Oh shit, Sherlock;
Fingerprint evidence linking criminals to crime scenes has played a fundamental role in convictions in Britain since the first forensic laboratory was set up in Scotland Yard in 1901.
But the basic assumption that everyone has a unique fingerprint from which they can be quickly identified through a computer database is flawed, an expert has claimed.
This isn’t news; that fingerprints aren’t unique in the absolute mathematical sense has long been known. This article is basically decrying the CSI effect on juries.
Correct. This is not new. And yes, this is when wealthy defendants have an advantage ’cause they can hire their own CSI to counter the CSI effect of the State.
No, fingerprints may not be completely unique but they sure as hell can place a suspect on the shortlist. And conversely they should be able to eliminate suspects.
Hm, more “settled science” that isn’t so settled.
When I was young, eyewitness evidence was considered sacred,almost unassailable,but over the years research has proven that type of evidence to be anything BUT reliable.
The only true unassailable evidence I can think of is when two Muslim men declare a woman has dishonored the family.
Now,THAT is settled!
Identical twins? Clones?
Re: “Why your fingerprints may not be unique.”
Jerry: You want to go with me to the Telegraph?
George: Yeah, I think we really got something here.
Jerry: What do we got?
George: An idea.
Jerry: What idea?
George: An idea for an article.
Jerry: I still don’t know what the idea is.
George: It’s about nothing.
Jerry: Right.
George: Everybody’s writing something, we’ll write about nothing.
Jerry: So, we go to the Telegraph, we tell them we got an idea for an article about nothing?
George: Exactly.
Jerry: They say, “What’s your article about?” I say, “Nothing.”
George: There you go.
(A moment passes)
Jerry: (nodding) I think you may have something here.
and chaos may simply be part of a repeat pattern that is too large for the human mind to consider, or for our computers to demonstrate. Absolutes are for fools only.
From article:
“It requires an expert examiner to determine whether a print taken from crime scene and one taken from a subject are likely to have originated from the same finger.”
However there are numerous cases in which innocent people have been wrongly singled out by means of fingerprint evidence.
……………………………………………………….
Like polygraph tests, fingerprints are subject to the ‘interpretation’ of an often biased ‘expert’. Fortunately because of the interpretive aspect, polygraph ‘evidences’ are not accepted in courts of law but unfortunately fingerprint ‘evidence’ still is.
There have been people convicted and executed on little more than fingerprint evidence, the jury having fallen once again for the fallacious appeal-to-authority argument.
I remember having brought this subject up here last year.
In some states in the U.S. finger prints and polygraph (lie detectors) are not admissible in court on their own, though they can be used in conjunction with other evidence.
I’m not surprised that would be so, in some U.S. states.
Do they admit hearsay and conjecture too?
Sure, why not lard up thin evidence with even more questionable evidence to lend charges the color of probity?
Justice, pffft, who cares for that when we’ve built such a nice frame?
It’s seldom about justice, it’s about the lucrative business of enforcing ‘the law’. If someone is caught it’s likely they will be used as an example and punished to supposedly deter others.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 1957
We live in a mythological era.
That sums up the prohibition of the non restricted Swiss and Czech rifles by the bureaucracy.