Pattern evidence analysis
Pattern evidence analysis is a branch of forensic science that involves human interpretation of evidence. Fields in the pattern evidence include analysis of handwriting, bite marks, hair, blood spatter, fingerprints, forensic odontology, and identification of firearms. Pattern analysis is not automatic. It requires extensive training as well as experience to be able to locate a pattern and make a conclusion.
The 2009 NAS Report was formed from a committee of forensic scientists, legal practitioners, and other scientists. The committee was created by the National Academy of Science (NAS) in 2006. The committee was tasked to evaluate the current and future resources available in the community of forensic scientists, locate the new forensic technologies as well as make recommendations to implement them. Additionally, the team was tasked to propagate the best process to be followed by evidence collection and analysis and also stipulate a way forward to enroll more scientific programs to increase the number of forensic scientists.
Through a press statement, the 2009 NAS Report called for more research and significant reform in the forensic science system. According to the Report, the system had severe challenges. Certification programs for forensic scientists lacked as well as standardized procedures to report and analyze evidence. Scientific labs were deemed to be underfunded, understaffed, and they have no responsible care in analyzing evidence. In pattern evidence analysis, the committee highlighted a deficiency in evidence pattern analysis except for the study of DNA. The report further emphasized that all the other methods lacked consistency and were unable to show a connection between a source and the evidence.
The report led to different reactions from practitioners in law enforcement and forensic science. A significant critique was directed at the NAS, the sender of the message. Questions were raised on the diligence of the committee and its incapability to achieve what the Congress expected of them. In a judicial hearing, a prosecutor accused the committee of propagating an agenda-driven attack and also criticized the lack of prosecutors in the committee
Resistance to change was the reaction of some members of the forensics. Therefore the NAS committee formed NIFS an agency to deal with the resistance. The agency found that the opposition was due to the inability of individuals to leave their status quo. Some people deemed the report to have nothing new, but Judge Harry Edwards, who the Co-Chair of the NAS committee and a jurist for over thirty years, describes the report as an epiphany.
The 2009 NAS Report highlights various aspects of subjectivity in pattern analysis. According to the report, the analysis is recklessly handled, but the technicians exaggerate the efficiency of the procedures in court. Since pattern analysis highly depends on human interpretation, there is a possibility of a disagreement depending on the discerning eye and experience.
The report argues that there is uncertainty surrounding fingerprint analysis, and the Traditional ACE-V method is not reliable. The results of fingerprint testing are not reproducible from expert to expert. It is challenging to analyze due to the quality of the mark made, which may be moved, smudged, or partial. The International Association for Identification (IAI) backed up the report advocating only to accept analysis from experienced and trained forensic scientists. Scholars advocate for the adoption of statistical methods in fingerprint analysis to avoid objectivity.
Despite the criticism faced by the 2009 NAS Report, its theme of cultivating a culture of science continues to thrive, basing pattern analysis on substantial scientific grounds. Bodies such as the National Commission on Forensic science (NCFC) have been formed to continue regulating and providing harmony in forensic science in the US.