Heartfelt thoughts go to those directly affected by Superstorm Sandy. May you find courage and hope!

I want to discuss something most of us would have once considered to be as unlikely as the confluence of weather systems that caused this tragic storm...a latent fingerprint matched to two different men.

On March 11, 2004, a series of 10 bombs exploded on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, resulting in nearly 200 deaths. A fingerprint found on a bag of bomb-making equipment in a vehicle became a crucial piece of evidence.

The FBI entered the print into its database and 20 possible matches were generated. Each shared a minimum of seven unique traits with the print in evidence. To make a "positive ID," there would have to be 12 matching traits. One set of fingerprints on file for a lawyer in Portland, Oregon, shared 15 traits with the print in evidence. He must be the bomber, right?

At the time, a U.S. counter-terrorism official told Newsweek it was an "absolute incontrovertible match."

Later, Spanish authorities found the prints of a second man, a known terrorist, that also "matched" the sample in evidence. Parts of those fingerprints were so similar that both men were POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED as the bomb maker. It turns out that processing and interpreting fingerprint evidence is not an exact science, yet. It is valuable, but it is not absolute.
   
The National Academy of Sciences studied the discipline. In July 2009, they found there is inadequate "scientific rigor" in the methods and procedures.

This case and others are highlighted in the NOVA program "Forensics on Trial" which aired this month. (It can be viewed online here). It points out human errors in this case. It also introduces CTF impressions, a new technology that replicates the topographic features of fingerprints without altering them. Its possible field use is under review.

More sophisticated methods would be welcome, but we must deal with examiner bias and set reasonable standards to further improve our justice system.

See these sources for more details:

NOVA: Forensics on Trial, Aired on PBS, October 17, 2012
FBI is Cleared of Misconduct in Jailing of Oregon Man, NY Times, January 6, 2006
U.S. Settles Suit Filed by Ore. Lawyer, Washington Post, November 30, 2006
Badly Fragmented Forensic Science System Needs Overhaul, National Academy of Sciences, 2009

My husband and I have ordered seed from the Stock Seed Farms in Murdock, Nebraska, many times over the years. We even drove there once to pick up seed and admire fields of prairie grasses such as Big Bluestem and Little Bluestem. Like most Nebraskans, we were shocked to hear that owners Wayne and Sharmon Stock had been murdered in their home in 2006.  There were more surprises during the investigation of those murders that shook law enforcement and citizens in Nebraska.

Nebraska Educational Telecommunications (NET) has produced a one-hour documentary on the case investigation and the evidence initially used to hold two innocent men in jail. It shows the involvement of ex-CSI chief David Kofoed, who has since been sentenced to prison. Kofoed maintains his innocence.

I have to agree with Judge Rehmeier's statement in the Lincoln Journal Star: "Nothing should undermine the confidence in the system." The evidence tampering for which Kofoed was found guilty threatened the lives of innocent men and jeopardized the hunt for the real killers. It also made it harder for other law enforcement investigators to prove their credibility.

The good news is that the innocent men are now free, the guilty are in prison, and Kofoed is no longer working CSI. If you are interested in crime, justice, or murder mysteries, watch NET's CSI on Trial online or on your television.

• CSI on Trial (schedule and links), Nebraska Educational Telecommunications, 2012
• Extended video excerpts and documents from the investigation (Available mid-November 2012)
• "Ex-CSI chief Kofoed sentenced to prison," Lincoln Journal Star, June 01, 2010
• "Was Nebrask Couple's Murder Revenge or Random?" ABC 20/20, September 3, 2010
  

If you haven't heard about Half the Sky, the book, the documentary, or the the movement, it's time to check it out. Named for the Chinese proverb that says "women hold up half the sky," the book explores the global injustices against women. Pulitzer Prize-winning authors Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn suggest that the world suffers morally and economically by preventing women from holding up their half of the sky.

Girls and women, especially in developing countries, face extreme poverty, oppression, and violence. The authors take you beyond the words to introduce you to the harsh stories of individuals. As difficult as their situations are, these women are working hard to survive and to thrive.

This week, a PBS documentary based on Half the Sky aired October 1 and 2. If you missed it, it will be shown online at the PBS website through October 9 and 10, and it will be available on video. Take a few minutes to view the trailer. You will meet women in 10 countries who are fighting back against brutal situations. It also shows that all of us can have a positive impact on problems around the world.

In addition to the questions asked of the two presidential candidates in their first debates, we may need to ask ourselves what we should demand of these male leaders in terms of fighting injustices against women. We can't suppress half the world's population and begin to achieve our best social, political or financial goals.

• Half the Sky Movement: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
• PBS: http://www.pbs.org/