8 ms·

There was a case where someone's finger prints matched someone who was later found to have an alibi and not be there. So even finger prints are unreliable.

by lewdev 6mo ago

tartoran 6mo ago
Wow, had no idea. Was it a partial fingerprint match? I wonder if 2 people exist that match exactly all 5 fingerprints, seems close to impossible to me.
- eesmith 6mo ago
  A couple of famous cases are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield . The definition of "match" is complicated, and not just for issues like partial fingerprints and blurring. The FBI says they had a "100 percent match" in the Mayfield case. The judge says this assessment was "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ". Or from https://www.science.org/content/article/forensic-experts-biased-scientists-claims-spark-outrage https://www.science.org/content/article/forensic-experts-bia... published in 2022: "When police retrieve a print from a crime scene, they consult an FBI computer database containing millions of fingerprints and receive several possible matches, in order of the most likely possibilities. Dror found that experts were likely to pick “matches” near the top of the list even after he had scrambled their order, perhaps because of the subconscious tendency to overly trust computer technology. “People would say to me fingerprints don’t lie,” Dror says. “And I would say yes, but it’s also true that fingerprints don’t speak. It’s the human examiner who makes the judgment, and humans are fallible.”"
  - jacquesm 6mo ago
    The problem with these things is that the police are on the one hand of course doing their best to nail the actual criminals but on the other that when they get it wrong lives are ruined and there are zero repercussions. If you have an otherwise functioning legal system without plea bargaining and other 'efficiencies' then you at least stand a chance to fight the system. But here that is not the case and the combination of those two is extremely dangerous.
    - eesmith 6mo ago
      The Shirley McKie case was in Scotland, which doesn't have US-style plea bargaining. McKie accepted £750,000 in full settlement. There was a public inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_Inquiry .

There was a case where someone's finger prints matched someone who was later found to have an alibi and not be there. So even finger prints are unreliable.

by lewdev 6mo ago

There was a case where someone's finger prints matched someone who was later found to have an alibi and not be there. So even finger prints are unreliable.

tartoran 6mo ago

Wow, had no idea. Was it a partial fingerprint match? I wonder if 2 people exist that match exactly all 5 fingerprints, seems close to impossible to me.

eesmith 6mo ago
A couple of famous cases are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield . The definition of "match" is complicated, and not just for issues like partial fingerprints and blurring. The FBI says they had a "100 percent match" in the Mayfield case. The judge says this assessment was "fabricated and concocted by the FBI and DOJ". Or from https://www.science.org/content/article/forensic-experts-biased-scientists-claims-spark-outrage https://www.science.org/content/article/forensic-experts-bia... published in 2022: "When police retrieve a print from a crime scene, they consult an FBI computer database containing millions of fingerprints and receive several possible matches, in order of the most likely possibilities. Dror found that experts were likely to pick “matches” near the top of the list even after he had scrambled their order, perhaps because of the subconscious tendency to overly trust computer technology. “People would say to me fingerprints don’t lie,” Dror says. “And I would say yes, but it’s also true that fingerprints don’t speak. It’s the human examiner who makes the judgment, and humans are fallible.”"
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  The problem with these things is that the police are on the one hand of course doing their best to nail the actual criminals but on the other that when they get it wrong lives are ruined and there are zero repercussions. If you have an otherwise functioning legal system without plea bargaining and other 'efficiencies' then you at least stand a chance to fight the system. But here that is not the case and the combination of those two is extremely dangerous.
  - eesmith 6mo ago
    The Shirley McKie case was in Scotland, which doesn't have US-style plea bargaining. McKie accepted £750,000 in full settlement. There was a public inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint_Inquiry .