Today's' Guardian had an article about junk science forensics:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/28/forensics-bite-mark-junk-science-charles-mccrory-chris-fabricant

What caught my eye [among other things in an interesting article]:

What united the group of 12 �founding fathers� of forensic odontology
was the belief that bite mark evidence could be used as a new tool up
there with fingerprints, toxicology and other established methods.

And I got to thinking about fingerprints: is there actually real science
that fingerprints are unique? Or are fingerprints just "established"
[somehow] .. Apparently they're at least sometimes not unique:

https://mathblog.com/are-fingerprints-unique/

and I wonder how hard/easy it is to contest "fingerprint evidence". My
guess it is very hard, but not for any proven scientific reason, just "tradition"

/Bernie\


--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/28/2022 10:29 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote:

Today's' Guardian had an article about junk science forensics:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/28/forensics-bite-mark-junk-science-charles-mccrory-chris-fabricant

What caught my eye [among other things in an interesting article]:

What united the group of 12 “founding fathers” of forensic odontology
was the belief that bite mark evidence could be used as a new tool up
there with fingerprints, toxicology and other established methods.

And I got to thinking about fingerprints: is there actually real science
that fingerprints are unique? Or are fingerprints just "established" [somehow] .. Apparently they're at least sometimes not unique:

https://mathblog.com/are-fingerprints-unique/

and I wonder how hard/easy it is to contest "fingerprint evidence". My guess it is very hard, but not for any proven scientific reason, just "tradition"

/Bernie\

Great article. I think it basically comes down to

1) Fingerprints may be unique but unproven.

2) The process of matching fingerprints is definitely not perfect.

One can probably say the same thing about DNA tests.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Bernie Cosell" wrote in message news:vj6m6h9rdl2ocb62it65nlg9nnd7965uum@4ax.com...

Today's' Guardian had an article about junk science forensics:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/28/forensics-bite-mark-junk-science-charles-mccrory-chris-fabricant

What caught my eye [among other things in an interesting article]:

What united the group of 12 “founding fathers” of forensic odontology
was the belief that bite mark evidence could be used as a new tool up
there with fingerprints, toxicology and other established methods.

And I got to thinking about fingerprints: is there actually real science
that fingerprints are unique? Or are fingerprints just "established" >[somehow] .. Apparently they're at least sometimes not unique:

https://mathblog.com/are-fingerprints-unique/

and I wonder how hard/easy it is to contest "fingerprint evidence". My >guess it is very hard, but not for any proven scientific reason, just >"tradition"

/Bernie\

I always looked at it as a statistical thing. Sure, there is a possibility that two sets of fingerprints could be identical, but the odds are way
against it, like one in some absurdly large number.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

Today's' Guardian had an article about junk science forensics:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/28/forensics-bite-mark -junk-science-charles-mccrory-chris-fabricant

What caught my eye [among other things in an interesting article]:

What united the group of 12 �founding fathers� of forensic
odontology was the belief that bite mark evidence could be
used as a new tool up there with fingerprints, toxicology and
other established methods.

And I got to thinking about fingerprints: is there actually real
science that fingerprints are unique? Or are fingerprints just
"established" [somehow] .. Apparently they're at least sometimes
not unique:

I don't know about contesting fingerprint evidence. But in 1993 the
Supreme Court, in the Daubert case, established what has to be shown
before scientific evidence can be presented in court. And as far as
I am aware, fingerprints have never been validated by that standard.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard#:~:text=The% 20Daubert%20standard%20is%20the,courts%20and%20some%20state%20courts.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Good article.

The funny thing to me is that the McCrory's attorney did not find a dentist
to rebut Souviron and call Souviron's findings nonsense. Did the great fraternity of dentists celebrate this cash cow of junk science rather
than call it out for what it is?

Souviron should be arrested and criminally charged.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)