PLACE
YOUR
LOGO
HERE
That Is
Not My Fingerprint,
A Brandon
Mayfield
Story
Your Name / Your Company
DD/MM/YY
Who is Brandon Mayfield?
Background
It is easy to think – “It won’t happen to me” – when one hears of a person wrongly accused or convicted of a heinous crime.
Intro Statement
Mayfield illustrates how a fingerprint identification can go absolutely wrong and cause injustice, even when the best and most highly trusted practitioners in the field conduct the analysis.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
- Brandon Mayfield Background
- The Madrid Bombing
- SNP - INTERPOL - FBI
- DOJ Office of Inspector General - A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case
- FBI Laboratory Personnel
- IAFIS
- Fingerprint Comparison
- FBI Portland Division
- Thoughts to Ponder
- Causes of Mis-identification
- Aftermath:
- Mayfield
- LAB Personnel
- LAB Accreditation
- SWGFAST 2013
- OSAC 2017
- OSAC 2018
- Conclusion
Background
BACKGROUND
- Mayfield was accused of being the bomber in the 2004 Madrid train bombings.
- Born July 15, 1966 in Oregon, grew up in Kansas.
- Served in the United States Army as a reservist and then as an officer, from 1985 to 1989.
- In 1986, met his wife, an Egyptian and converted to Islam shortly after wards.
- In 1999, he received his law degree from Washburn University and practice law in Portland area.
Background
BACKGROUND
- September 11, 2001 - 9/11
- Performed work for the Modest Means Program, which matches attorneys who are willing to work at reduced rate for low-income clients.
- In 2003, he offered legal aid to Jeffrey Leon Battle, one of the Portland Seven, a group of people convicted of trying to travel to Afghanistan to help the Taliban.
- March 11, 2004 - Madrid, Spain bombing
- May 6, 2004 - he was arrested by the FBI at his office in Portland, Oregon suburb.
Madrid Bombing
Madrid Bombing
March 11, 2004 - the bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain that killed 191 people and injured over 2,000 others.
Madrid Bombing
News Clip
INTERPOL
The International Criminal Police
Organisation,
more commonly known as INTERPOL,
is an international organization that
facilitates worldwide police cooperation
and crime control with 194 participating
countries. World's largest police organization.
Spanish National Police (SNP)
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
News Clip
https://youtu.be/WLB3DVNQ9L4
Information Sharing
Who is responsible for the bombings?
SNP transmitted digital print to INTERPOL Madrid to INTERPOL Washington to FBI Laboratory with a request that the FBI Lab provide assistance in identifying the fingerprints.
Recovery of Latent Print
Recovery of Latent Prints
- Spanish National Police (SNP) located a stolen van near one of the train stations.
- SNP recovered blue plastic bag containing several detonators and remnants of explosives.
- SNP processed the blue plastic bag for fingerprints. Numerous fingerprints were found on the bag.
- Only 2 were of sufficient quality to be useful for identification.
- Designated as Latent Fingerprint Number 17 (LFP 17) and 20 (LFP 20).
- SNP forwarded digital images of fingerprints to INTERPOL.
FBI LABORATORY UNITS
LAB PERSONNEL
The Latent Print Unit (LPU) consists of the Latent Print Support Unit (LPSU), the Latent Print Operations Unit (LPOU) located in Quantico, Virginia.
STAFF
Michael Wierners, 1 of 3 Unit Chiefs in the FBI Laboratory Latent Print Units (LPU), reported to work that Saturday to respond to this high-priority request.
Terry Green, a supervisor in LPU, has extensive experience and strong skills in conducting computer searches of latent fingerprint using the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
John T. Massey – a second examiner, retired FBI latent fingerprint examiner with 35 years of experience who was providing services to the LPU on a contract basis.
IAFIS
- Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
- Maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since 1999.
- An automated system that permits computer searches of FBI databases containing the fingerprints of over 47 million individuals.
- 3 databases within IAFIS:
- Criminal Master File - criminal arrests
- Civil File - non criminal context; military and government employment
- Special Latent Cognizant File - suspected terrorists
COMPARISON
COMPARISONS
- March 15 - IAFIS search generated 20 candidates.
- IAFIS generated a "score" indicating the degree of similarity detected by the computer.
- The final indentification decision is made by the examiner, not by computer.
- March 16 - Green began his comparisons of the latent prints from Spain with the IAFIS candidates.
- Green completed his examination and reached the conclusion that LFP 17 was a match on the list from the Criminal Master File.
COMPARISON RESULT
Who we are
- The identification record revealed the name of the subject, Brandon Bieri Mayfield.
- Mayfield’s fingerprints were in the Criminal Master File as the result of a 1985 arrest for burglary of an automobile when Mayfield was a teenager, and that the charge had been dismissed.
- The identification record shows that Mayfield’s fingerprints also were recorded in 1989 in connection with Mayfield’s service in the United States Army.
- Nothing on the FBI record indicated Mayfield’s religion, occupation, address, or marital status.
COMPARISON cont
COMPARISON
- Green did not find matches for any of the other latent fingerprints submitted by the SNP, including LFP 20.
- Green ordered Mayfield’s original civil and criminal inked 10-print cards, maintained by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS).
- Routine procedure to retrieve the original inked prints for comparison with the latent print.
- Upon comparison with the 10-print, Green felt they confirmed his prior determination.
- March 19, Massey formally verified the identification of Mayfield as the source of LFP 17.
- WIENERS + GREEN + MASSEY = MAYFIELD
LPU 17
Latent Finger Print 17 Comparison
FBI PORTLAND DIVISION
ARREST
- March 19 – FBI Headquarters, International Terrorism Operations Section, received word of the Mayfield identification to Madrid bombing.
- Concerned that Mayfield maybe part of a second-wave of terrorist attack.
- Authorized the use of every lawful investigative tool on Mayfield, including 24 hours surveillance.
- Responsibility for the investigation was assigned to the International Terrorism squads in the Portland Division.
SNP & DAOUD
SNP ID OF DAOUD
- April 3 – SNP raided an apartment building in Madrid to arrest the bombing suspects.
The suspects blew themselves up.
- Evidence found bearing Daoud’s fingerprints.
- The right middle finger was the point of identity – LFP 17.
- Daoud’s right thumb was the source of LFP 20.
TIMELINE
- March 11 – Madrid bombing
- March 13 – INTERPOL Madrid to INTERPOL Washington to FBI
- March 14 – FBI Lab received prints
- March 15 – IAFIS search
- March 16 – manual comparison, reached conclusion
- March 19 – FBI International Terrorism Section notified
- April 13 – Spanish PD, negative match of Mayfield’s fingerprint.
- May 6 – Mayfield was arrested
- May 19 – Spanish PD, belonged to Algerian national, Ouhnane Daoud.
- May 20 – Mayfield was released from prison
- May 24 – FBI apologizes to Mayfield and family
- May 25 – case was dismissed by the judge
- Oct 4 – Mayfield filed a civil action against FBI and DOJ
THOUGHTS TO PONDER
- Is fingerprint identification so inexact that honest errors occur?
- Did the FBI throw caution to the wind in going after Mayfield?
- Was Mayfield targeted because he is a Muslim?
- How can fingerprint analysis be so unreliable that 3 FBI experts and an independent analyst could mistake the print for the wrong person?
Is Fingerprint Analysis a Pseudoscientific Art?
Assumptions:
- That fingerprints are unique
- That a person’s fingerprints have unique identifiers that can infallibly be measured.
- That fingerprint examiners have the skills to infallibly determine if print samples from different source originated from the same person.
ASSESSMENT
OIG
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is a statutorily created independent entity whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct.
Office of the Inspector General Assessment of the Causes of the Misidentification:
Major Contributing Causes of Error:
- The unusual similarity of the prints – Mayfield vs Daoud
- Circular Reasoning, bias from the exemplar prints – 10 points of similarity
- Faulty reliance on Level 3 Detail – pores, ridge edge shapes, small between ridge details
Inadequate explanations for differences in appearance – overlooked or excused a significant number of differences:
- the “double touch” explanation for the upper left portion of LFP 17
- Differences in ridge flow
- Differences in distances between points
- Cumulative impact of differences
Failure to assess the poor quality of similarities
Failure to reexamine LFP 17 following the April 13 Negativor Report
Other potential sources of error:
- Ridgeology versus Numerical Standards
- Independence of FBI verification procedures
- Pressures of a terrorism investigation
The role of Mayfield’s Religion in the identification – no bearing ?
One Discrepancy Rule:
- SWGFAST Standards state that “the presence of one discrepancy is sufficient to exclude.”
- The absence of any discrepancy is a condition of individualization.
- Distortion is not discrepancy and is not a basis for exclusion.
- Distortions are variances in the reproduction of friction skin caused by pressure, movement, force, contact surface, etc. Smear, double taps, incomplete impressions.
- Distortion need not preclude an identification.
- Discrepancies (requiring exclusion) or Distortions (which permits individualization).
Mayfield Aftermath:
AFTERMATH
- Oct 2004 – Mayfield sued and won in a civil action against FBI and DOJ.
- Nov 2006 – federal government awarded 2 million in damages.
- Complaint include claims for civil rights violations: arrest based on his Muslim religion, Privacy Act, constitutionality of the provisions of the Patriot Act.
- Government issued a formal apology.
- Sept 2007 – two provisions of the US Patriot Act were declared unconstitutional. Dec 2009 government appealed and ruling overturned.
- 2015, 2017 – Mayfield participated in campaign with CAIR, ACLU and National Lawyers Guild
- 2018 – Present – still a lawyer handling cases.
FBI LAB STAFF
- All three examiners (WIENERS + GREEN + MASSEY) were suspended from performing case work on May 28, 2004, shortly after the error was discovered.
- Green and Winers were cleared to return to casework on August 13, 2004 after completion of the corrective action plan. Both are in supervisory positions (March 2006).
- Massey is no longer on contract with the FBI.
- No disciplinary action beyond the corrective action is required.
- Review of the error determined that the misidentification was a mistake and not intentional or due to negligence, therefore disciplinary action was NOT required.
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board subsequently renewed the FBI Laboratory accreditation after corrective actions have been satisfied (November 2004).
FBI LAB ACCREDITATION
SWGFAST 2013:
Specific words and phrases conveying absolute certainty are inappropriate or misleading and should NOT be used to express conclusions:
- 100% certainty (as an absolute fact)
- Zero error rate / infallible method
SWGFAST & OSAC
OSAC 2017
Specific words and phrases conveying absolute certainty are inappropriate or misleading and shall not be used or implied to express conclusions in an open population:
- Zero error rate / Infallible method
OSAC 2018
OSAC 2018 June: Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Conclusions
A conclusion shall NOT be communicated as a fact. It is an interpretation of observations made by the examiner and shall be expressed as an expert opinion.
- Source Exclusion – did not originate from same source
- Support for Different Sources
- Inconclusive / Lacking Support
- Support for Same Source
- Source Identification – strongest degree of association
CONCLUSION
There are 2 kinds of error than an examiner can make in reaching a conclusion about a latent fingerprint:
An erroneous individualization (false positive)
or
Missed Identification (false negative)
According to SWGFAST Quality Assurance Guidelines, “an erroneous identification is the most serious error a latent print examiner can make in a casework.”
Take heed of the lessons from the Mayfield Case. May we all learn from this... s. dormitorio