for the report is being standardized, variability still exists in the content provided under those standardized topic headings. The results/conclusion area can be the most controversial point of an issued report. Does the selected verbiage actually reflect the examiner’s interpretation of the test results and how is this information being used in the courtroom. Experts from different disciplines will provide examples of reports and the respective conclusions. Each expert will detail the test analysis and identify why the selection of inconclusive, non‐identification or exclusion was made and how these decisions can be supported. At the summation of the workshop, an attorney will provide interpretation of the offered report conclusions and how this information would be used in court.
Moderator: Susan Ballou, Program Manager for Forensic Science, Office of Law Enforcement Standards, National Institute of Science and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
Presentation PDF 128kB
Presenters:
- Adam J. Freeman, Dentist, Westport, CT
PresentationPDF 336kB - Christine Funk, Attorney at Law, Office of the Public Defender, Hastings, MN
- Glenn Schubert, Forensic Scientist, Southern Illinois Forensic Science Center, Illinois State Police, Carbondale, IL
PresentationPDF 748kB - Robert M. Thompson, Program Manager, Forensic Data Systems, Office of Law Enforcement Standards, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
PresentationPDF 276kB
Effective Courtroom Preparation and Presentation 1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Summary»
Don’t be the expert that fails on the witness stand! Providing expert courtroom testimony starts before you step into the courtroom. It is your job to educate, instruct, and develop a working relationship with the attorney prior to any testimony. Effective testimony involves demeanor, appearance, presentation, and knowledge. This workshop will provide insight into these areas as well as the “CSI effect” many of us have been burdened with.
Moderator: Jules Epstein, Associate Professor, Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE
Presenter: Kimberlianne Podlas, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC
Digital Imaging of Footwear and Tire Track Evidence and the Application of Photoshop to Pattern Evidence 1:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Summary»
This workshop will cover fundamental and advanced methods of digitally capturing footwear and tire track evidence both in the field and the laboratory. Topics will include equipment selection, lighting techniques, resolution and file format selection, as well as hands‐on demonstration of proper documentation techniques. Further topics will include utilization of Adobe Photoshop when working with impression evidence images including importing, sizing, and enhancement. Additionally, specific techniques that aid in comparisons and demonstration of findings will be taught, including distinguishing multiple overlapping impressions, annotation, and preparing demonstrative evidence.
Moderator: Ryan S. Tomcik, Consultant, Booz Allen Hamilton, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Presenters:
- Brett Doretti, Lead Forensic Specialist, Crime Laboratory, Orange County Sheriff’s Depatment, Santa Ana, CA
- Brian McVicker, Forensic Examiner, FBI Laboratory, Quantico, VA
This web site is funded through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA, Cooperative Agreement #2009-D1-BX-K028), and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, Cooperative Agreement #2007-MU-BX-K008) Office of Justice Programs, US Dept. of Justice. Neither the BJA, FBI, nor the US Dept. of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse this web site (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).