RELIABILITY STANDARDS?

The 1973 IAI Standardization Committee report stated that, " No valid basis exists at this time for requiring . . . . . " is by no means a resounding adoption of the validity of their statement. Only 76 agencies throughout the world responded. The wording of the reasoning behind the resolution cited the exact standards that LOCARD found in 1914 where identifications could be made with less than 12 Galton points.

The concluding report of the IAI Standardization Committee in 1974 includes wording that infers dissention in the Latent Print community to the prior resolution. The concluding report is not scientifically based but rather establishes that at least there is a standardized position established that can be used by practitioners giving testimony:
"Although this might be interpreted as a negative position. . . . and certainly a position contradictory to the conventional attitude taken in some political entities that a minimum of at least 10 to 12 matching characteristics must be clearly definable before identification can be established . . . the value of the statement rests in the fact that a positive position had finally been adopted by the International Association for Identification and could be reliably quoted by an expert witness when giving testimony in the future. In short, the I.A.I. adopted the position that each identification represents a unique set of circumstances, and the number of required matching characteristics is dependent upon a variety of conditions which automatically rule out the practicality of mandating a pre-determined minimum."
This position was static with the exception of the training standardization, which lead to the Latent Print Certification Program implemented in 1977, which is presently in place.

Twenty-two years later in 1995 at the Ne'urim International Symposium, the wording of the 1973 IAI resolution was amended. The amended resolution is now being cited by some "Ridgeologists" as validation and justification to their philosophy for the abandonment and vehement refusal to even intimate any number of characteristics being used in the identification process. The Ne'urim resolution as cited in the summary was unanimously approved by all present (how many, 2, 4, 8?), and later signed by 28 persons out of the 116 total attendees.

This vote sounds less than a mandate by this symposium, especially with the official disclaimer: "The views expressed were the opinions of the persons present and not intended to represent the individual agencies or governments."

The Ne'urim declaration is no more than an attempt to justify the personal agenda of those vocal minorities that practice an unproven and possible unreliable identification process. Due to the variance of application and ability of each analyst, there is no standardization.
The silent majority of practitioners that rely on quantification standards should not abandon their practice of reliability based upon the scientifically weak 1973 IAI resolution. The Ne'urim declaration is no overwhelming validation due to the few members voting, as well as their disclaimer. A validation, no matter how valid, of the scientifically invalid 1973 resolution of the IAI, is still an invalid validation.