CSI PHOENIX PART 2: Fingerprint Analysis and Motorcycling

Published: Posted on October 10, 2016November 30, 2020 by admin

Last Updated: November 30th, 2020

In the previous segment, we introduced you to Carl Speckels, CLPE, forensic scientist supervisor and head of the Phoenix PD latent print training program at the Phoenix Police Department Crime Laboratory.  In this segment, Carl is going to discuss how fingerprint analysis and riding a motorcycle have some very key similarities.

Believe it or not, the idea for these articles was conceived in a cafe during a ride.  Our very first notes were scribbled on a paper napkin that was woefully insufficient for the greatness Carl was relating.  This second segment is content-rich.  Carl is an intelligent person and can succinctly relay a massive amount of information.  When determining the best way to present this information, we thought we’d use the manner that enlightened us; a question/answer format.

WHAT IS FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS?

TEAM Arizona (TAZ):  I see a bunch of letters after your name.  What do you do from 8am-5pm as a forensic scientist for the Phoenix PD?
Carl Speckels (CS):  My job involves working with pattern evidence, specifically latent prints which are fingerprints that have been recovered from crime scenes. A fingerprint, especially a crime scene fingerprint, is typically fragmentary in nature. Due to how a criminal would naturally touch an item or surface, only a small portion of their fingerprint is typically left behind and subsequently recovered. So, as forensic scientists we usually only have small “pieces” of evidence to observe, interpret, and conclude on. To add to the challenge, those “pieces” are often times distorted due to pressure variables, smudging, surface interference, and a variety of other factors. Forensic scientists receive special training so that they can take that small, partial, and often times distorted fingerprint and extract as much data as possible. This discriminative data are what allow forensic scientists to arrive at definitive conclusions about the source of that fingerprint.

TAZ:  Is it easy to learn how to analyze fingerprints?
CS:  To reach the skill level that allow forensic scientists to understand where to find and how to interpret this highly discriminative data they must complete a training program that takes approximately two (2) years, on average. And that is in addition to the physical science degree that we require. The time consuming part of this training process is the development of a person’s decision-making skills that enable them to interpret complex data and then form accurate and reliable conclusions. Often times, a person’s life depends on it.

TAZ:  Interesting.  Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, concludes that it takes roughly 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in a field to achieve mastery.  It seems there is a necessity for training when it comes to analyzing a fingerprint.  Not too different from learning how to safely ride a motorcycle.

CS: Absolutely!  It immediately makes me think of a particular study by Dr. Thomas A. Busey, a Neurological Cognitive Psychologist.  In 2005 he conducted a study on the cognitive differences between how a trained forensic expert interprets fingerprint-relevant information versus how an untrained layperson interprets fingerprint-relevant information. In his article Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for configural processing in fingerprint experts, Dr. Busey describes his study as a “matching task with fingerprint fragments.” Basically, Dr. Busey was measuring the difference between experts and novices in their ability to match fingerprints, the time it took to perform such a task, and their ability to discriminate features when distortion was present.

TAZ:  How was he able to do that?  It isn’t like he could read the minds of the participants in the study.
CS:  Dr. Busey used an eye-tracking device to identify which part of the fingerprint the participants were looking at and an electroencephalogram to measure the neural signatures that were stimulated when perceptual processing was taking place.

TAZ:  Oh, so he was using instrumentation to create data from which he could make decisions.  What was the outcome?
CS:  What Dr. Busey concluded, based on the results, was that the experts consistently knew where to find the data-rich parts of the fingerprints and where to find them quickly, e.g. the cores and deltas of the fingerprint. The experts knew where to look, what to look for, and how to do it quickly. This enabled the experts to make quick and accurate conclusions. And, in this case the experts did so much quicker and much more accurately than the novices whose eye-tracking charts showed that they were very inconsistent in which parts of the fingerprint they looked at and were also rather inaccurate in their decision making. Not surprising, Dr. Busey found that the experts performed much better than the novices on all fronts.

TAZ:  You are correct in that I don’t necessarily find the result surprising, but what I find intriguing is that experts knew where to look, what to look for, and how to do it quickly.  It reminds me of a video I recently watched on YouTube involving Nico Hulkenberg.  Have you seen it?
CS:  No, I haven’t, but it sounds interesting.

PART THREE

In next month’s article we’ll evaluate a corner with Carl in the same way he’d evaluate a fingerprint.  We’ll talk about the data-rich points expert motorcyclists use to guide their decision making when cornering to obtain a positive outcome when cornering.

For the Entire TEAM Arizona Newsletter Content, CLICK HERE

Bill Seltzer has been a Motorcycle Safety Foundation RiderCoach since 2003 and a Total Control Advanced Riding Instructor since 2011.  He currently serves as the Marketing Director for TEAM Arizona and is a member of the Arizona Strategic Highway Safety Planning committee.  Have questions or comments about the article?  Email him: Bill@MotorcycleTraining.com