title: A comment on experimental results of fingerprint comparison validity and reliability: A review and critical analysis.
abstract: We respond to the article "Experimental results of fingerprint comparison validity and reliability: A review and critical analysis" by Ralph and Lyn Haber which offers (a) a one-sided criticism of the state of affairs in latent print examination, (b) lack of original data supporting that their suggested approach, and (c) a host of incorrect statements, inaccuracies, or obscure interpretations of the existing data.
authors.affiliation: Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, 1430 Maryland Avenue East, Saint Paul, MN 55106, United States. Electronic address: glenn.langenburg@state.mn.us.
authors.forename: Glenn
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Langenburg
authors.affiliation: South Dakota State University, Math & Statistics-Box 2220, Brookings, SD 57007, United States. Electronic address: cedric.neumann@sdstate.edu.
authors.forename: Cedric
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Neumann
authors.affiliation: Ecole des Sciences Criminelles, Institut de police scientifique, Batochime, University of Lausanne (UNIL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: cchampod@unil.ch.
authors.forename: Christophe
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Champod
keywords: Critical analysis; Error rates; Fingerprints; Latent prints