Some questions to consider for each of the afternoon sessions:

  1. What forensic methods are discussed?
  2. What statistical methods are discussed?
  3. If you were a full-time researcher with CSAFE, which one of the projects presented in the group would you most like to work on? Why?
  4. What future work is discussed? What holes are the projects trying to fill?
  5. What future work could you propose to the group that would also be of interest?
  6. What was the coolest or most intriguing thing you learned in the session?

You are not restricted to only answering to these questions, but please do these as a minimum. Again, think of this as a report back to your collegues. You have to teach them what you learned!

Additionally, please report back on 1 poster presentation. Tell us:

  • Who you talked to
  • The institution they’re with
  • Their research question
  • One result they report on
  • At least one question you asked the poster presenter

1pm Session: Fingerprinting

I attended the Fingerprinting discussion for the first breakout session. While sitting in on this discussion, much debate came into fruition over how to correctly interpret fingerprints. A statistical method that was brought up was whether LQ Metric or LQAS could be used to determine how useful a given fingerprint is in terms of individualization. These software programs give a specific color over a region of the fingerprint and allows the user to differentiate a high quality print versus a low quality print. The conversation then shifted to “What factors does one use to interpret comparisons of fingerprints?” The answer to this question is that it varies and depends on the analyzer. One member of the session used Galton points, Ancillary points and finger pores to determine the level of complexity. This level of complexity is what is measured to determine how unique a fingerprint is. Although this makes sense, another member disagreed and believes the level of clarity, not complexity, is what should be used to identify a fingerprint. Not much was spoken about in terms of research projects due a heated exchange over how effective this method is. If i were a full time CSAFE worker, I would be most interested in the “Proficiency Testing of Fingprinting” due to the fact that it seems like it houses the smallest statsitical foundation. I am not very good with the statistical side of things and would perform much better on a project that has more forensic applications. Going forward, I believe forensic science should have a standard that all workers in this field should abide by. If this came into being it would be beneficial so that we would not have to have confusion over how to interpret these prints.The most intriguing part of this session was seeing how fingerprints may actually be compared and how sometimes the software will slightly change the fingerprint. This is not due to distortion so I am interested in seeing how one goes about interpreting this issue. No future work was discussed due to time constraints.

3:15pm Session: Firearms/Handwriting

The second breakout session I attended was the Firearms/Handwriting session.Repeatability was a statistical method used for both topics as this tests the overall consisitency in determining whether two samples are derived from the same place of origin. It would be hard to choose between these topics if given the opportunity to be a full time researcher at CSAFE. My reasoning for this is because if I pursued the handwriting side of things, I would be able to look at my own signature, look at my inconsistencies, and actually do research on my own in my spare time. On the other hand, guns really catch my interest moreso than handwriting but I would already know where the origin of these bullets are. The most intriguing part of this session was the fact that even if you attempt to throw off examiners with a false signature, they are still able to determine whether or not it is fraudulent. This is determined through the spacing of each signature. In the future, I wonder if one is able to determine the difference between a handwritten signature versus a signature that it written on a digital pad (at Wal-Mart) and if a different approach is to be taken in this context. This was the most interesting because my signature is relatively inconsistent and all of my signatures seem to look very different depending on how much space I have to work with.

Poster Session: Automatic Matching of Bullet Lands

I attended the poster session with Heike Hofmann whose institution is Iowa State University. Heike’s research question was “Were two bullets fired from the same gun barrel?” I was informed that striations were made due to the rifling in the barrel of the gun. If one is able to match up and align the striation markings from the bullets, then they could be declared as a match. One result that was reported on was through graphical analysis. It was determined that the further away the two graphs are from each other, the easier it is to see the differences of the striations. Throught this, one is able to make a conclusion on whether or not these bullets have the same place of origin.I asked the researcher what was her biggest challenge while conducting this research. It was concluded that the hardest part was trying to match up the forensic aspects with the statistical aspects, given that she is a statistician and not a forensic examiner. Although I was not able to fully comprehend each and every aspect of this research project, I belived it to be the most interesting of the posters that I’ve seen .

Note: The date above is the due date and time. Don’t edit this field!