Double Loop Podcast

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray review two articles from Cell that focus on the genetic basis for ridge development and pattern formation. 'The developmental basis of fingerprint pattern formation and variation' by Glover, et al., and 'Limb development genes underlie variation in human fingerprint patterns' by Li, et al. Our understanding of these complex processes continues to grow, and these papers further support our field and our conclusions.

In this episode, Glenn and Eric start with a quick game of “A Truth, A Lie, and a Mandella Effect”. Then they pose a question from a listener regarding interest in a forum where listeners can go and discuss the episodes of the show, ask questions, and chat “amongst themselves”. Finally they get to the long awaited Noblis/FBI study “Black Box 2” latent fingerprint error rate study. This is a re-do of the 2011 black box study for latent fingerprint performance. This study “Accuracy and reproducibility of latent print decisions on comparisons from searches of an automated fingerprint identification system” by Hicklin, Richetelli, Taylor and Buscaglia (For Sci Intl, 370 (2025), 112457), reported the performance of 156 U.S. latent print examiner participants each reviewing about 100 latent prints/comparisons resulting in over 14,000 trials. The study reports numerous statistics of performance such as sensitivity (63%), specificity (70%), false positive error rate (0.2%), and false negative error rate (4.2%). The guys also discuss some important study design differences, plus there are a lot of data in the appendices. Finally they talk about the number of false positives made in the study (n=23) and the fact that 13 of those 23 were made by one participant and how that impacted the results. Article is available for free at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112457

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg pay tribute to our colleague and friend. Kasey Wertheim passed away on March 7, 2025 and will be greatly missed. Please join us as we remember his legacy and contributions to the field of fingerprints and tell a few personal stories.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg pay tribute to our mentor and friend. Pat Wertheim recently passed and will be greatly missed. Please join us as we remember his legacy and tell a few stories.

In this episode Glenn and Eric catch up after some hectic travel from recent weather issues. They do some news updates and also Eric had advice for new Patreon subscribers. Then they play an Oscar-themed round of “A Truth, a Lie, and a Mandela Effect” because it is the weekend of the 2025 Oscars. Then the guys tackle a topic which has come up many times in the past, but they've never actually dived into before: Simultaneous Impressions. They talk about different scenarios that can occur such as: some impressions stand alone, none stand alone, aggregation of features, and physical gaps or voids in an impression. They review the famous Mass v. Patterson case from 2005 that started the initial controversy in the field. They also have a chance to discuss John Black's JFI research article from 2006 and other source material on the subject. Reference: Black, J.P. Pilot Study: The Application of ACE-V to Simultaneous (Cluster) Impressions. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(6) Dated: November/December 2006 Pages: 933-971.

In this first recorded episode of 2025, Eric and Glenn start with Eric being pedantic in his “A Truth, A Lie, and a Mandela Effect”. The guys catch up on New Year stuff and then launch into a review of a research paper from New South Wales, Australia, titled “How often do fingerprint examiners disagree in routine casework?” by O'Connor and Chapman (2024) from Forensic Science International. Eric first discusses some of the important differences in casework workflow and conclusions between Aussie examiners and U.S. examiners. Then they discuss the results of the paper and the significance of the findings. At the end, they discuss solutions and ideas for resolving conflict and ultimately find that conflicting results and examiner disagreements are a normal, expected, natural part of the examination process. Find the paper at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2024.112139

Glenn and Eric interview Sarah Chu, director of policy and reform with the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice's (PCLJ) forensic science policy initiatives. Sarah breaks down her doctoral thesis on quality management and oversight in forensic science laboratories.

In this episode the guys discuss historical figures in the field of fingerprints. At the top of the episode Eric gives Glenn an Australian themed “A Truth, a Lie, and a Mandela Effect”. Glenn tells a couple of stories from his trip to London, which also inspired the topic for the episode. Because of Glenn's time in Switzerland this fall reading old texts, he learned a lot about the early days of fingerprints. The guys discuss contributions, stories and cases from Juan Vucetich, Sir Francis Galton, Sir Henry Faulds, Sir Edward Henry, Alphonse Bertillon, Dr. Edmond Locard, and more!

The guys start out with a quick explanation of why Glenn's sound is so bad (he's in Switzerland recording). They also start the new “season”, post-IAI with a new game: "Truth, Lie, or Mandela Effect?" Eric talks about his fall conference junket and then the guys finally catch up on the IAI. They discuss their favorite lectures, workshops, and activities at the 2024 IAI Conference in Reno, NV. They summarize some of their standout lectures that they attended. Glenn then discusses how the Double Loop Podcast vendor booth went with Rebecca Coutant running it during the conference. Rebecca also was “Our Girl Friday”, doing her impromptu interviews with conference attendees.

Eric and Glenn are back from a little summer break, prepping for the 2024 IAI Conference in Reno. They do a final “Where in the Whorld?” game. Then they jump into a recent paper on “Inconclusive” decisions (Swofford, et al. (2024) “Inconclusive Decisions and Error Rates in Forensic Science”, Forensic Science International: Synergy (vol 8; 100472)) authored by several members of NIST. The paper proposes a method for computing and communicating error rates when “inconclusive” decisions are made. The paper also focuses on making clear distinctions between “method performance” versus “method conformance”. The guys discuss their views on the method and the implications the paper may have for fingerprint examiners and their agencies. Swofford, H. , Lund, S. , Iyer, H. , Butler, J. , Soons, J. , Thompson, R. , Desiderio, V. , Jones, J. and Ramotowski, R. (2024), Inconclusive Decisions and Error Rates in Forensic Science, Forensic Science International: Synergy, [online], https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100472, https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=957335 (Accessed August 31, 2024) Link to open source paper here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100472

Glenn and Eric are joined by Angela Hilliard to discuss her experiences with a cold case from the Pacific Northwest. Genetic genealogy provided a suspect's name from a cold case double homicide, and a latent palm print was left on the victim's van. Angela walks us through her initial erroneous exclusion, the subsequent identification, court testimony, and the resulting press coverage. A must-listen episode for examiners on how to handle erroneous conclusions, even in high-profile cases. (Apologies for the audio in this episode. We did not realize until later that some of audio was poorer quality than normal.)

This super-sized episode has the guys interviewing several people from a recent Expert Working Group on Human Factors in the discipline of DNA. Glenn starts by giving Eric his “Where in the Whorld” question and they catch up on some recent travels. Glenn also explains why this episode does NOT feature a continuation of the previous episode on the Peacemaker case, but instead pivots to a different DNA topic. In May 2024, NIJ/NIST released a Human Factors and Forensic DNA Interpretation report. (The) Niki Osborne, Ph.D., the project lead and contractor for NIST (Natl Institute of Standards and Technology) describes how the project came to be and how NIST selected the Expert Working Group (EWG). Then, two members of the EWG, Jarrah Kennedy, Assistant DNA Supervisor, Kansas City Police Crime Laboratory, and Michelle Madrid, DNA Technical Leader, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, discuss the various recommendations in the report. The group covers all sorts of fun topics within DNA discipline such bias, new software and computational approaches, activity level, implementation, enforcement, and so forth. The episode ends with Niki and Glenn discussing other disciplines and future reports. Links to the free report: Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Forensic DNA Interpretation (May 2024). Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors: Improving Practice Through a Systems Approach. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, NIST IR 8503. http://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8503 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2024/NIST.IR.8503.pdf Guests: Nikola Osborne, Ph.D., NIST Contractor, and Project Lead for the Expert Working Group. Jarrah Kennedy, Assistant DNA Supervisor, Kansas City Police Crime Laboratory Michelle Madrid, DNA Technical Leader, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Eric and Glenn start the episode with a Where in the Whorld that leads to a little catching up. Glenn was in NYC recently (saw the Harry Potter show on Broadway, indulging his “magician” side) and Eric has been doing the conference circuit. Eric is also soliciting fingerprint experts for a research project on ‘estimating image resolution' based on ridge density. The guys also got a listener voicemail that they discuss (and roundly disagree with). Finally they discuss the main topic for the show, a homicide case and trial that Glenn testified in: South Dakota v. Jeremiah Peacemaker. Glenn covers his involvement and the fingerprint evidence. In the second half of the show, the guys welcome Anjali Ranadive, who was the DNA expert for the defense, to discuss the DNA evidence and testimony in the case. Both Anjali and Glenn had an opportunity to witness the DNA testimony at trial and were astounded by the “scientific conclusions” drawn, and testified to, by the DNA analyst. Contact Anjali Ranadive: scilawforensics@aol.com Day 1 of Trial https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-one/article_74b84328-d515-11ee-a210-8b7ef07e2631.html Day 2 of Trial https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-two/article_eb1531e4-d5e6-11ee-ac1c-f39cc7b07d9e.html Day 3 of Trial https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-three/article_6a7c27f2-d6b5-11ee-9124-3f5cf33a83bb.html#:~:text=The%20verdict%20is%20in%2C%20Jeremiah,on%20all%20counts%20of%20murder Day 4 of Trial https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-four---state-rests-its-case/article_46573850-d780-11ee-a368-573401987ead.html Day 5 of Trial https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-five/article_a1c7fbf2-d85c-11ee-8ef5-ef34bb7cdee9.html Day 6 of Trial https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-six/article_29b37812-daa5-11ee-912e-9bf06a02bb89.html Day 7 of Trial (Final Day) https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/murder-trial-of-jeremiah-peacemaker-day-seven---the-jury-is-out/article_b078ec24-db5e-11ee-bcfb-7b2eb5a1c73b.html Verdict Announced https://www.mykxlg.com/news/local/the-verdict-is-in-jeremiah-peacemaker-is-found-not-guilty-on-all-counts-of-murder/article_85ff1e54-db7d-11ee-b58d-27963af509b4.html https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2024/03/05/jeremiah-peacemaker-found-not-guilty-death-kendra-owen/

Today Eric and Glenn finish Part 2 on the 2023 Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission dealing with a latent print case. They continue to discuss the TFSC report that followed an investigation into a complaint filed against the latent print contractor(s) in the Joseph Webster case. In part 2, the guys focus on Glenn's examination which concluded that the Webster palm mark was a complex mark and that 3 critical things will shape the conclusion rendered by an examiner: 1) which images were used; 2) which features were relied upon; 3) how the examiner applied the ACE-V methodology. Finally, they discuss the over 2 dozen recommendations that the Commission made for fingerprint examiners in Texas to follow in latent print examinations. www.txcourts.gov/media/1457617/fi…-as-of-12623.pdf

Today Eric and Glenn start Part 1 of a two-parter on the 2023 Report of the Texas Forensic Science Commission dealing with a latent print case. First the guys do some catching up and play Where in the Whorld. They also discuss an email from Simon Cole and inquire on the impact of the recent AI paper on fingerprints. Then they discuss the TFSC report that followed an investigation into a complaint filed against the latent print contractor(s) in the Joseph Webster case. The webster case was a homicide cold case that eventually broke with a CODIS hit and a subsequent apparent bloody palm print at the scene of the crime. Initially the palm print was not identified to Webster, but then after the CODIS hit occurred to Webster and a second person, the latent print evidence was re-visited in 2013, and an identification was declared (pursuant to reviewing additional palm print exemplars of Webster). Testimony occurred in 2016 by a project manager, but not any of the original examiners. In 2020, a contractor for the defense was hired to review the case and several examiners were unable to verify the identification. This conflict, as well as a review of the testimony, sparked a complaint to the TFSC in the case. The guys review the facts and details of the case in Part 1. Link to TFSC Report https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457617/fir-complaint-2216-rsa-latent-prints-as-of-12623.pdf

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg sit down for a chat with Steve Johnson about face examiners, face comparisons, and the IAI. Steve's background includes latent prints, forensic art, face comparison, crime scene, and many positions with the IAI. He shares the future of the face discipline and how the IAI is working towards a certification process.

Eric and Glenn host another guest from Australia in today's episode. After another round of Where in the Whorld and a few stories from Eric's childhood, the guys welcome Chloe George from New South Wales Police Force, Australia. Glenn saw Chloe present at IAFS, where her presentation on phalange pattern classification won best Oral (Presentation). Chloe introduces a system of phalange pattern classification first described by Marie Ploetz-Radmann in 1937. She walks us through the system and the 12 general pattern types in phalanges and then also shares her personal data and testing that she performed. A copy of her IAFS presentation can be found here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yrUsOFM5alJV1rQcrTGXiQkDb-3DuWUO/edit#slide=id.p5

In this post-New Year's Eve 2023-2024 episode, the guys start by discussing their New Year's Eve and play another round of Where in the Whorld. They then introduce their guest from the New South Wales Police Force, Andrew Chapman. Glenn had the benefit of seeing Andy's presentation at IAFS in Sydney. Andy presented on a fingerprint black box error rate study conducted with laypeople, trainees, and experts in New South Wales, Australia. The guys discuss various statistics in the study, especially when comparing across the participant groups. The Aussie data are very similar to U.S. examiner data and the guys draw some parallels to other research. The guys also discuss some novel aspects to the study design that make this one such a fascinating study.

Glenn and Eric start by talking about their Christmas plans, followed by a game of “Where in the Whorld”. They then welcome their guest, Dr. Bethany Growns, a lecturer and psychologist at the University of Canterbury, in New Zealand. Bethany joins the show to discuss her research on matchers, super-matchers, and research she has conducted with novices (lay people), fingerprint, firearms, and facial recognition experts. She discusses the advantages of natural ability v. trained expertise and how it impacts one's ability to perform matching tasks in the expert's domain v. other domains. The guys ask questions about how to utilize this research to impact training programs. Finally, they discuss more aspects of the IAFS conference where Glenn met Bethany. Growns B, Dunn JD, Mattijssen EJAT, Quigley-McBride A, Towler A. Match me if you can: Evidence for a domain-general visual comparison ability. Psychon Bull Rev. 2022 Jun;29(3):866-881. doi: 10.3758/s13423-021-02044-2. Epub 2022 Jan 7. PMID: 34997551; PMCID: PMC9166871. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9166871/ Other publications by Growns https://www.bethanygrowns.com/publications Are you a super-matcher? Test your skills! Sign up to participate in studies by Dr. Growns: https://canterbury.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_038MorkGlc9SDoW

Eric and Glenn respond to the recent allegations that a computer science undergraduate at Columbia University, using Artificial Intelligence, has “proven that fingerprints aren't unique” or at least…that's how the media is mischaracterizing a new published paper by Guo, et al. The guys dissect the actual publication (“Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning” in Science Advances, 2024 by Gabe Guo, et al.). They state very clearly what the paper actually does show, which is a far cry from the headlines and even public dissemination originating from Columbia University and the author. The guys talk about some of the important limitations of the study and how limited the application is to real forensic investigations. They then explore some of the media and social media outlets that have clearly misunderstood this paper and seem to have little understanding of forensic science. Finally, Eric and Glenn look at some quotes and comments from knowledgeable sources who also have recognized the flaws in the paper, the authors' exaggerations, and lack of understanding of the value of their findings. Gabe Guo et al. ,Unveiling intra-person fingerprint similarity via deep contrastive learning.Sci. Adv.10, eadi0329(2024). DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adi0329 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi0329 https://www.engineering.columbia.edu/news/ai-discovers-not-every-fingerprint-unique https://for-sci-law.blogspot.com/ https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/world/fingerprints-ai-based-study-scn/index.html

In this episode, Eric and Glenn interview Caitlin Rough, a Masters student at the University of Western Sydney. Glenn saw Caitlin present at the IAFS conference back in November 2023. She comes onto the podcast to discuss her research project involving the interactions of latent prints (sebaceous residues) and blood. This work is near and dear to Glenn because of his previous work with Praska (see reference below). Caitlin discusses her observations with blood and a new twist of applying blood through various blood stain pattern mechanisms, such as swipes, spatter, pooling, and dripping. She observed the blood's lipophobic reaction to the sebaceous ridge detail, which re-distributes the blood (often into the furrows of the mark). She also observed intermittent reactions of the blood with unknown components in the residue (as Glenn and Praska previously did). The guys discuss the implications of the research and next steps with Caitlin. Praska, N. and G. Langenburg. “Reactions of latent prints to exposed blood.” Forensic Science. International. 2013. (224): 51-58. 77 Bloody fingermark training available at www.EvolveForensics.com https://learn.evolveforensics.com/product-category/webinars/

Eric and Glenn discuss their holiday parties and preparations, play another round of "Where in the Whorld?", and then interview a guest all the way from Sydney, Australia. Teneil Hannah, a PhD candidate at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), joins the podcast to talk about some of her recently presented research on fingermark grading/quality scales. These are scales used by practitioners or researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of potentially new processing and visualization techniques to develop latent fingerprints. Whenever a laboratory is deciding to adopt a new treatment or change an existing one, the lab is expected to perform testing to evaluate the technique. There are a number of scales available to assess latent prints. Teneil walks us through what the most common scales are, who is using what, why are these scales important, and what modifications can be made to existing scales to improve their wide spread adoption and usage. References from Episode: CAST Scale Bandey, H.L. and Gibson, A.P., The Powders Process, Study 2: Evaluation of Fingerprint Powders on Smooth Surfaces, in Fingerprint Development and Imaging Newsletter. 2006. UNIL Scale Becue, A., Moret, S., Champod, C., and Margot, P., Use of quantum dots in aqueous solution to detect blood fingermarks on non-porous surfaces. Forensic Science International, 2009. 191: p. 36-41. UC Scale McLaren, C., Lennard, C., and Stoilovic, M., Methylamine Pretreatment of Dry Latent Fingermarks on Polyethylene for Enhanced Detection by Cyanoacrylate Fuming. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2010. 60: p. 199-222. IFRG Guidelines International Fingerprint Research Group, Guidelines for the assessment of fingermark detection techniques. Journal of Forensic Identification, 2014. 64: p. 174-197. Hockey, D; Dove, A; Kent, T. Guideline for the use and statistical analysis of the Home Office fingermark grading scheme for comparing fingermark development techniques. For Sci Intl 318 (2021) 110604. Hanna, T; Chadwick, S; Moret, S. Fingermark quality assessment, a transversal study of subjective quality scales. For Sci Intl 350 (2023) 111783.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray spent the past few months traveling to conferences far and wide. This episode they catch up with each other on recent travels, stories from the road, and some of the presentations that they saw over the past few months. It's a laid-back episode, so join us for as we catch up with each other. (There's also a big reveal in this episode. Can you figure it out before Eric does?)

Eric and Glenn return with a super-sized episode where they trade courtroom stories. Glenn had two cases in 2023 where the judges and decisions were rather surprising. From being hurried, harried, and harassed, there were some oddball moments for Glenn. Eric similarly shared a few unusual court moments for him. We also encouraged our listeners to share their moments whether you were a witness, attorney or even as a juror, we'd like to hear your stories too!

Eric and Glenn share their adventures at the 2023 International Association for Identification conference held in August in National Harbor, MD in the Washington D.C. area. They discuss various lectures and workshops they attended. They also discuss Becca running the Double Loop Podcast “merch” booth and this year's hot selling fingerprint tee-shirt. Becca interviews several attendees and gets some of the international flavor that is so much a part of each IAI annual conference.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg are at the 2023 IAI conference in National Harbor, MD with Erin West and Ashley Church of Gap Science. They've developed a series of classes and an entire virtual conference dedicated to training for forensic supervisors and management. How many people should be reporting to one supervisor? What resources are available to forensic professionals? What if you're supervising a discipline that you're not trained in? Listen to the discussion and then join the FREE conference during Forensic Science Week.

To start the episode, Glenn tells Eric a story relating to Edmond Locard and Galdino Ramos, a doctor with an interesting connection to the history of fingerprints. Later in the episode the guys take on a listener question “What forensic discipline is the most reliable?” In order to address the question, they do a quick recap of various studies that attempt to estimate how lay people assess the reliability of different disciplines and contrast those data with black box error rate studies for each discipline, when available. Finally, Eric and Glenn discuss a new paper on DNA from Hicklin, et al. dealing with the accuracy of DNA analysts determining the number of contributors (NOC) to a DNA mixture. This study, and several other DNA papers, tie into the comparison between fingerprints and DNA, and which one they think is more “reliable”. All in all, a good general discussion for lay people and forensic scientists regarding what is meant by “reliable” in the eyes of jurors and what do these studies tell us about the accuracy of these different forensic techniques.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray bring the podcast to the California State Division of the IAI. Tom Busey joins the panel, and they discuss one of Tom's recent papers on an alternate method for calculating a fingerprint likelihood ratio. What if you didn't have to make decisions in fingerprint comparisons anymore? Big thanks again to the CSDIAI for inviting us to hold this panel discussion and for putting on a great conference.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg discuss the recent article from Tom Busey - Tracking the growth of visual evidence in fingerprint comparison tasks. Examiners were shown features one at a time and asked to reach conclusions after each one. The study measured differences from the order of features revealed, their diagnosticity, and their clarity.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray eventually discuss the results of the recent NIST Evaluation of Latent Friction Ridge Technology. But first there are a couple of detours. Glenn discusses recent testimony regarding questionable nanogram testing for the presence of drugs. Eric talks about the Cousins By Blood podcast and his involvement in that case. Once the discussion returns to NIST testing, the guys review the differences between the most recent tests and the previous round in 2012. Follow along with the discussion by viewing the results at: https://pages.nist.gov/elft/elft_1_x/results/

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg tackle three new Black Box / Accuracy studies from Austin Hicklin, et al and Noblis. Results from research into the accuracy of forensic handwriting comparison, footwear comparison, and bloodstain pattern comparison have been recently published. The guys break down the nuances of this research and how its similar and different from the latent fingerprint and palm print black box accuracy studies.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray are joined by Alan McNamara to continue discussing the case that sent him to jail. Alan shares his story from the day the police first knocked on his door through the trials and appellate hearings. His first-hand account of this miscarriage of justice is an eye-opener for forensic scientists and for everyone with an interest in the criminal justice system anywhere in the world. Images and reports from this case are available at patreon.com/DoubleLoopPodcast.

Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg continue their discussion of the Alan McNamara case from the UK. This time they start with the trial and then go through many of the expert witnesses that got involved in this case. Why do all the test lifts from the jewelry box have a wood grain in the background, but there is no grain in the evidence lift? Does the hook or Chinese character shape mean anything? How important is testimony about the homeowner's cleaning schedule? Can latent prints survive regular cleanings? Should there be questions about the accuracy of the latent print identifications to the homeowner? Eric then reads some of the internet comments that were made when the Alan McNamara case was first featured on the BBC's Panorama. Join us again on the next episode where we interview Alan McNamara.

Glenn Langenburg and Eric Ray discuss the case of Alan McNamara from the UK. In this episode we cover the details of the burglary and how the police focused on Alan McNamara. Despite many issues in the latent print evidence, charges moved forward. The prosecution's entire case was based on a single latent print with questionable documentation.

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 2021; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100142).

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