EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE

SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY

FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION REPORT

FOR : VINCENT P. VISITACION, RCrim, MSCJ

Faculty, Personal Identification Techniques

CASE NO. : S3-2023-001

PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION : Latent Print Identification

DATE : December 19, 2023

Specimens:

1. Questioned/Unknown Latent Prints:

1.1. Lift print developed using black powder from the rear passenger panel marked as “Q1”.

1.2. Lift print developed using black powder from the outside rear roof passenger side
marked as “Q2”.

1.3. Lift print developed using black powder from outside the driver door marked as “Q3”.

1.4. Lift print developed using black powder from a caliber .45 revolver marked as “Q4”.

1.5. Lift print developed using black powder from a 9 mm pistol marked as “Q5”.

2. Standard/known Inked/Recorded Fingerprints:

2.1. Inked recorded fingerprints of Lea Karen, marked as "S1," were obtained from
fingerprint files.

2.2. Inked recorded fingerprints of Chuck Jones, marked as "S2," were obtained from
fingerprint files.

2.3. Inked recorded fingerprints of Britney Wilson, marked as "S3," were obtained from
fingerprint files.

2.4. Inked recorded fingerprints of David Launders, marked as "S4," were obtained from
fingerprint files.

2.5. Inked recorded fingerprints of Amanda Kelly, marked as "S5," were obtained from
fingerprint files.

Page 1 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

FINDINGS:

1. The latent print marked as 'Q1' exhibits a Radial loop pattern type with core but no visible
delta formation. It displays a distinct flow of ridges, and correct orientation. Specific ridges with
identifiable starting and ending points are present, along with twelve (12) unique minutiae
points. Target point locations have been identified at the dot, divergence, island, bifurcation and
ending ridge. Edges are also visible, and the print exhibits clarity with minimal distortion.

a. The first standard owned by Lea Karen was compared to the latent print (Q1). After assessing
levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The latent
print (Q1) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked fingerprint (S1).

b. The second standard owned by Chuck Jones was compared to the latent print (Q1). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q1) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S2).

c. The third standard owned by Britney Wilson was compared to the latent print (Q1). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q1) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S3).

d. The fourth standard owned by David Launders was compared to the latent print (Q1). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q1) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S4).

e. The fifth standard owned by Amanda Kelly was compared to the latent print (Q1). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q1) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S5).

2.The latent print marked as 'Q1' shows visible core formation , and has a determined pattern
type. Specific ridge indicating their starting and ending points were present, with sufficient
unique points and a target point location. Pores and edges were visible. Fingerprints appeared
clear and not distorted. Due to the presence of unique characteristics, a reliable reference could
be established. The evaluation is conclusive, a finger could be identified. With the similarities
between the prints, their similarity is certain.

CONCLUSION:

Base on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn;

1. “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, inked
fingerprint was well identified as not match and not a source of Q1 latent print impression

VERIFICATION:

The Verification step of the ACE-V process consists of an independent application of the ACE
process by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the original
examiner.

On December 10, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 1 verified the identifications. There were no
conflicts of opinion.

Page 2 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

On December 11, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 2 conducted a blind verification of the

identification of “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda
Kelly”,on Q1. In blind verifications, the verifying examiner is unaware of the original examiner's
conclusion. This blind verification resulted in same conclusions. Examiner 2 deemed the
comparison conclusive.

On December 12, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 3 blind verified the identification to “Lea Karen”,
“Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, on Q1. There were no
additional conflicts of opinion.

Additional documentation, including comparison charts, bench notes and annotated images of
the latent prints for both the primary examiners and verifiers, is attached as annexes and part or
me case record for reference.

Page 3 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

FINDINGS:

1. The latent print marked as 'Q2' exhibits a loop whorl pattern type with core but no visible delta
formations. It displays a distinct flow of ridges, and correct orientation. Specific ridges with
identifiable starting and ending points are present, along with five (5) unique minutiae points.
Target point locations have been identified at the bifurcation, ending ridge, short ridge, and Dot
or island . Edges are also visible, and the print exhibits clarity with minimal distortion.

a. The first standard owned by Lea Karen was compared to the latent print (Q2). After assessing
levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The latent
print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked fingerprint (S1).

b. The second standard owned by Chuck Jones was compared to the latent print (Q2). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S2).

c. The third standard owned by Britney Wilson was compared to the latent print (Q2). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S3).

d. The fourth standard owned by David Launders was compared to the latent print (Q2). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S4).

e. The fifth standard owned by Amanda Kelly was compared to the latent print (Q2). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S5).

2.The latent print marked as 'Q2' shows visible core formation , and has a determined pattern
type. Specific ridge indicating their starting and ending points were present, with sufficient
unique points and a target point location. Pores and edges were visible. Fingerprints appeared
clear and not distorted. Due to the presence of unique characteristics, a reliable reference could
be established. The evaluation is conclusive, a finger could be identified. With the similarities
between the prints, their similarity is certain.

CONCLUSION:

Base on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, inked
fingerprint was well identified as not match and not a source of Q2 latent print impression.

VERIFICATION:

The Verification step of the ACE-V process consists of an independent application of the ACE
process by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the original
examiner.

On December 10, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 4 verified the identifications. There were no
conflicts of opinion.

Page 4 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

On December 11, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 5 conducted a blind verification of the

identification of “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda
Kelly”,on Q2. In blind verifications, the verifying examiner is unaware of the original examiner's
conclusion. This blind verification resulted in same conclusions. Examiner 5 deemed the
comparison conclusive.

On December 12, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 6 blind verified the identification to “Lea Karen”,
“Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, on Q2. There were no
additional conflicts of opinion.

Additional documentation, including comparison charts, bench notes and annotated images of
the latent prints for both the primary examiners and verifiers, is attached as annexes and part or
me case record for reference.

Page 5 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

FINDINGS:

1. The latent print marked as 'Q3' exhibits a loop whorl pattern type with core and delta
formations. It displays a distinct flow of ridges, and correct orientation. Specific ridges with
identifiable starting and ending points are present, along with five (5) unique minutiae points.
Target point locations have been identified at the bifurcation, ending ridge, short ridge, and Dot
or island . Edges are also visible, and the print exhibits clarity with minimal distortion.

a. The first standard owned by Lea Karen was compared to the latent print (Q3). After assessing
levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The latent
print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked fingerprint (S1).

b. The second standard owned by Chuck Jones was compared to the latent print (Q3). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S2).

c. The third standard owned by Britney Wilson was compared to the latent print (Q3). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The
latent print (Q3) was positively identified as match with the finger #7 (Left Index) in the inked
fingerprint (S3).

d. The fourth standard owned by David Launders was compared to the latent print (Q3). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q3) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S4).

e. The fifth standard owned by Amanda Kelly was compared to the latent print (Q3). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q3) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S5).

CONCLUSION:

Base on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, inked fingerprint was well
identified as not match and not a source of Q3 latent print impression

2. “Britney Wilson” has been identified as the source of latent print marked as 'Q3'.

3. “Britney Wilson” has been conclusively compared to the latent print marked as 'Q3' . The
identity have been established due to a sufficient number of ridge details as a basis for
identification.

VERIFICATION:

The Verification step of the ACE-V process consists of an independent application of the
ACE process by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the
original examiner.

On December 9, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 7 verified the identifications, encountering similar

opinion.

Page 6 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

On December 10, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 8 conducted a blind verification of the

identification of all the standard fingerprint on Q3. In blind verifications, the verifying examiner is
unaware of the original examiner's conclusion. This blind verification resulted in affirmative
conclusions. Examiner 8 deemed the comparison inconclusive.

On December 11, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 9 blind verified all the standard fingerprints on S3,
including them from comparison as they did match the latent print Q3.

Additional documentation, including comparison charts, bench notes and annotated images of
the latent prints for both the primary examiners and verifiers, is attached as annexes and part or
me case record for reference.

Page 7 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

FINDINGS:

1. The latent print marked as 'Q4' exhibits a plain whorl pattern type with core and visible delta
formations. It displays a distinct flow of ridges, and correct orientation. Specific ridges with
identifiable starting and ending points are present, along with six (6) unique minutiae points.
Target point locations have been identified at the bifurcation, ending ridge, divergence, short
ridge, Dot and island . Edges are also visible, and the print exhibits clarity with minimal
distortion.

a. The first standard owned by Lea Karen was compared to the latent print (Q4). After assessing
levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The latent
print (Q4) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked fingerprint (S1).

b. The second standard owned by Chuck Jones was compared to the latent print (Q4). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q4) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S2).

c. The third standard owned by Britney Wilson was compared to the latent print (Q4). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q4) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S3).

d. The fourth standard owned by David Launders was compared to the latent print (Q4). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The
latent print (Q4) was positively identified as match with the finger #1 (Right thumb) in the inked
fingerprint (S4).

e. The fifth standard owned by Amanda Kelly was compared to the latent print (Q4). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q2) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S5).

CONCLUSION:

Base on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn

1. “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson” and “Amanda Kelly”, inked fingerprint was well
identified as not match and not a source of Q4 latent print impression

2. “David Launders” has been identified as the source of latent print marked as 'Q4'.

3. “David Launders” has been conclusively compared to the latent print marked as 'Q4' . The
identity have been established due to a sufficient number of ridge details as a basis for
identification.

VERIFICATION:

The Verification step of the ACE-V process consists of an independent application of the ACE
process by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the original
examiner.

The Verification step of the ACE-V process consists of an independent application of the
ACE process by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the
original examiner.

Page 8 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

On December 9, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 7 verified the identifications, encountering similar

opinion.

On December 10, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 10 conducted a blind verification of the

identification of all the standard fingerprint on Q4. In blind verifications, the verifying examiner is
unaware of the original examiner's conclusion. This blind verification resulted in affirmative
conclusions. Examiner 6 deemed the comparison inconclusive.

On December 11, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 10 blind verified all the standard fingerprints on
S4, including them from comparison as they did match the latent print Q4.

Additional documentation, including comparison charts, bench notes and annotated images of
the latent prints for both the primary examiners and verifiers, is attached as annexes and part or
me case record for reference.

Page 9 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

FINDINGS:

1. The latent print marked as 'Q5' exhibits a plain arch pattern type with no core and no visible
delta formations. It displays a distinct flow of ridges, and correct orientation. Specific ridges with
identifiable starting and ending points are present, along with six (6) unique minutiae points.
Target point locations have been identified at the bifurcation, short ridge, ending ridge, dot,
island and divergence. Edges are also visible, and the print exhibits clarity with minimal
distortion.

a. The first standard owned by Lea Karen was compared to the latent print (Q5). After assessing
levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded. The latent
print (Q5) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked fingerprint (S1).

b. The second standard owned by Chuck Jones was compared to the latent print (Q5). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q5) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S2).

c. The third standard owned by Britney Wilson was compared to the latent print (Q5). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q5) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S3).

d. The fourth standard owned by David Launders was compared to the latent print (Q5). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q5) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S4).

e. The fifth standard owned by Amanda Kelly was compared to the latent print (Q4). After
assessing levels 1, 2, and 3, fingers #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10 were excluded.
The latent print (Q5) was positively identified as not match with all the finger in the inked
fingerprint (S5).

2.The latent print marked as 'Q5' do not shows visible core and delta formation, but had a
determined pattern type. Specific ridge indicating their starting and ending points were present,
with sufficient unique points and a target point location. Pores and edges were visible.
Fingerprint appeared clear and not distorted. Due to the presence of unique characteristics, a
reliable reference could be established. The evaluation is conclusive, a finger could be
identified. With the similarities between the prints, their similarity is certain.

CONCLUSION:

Base on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn;

1.“Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, inked
fingerprint was well identified as not match and not a source of Q5 latent print impression

VERIFICATION:

The Verification step of the ACE-V process consists of an independent application of the ACE
process by a subsequent examiner to either support or refute the conclusions of the original
examiner.

On December 10, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 1 verified the identifications. There were no
conflicts of opinion.

Page 10 of 11
 EMILIO AGUINALDO COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY
PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNIQUES

On December 11, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 2 conducted a blind verification of the

identification of “Lea Karen”, “Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda
Kelly”, on Q5. In blind verifications, the verifying examiner is unaware of the original examiner's
conclusion. This blind verification resulted in same conclusions. Examiner 2 deemed the
comparison conclusive.

On December 12, 2023, Fingerprint Examiner 3 blind verified the identification to “Lea Karen”,
“Chuck Jones”, “Britney Wilson”, “David Launders” and “Amanda Kelly”, on Q5. There were no
additional conflicts of opinion.

Additional documentation, including comparison charts, bench notes and annotated images of
the latent prints for both the primary examiners and verifiers, is attached as annexes and part or
me case record for reference.

Examiner Verifier

Examiner 1 Examiner 2
Specimen: Q1, S5 Specimen: Q1, S5

Examiner 3 Examiner 4
Specimen: Q2, S1 Specimen: Q2, S1

Examiner 5 Examiner 6
Specimen: Q3 Specimen: Q3

Examiner 7 Examiner 8
Specimen: Q4, S4 Specimen: Q4, S4

Examiner 9 Examiner 10
Specimen: Q5, S2 Specimen: Q5, S2

Page 11 of 11