Marcus Montooth is a Forensic Scientist and Latent Print Unit Supervisor with the Indiana State Police Laboratory in Evansville.   He has been an ASCLD assessor since 2012, and teaches Intro to Forensic Science as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Evansville. Mr. Montooth earned a BS in biology from the University of Evansville in 2001, and joined the State police in 2003 as a latent print examiner. In 2015 he became technical supervisor for the unit of 11 examiners.

In 2011, The Indiana State Police Laboratory began using Mideo’s LatentWorks e-Latent Case Management Software, and Mr. Montooth has been central to its set up, employee training, and use.

We recently talked with him about lab accreditation and the impact having a software system rather than paper-based system has.

From an assessor’s view, what are the keys to getting accredited for forensic labs?

As a certified technical assessor, I would say that the biggest part of accreditation is documentation. Here in Indiana, we’re accredited to ISO lab standards – but there are supplemental standards that every accrediting body has, in addition to our own internal criteria and test methods. All of these different levels of requirements have to be met. Every one of those requirements is not just that you have to do it, but that you have to document how you do it. Or that you’ve done it.

How often do crime labs have to be accredited, or reaccredited?

Once a year. And depending on the size of lab, it can take anywhere between 3 and 5 days.

How would you compare the lab accreditation process of a paper-based documentation system to a software system?

The advantage to having a software system is huge. We look for uniformity of information and processes. Are you using the right equipment? Are you using the right chemicals? Are your crime scene and other images secure and properly taken care of? With a software system like LatentWorks, for example, images are controlled once they are entered. This tells me they (the labs) are doing something to a level that they should be. The images going in are preserved, and while this is not required, by having them in this server-based system, I know, as an assessor, that their images are being taken care.

What do you see as the biggest advantages to a software system?

We get everything in one place – that is nice. We have our notes, all of our crime photo images, we scan in requests for lab exams and any other paper that is sent to us. While it is not an official record, for all the examiners – everything except the written report is in there.

When our labs were completely paper based – in Microsoft word – there were huge differences between people’s notes – and even small wording changes can have big meaning changes. Now, people have required information within the notes section – but there is some latitude – and a free hand section in all field sets. We saw such a good value that we have done the same thing with examiners’ reports. As an example, consider the difference between ”no latent prints were found” and “no latent prints were developed.“

Has the increased fingerprint identification documentation improved court outcomes?

Without a doubt, the added documentation makes cases more complete. We were accredited under ASCLD but switched to a stricter standard in part because of court – fingerprint analysis testimony being thrown out because of documentation, when they couldn’t tell what the original examiner was looking at to make his determination.

In our case, we are now significantly more prepared for court before we even get a subpoena. Cases are not getting thrown out of court for lack of documentation. With this system, every examiner can see what information was used to make a fingerprint identification.

We also set fields up to mirror our test methods, which take into account all the requirements. We can set them up with defaults – so instead of having to write notes, they are pre-filled out for us on each image, so we can’t miss it. It makes it incredibly easy for us – all of our examiners do it the same way, and if anything changes, we go in and reset the field sets, which are what you set up to input the information on the different images.

We are probably higher on the documentation than a lot of agencies – but others are catching up to us as accrediting bodies are beginning to require it.

And what they see is not only more information, but more relevant information?

Yes. Basically, in our new environment, gone are a lot of details about what I did, and they are replaced with more important data on how I did it. As an example, say we have one (fingerprint) lift and one person to compare to. In our old system, my notes would say “one lift, one latent evaluation found compared to the card bearing the suspect’s name, compared to left index.” I’d scan the lift in, take a picture of packaging, document what’s on the package, write what’s noted on the lift by the investigator, pull the latent print, fill out an analysis of it going through levels of details – then we move on to the comparison, which is in a different program.

Now, I scan in the card, do a complete comparison chart of the two and document that, and then the comparison that follows.   Gone from this is what I did, replaced by how I did it.

In our new system, it’s all in one place. It’s pretty easy – maybe not the only way to do it, but it is simpler.

Does having an e-Latent Case Software system save time?

That’s a little bit of a “yes and no” question. While it takes more time than it used, that’s because we have added so much documentation, so it is not the software. It’s hard for me to imagine what would have happened if we had increased our level of documentation and did not have this system. We have four regional forensic labs across the state – and with Latent Works we are all signed into the same server. We can review each other’s work from 300 miles away.

As a supervisor, I can honestly say the quality of the work has gone up because of the documentation.

Carl Speckels has been employed by the Phoenix Police Department Crime Lab since 2002 and as a forensic scientist since 1997. With a degree in Biological Sciences, Carl is a certified latent print examiner through the International Association for Identification (IAI). He was a member of the Scientific Working Group for Friction Ridge Analysis and Technology until 2014. He is an original member of the Organization of Scientific Area Committee (OSAC) Friction Ridge Subcommittee (FRS) and currently chairs the task group charged with establishing and authoring national training standards.

What experience do you bring to the OSAC task group on training standards?

Approximately 16 of my last 19 years in forensic science have involved training employees, including a dozen years spent as the Training Coordinator and primary trainer for the Phoenix Police Department Crime Lab.

In 2013, when Mideo Systems was looking for a collaborator to assist in developing a comprehensive training program for latent print examiners, why did the Phoenix Police Department Crime Laboratory step up?

Our lab employs over 150 forensic scientists and crime scene specialists, with approximately 15 of those forensic scientists dedicated to the comparative analysis of friction ridge detail recovered from physical evidence. Given staffing size and normal attrition, we spend a significant amount of resources on training new forensic scientists. In the last 12 years, 23 forensic scientists have been trained in the Latent Print Comparative Section alone. With the support of our administration and Mideo management, we were given creative and contextual latitude to develop a comprehensive training program using Mideo’s system and well-crafted utilities.

Overall, what do you see as the biggest challenge for training in forensic departments?

Without a doubt, it is consistency — particularly as it applies to training. Training to competency means something different from one lab to the next. As a trainer and a member of a standard-setting body with emphasis in training, I know the success (or failure) of any organization rests firmly atop the pillars of its training program — especially in the specialized fields of forensic science. Trainees are only as good as the programs to train them.

You mention the pillars of a training program. What are the main ones?

First, before you even begin training, you have to hire the right people. The field of friction ridge identification has evolved over the years, and in this day and age, given the expectations of the legal system and our juries, there is the need for science backgrounds, bringing a foundation of scientific principles, testing methods, conclusions, reproducibility of results, etc.

Additionally, practitioners are expected to perform very detail-oriented forensic casework and testify to technical evidence in a court of law. They need to be trained with robust practical exercises that allow for high-repetition friction ridge comparisons. Training needs to be delivered consistently and thoroughly, with qualitative and quantitative assessments being made each step of the way.

You mentioned presenting evidence in a court of law. What role does training play in addressing the challenges of presenting latent print evidence?

Even though scientists aren’t quick to offer this up — I’ll come right out and say it: Latent fingerprint examination — and any scientific endeavor — is, at some level, subjective. Any time you have a human instrument interpreting data and producing results, there is a level of subjectivity involved. Training, when properly crafted and administered, provides an examiner with the confidence in their findings to convey the weight or impact of these interpretive results to a jury.

For instance, the friction ridge discipline, once upon a time, used to purport absolutes like, certainty and “zero error rate.” There is no such thing in science. Trainees are now trained to recognize this fact and frame their conclusions to align with scientific responsibility. For example, if the trainee is reporting or testifying to a source identification then they should be using language that communicates the weight of their conclusion, such as, “the probability that the two impressions came from different sources is so remotely low that the examiner has dismissed it.” This communicates the weight of the examiner’s expert opinion while avoiding absolutes. Understanding the importance of these distinctions comes with proper training.

What’s the best way to get new practitioners up to speed? First thing?

First you provide them with a foundation of friction ridge analysis. Training should provide an extensive scope of our history — the beginnings of this science, how it has evolved, the biological principles that underlie it, and the scientific approaches to data interpretation. These are the type of elements that live in TrainingWorks, easily accessed with a mouse click and not lost in a file drawer.

What does TrainingWorks provide that you consider essential?

First, I would have to say that it’s the versatility of the system. It allows the trainer to customize based upon their training objectives while still being aligned with the training standards. I oversee the training program and am the primary trainer — but if you took me out of the equation and plugged someone else in — the training deliverable would essentially be the same. The material provided using TrainingWorks ensures that the intended message to the trainee is the same.

Second, TrainingWorks provides so much depth and scope of relevant information. TrainingWorks already comes equipped with comprehensive lecture modules and the materials to present them; a complementing suite of study guides and tests; a massive library of comparative exercises that range in difficulty levels and a pallet of tools that allows for contemporaneous documentation that forms the bridge of communication between trainee and trainer. Additionally and encouragingly, the team at TrainingWorks is committed to staying on the leading edge of whatever new paradigms are developed in the friction ridge field, as well as maintaining strict quality control as it relates to compliance and standards.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this system has all of the necessary communication tools that are at the heart of the consistency issue. TrainingWorks provides a forum for meaningful exchanges between trainee and trainee. The markup, annotation and narrative tools allow trainees to capture their thought processes in the moment. So when I, as a trainer, go back to them days or even weeks later, they are able to show me how they interpreted the data with total clarity. They document what they saw, how they measured distortion, how they rated the rarity of certain features, the quality, and the usability for comparison. They have a narrative box that allows the trainee to articulate their reasoning, and markup tools that allow for demonstration of their decision-making roadmap to scientifically responsible conclusions, a virtual play-by-play of sorts. As a trainer that grades these comparative exercises, I can easily access all of this captured information and reference it against our ground truth answer keys and provide pointed feedback to the trainee.

How did your latent training program change when you moved to adding a computer-based component using Mideo?

We now use digital images that aren’t going to deteriorate or change in any way. The quality and clarity of images are forever. Prior to TrainingWorks, our exercises were constructed using hardcopy latent lift cards and after a few years of use, by many trainees, they were getting pretty beat up. Even to the point of unusable. Also, the organizational aspect is a huge advantage. Each trainee has access to the training tools on their own desktop computer rather than having to share one copy of a set of latent lift cards for each exercise. Computer vs. file drawers. That says it all.

The tools are also game changers. If you had to perform with analog versions of the digital tools — the trainee would be forced to handwrite notes, enlarge lift cards to mark them up manually, and could spend hours instead of minutes documenting details. To say it is much less cumbersome, is a gross understatement. This system allows for so much more operability, malleability, and variability.

So, with consistency as the #1 challenge, how is the progress at your agency toward addressing it?

It has improved dramatically. The program that we offer now is so much better than what we offered before — because of the tools that are available. I’m convinced that we now produce as good, if not better, trainee as we did before, and we do it in less time.

In the past, in order for a trainee to get their repetitions on latent print comparisons, we had a small file of comparative hard copy exercises, and the rest of their training came by way of completing 125 supervised cases. Because these were REAL cases — with the trainee going through it first followed by a real examiner — we never knew which cases would contain actual comparable latent prints. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if 50% of the assigned supervised cases didn’t have actual comparable prints. Compare that with our system now — and we are truly talking night and day. Now we have a full comparative exercise library of more than 1,200 practice latents that are available with graduated levels of difficulty — allowing the trainee to start out with less complicated cases and end with the most complex. When coupled with the hundreds of available comparison subjects (exemplars) this equates to many tens of thousands of comparison repetitions.

What benefits did you receive from this approach that were unexpected?

Time. We are producing a competency-tested forensic scientist in a shorter amount of time. Our training used to require 2.5 – 3 years. I am about to graduate three fully trained examiners — start to finish — in just under two years. I also can’t say enough about the value of the auto grading tool. What used to take enormous amounts of my time, now happens, literally, with the click of a mouse.

Beyond time, have you experienced any cost savings?

If I could only get one message out there to those in charge of training for their organization, it would be this: There is so much liability associated with the type of work that we do. Personal liability, organizational liability and not to mention, community liability as it relates to the potential danger to the public that comes with erroneously associating or disassociating a suspect to a crime. For every examiner that is improperly or insufficiently trained, there is a potential for public endangerment and consequently a lawsuit waiting to happen. The relative cost to mitigate these situations and significantly reduce these various liabilities, when compared to the cost of litigating liability, is negligibly small.

Any final thoughts?

The legal system that we serve increasingly expects more of, and places greater demands on, the expert witness. The days of saying “trust me” are over. Today’s forensic scientists, when interpreting complex pattern data, must thoroughly understand the foundation of what they are doing and be able to unequivocally articulate that in the courtroom. This program provides the trainee with a comprehensive background and foundation that allows them to meet those court expectations.

To learn more about the Fingerprint Comparison Training discussed, read about TrainingWorks here.