"Forensic examiners have long proclaimed high levels of certainty that latent prints, based on their analysis, originated from an “identified” person, statements that multiple reports have called “scientifically indefensible.” Studies by the National Research Council in 2009, a National Institute of Standards and Technology’s working group on latent fingerprint analysis in 2012, and, most recently, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in 2016, reached similar conclusions. Such assertions have led to false arrests and convictions.
While most examiners no longer claim the “100% accuracy” of a fingerprint analysis, the moderating terms now used in court testimony and reports continue to state that examiners can “identify” or are “practically certain of” the source of a latent print, says the report.
“In reality, there is not, at present, an adequate scientific basis for either claim,” the AAAS report says. “There is no basis for estimating the number of individuals who might be the source of a particular latent print. Hence, a latent print examiner has no more basis for concluding that the pool of possible sources is probably limited to a single person than for concluding it is certainly limited to a single person...
In calling for additional research to be undertaken without the knowledge of examiners, the report proposes that fingerprint examiners be walled off from police reports, rap sheets and other material that can unconsciously influence an examiner’s perceptions before forming an opinion about the fingerprints being studied."
Bite mark analysis is totally not a thing, tire mark is unclear... Forensic techniques are not always the "science" they have been portrayed to be.
Related: at least one on forensics, one on arson investigations...
FB: It's all pretty much based on the bluster of the guy who first came up with fingerprinting. It's obviously useful, but there is no scientific basis for the assumption that two people can't have the same fingerprint
No comments:
Post a Comment