Telegraph.co.uk on Fingerprint Uniqueness

[L.J.Steele]

FYI

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... nique.html

[Bill Schade]

Not one bit of new information. Simply a re-hash of existing trivia by someone "who has recently published his memoirs and now works as a private forensic consultant"

Why do we care?

[Alan C]

I suppose we should care because the public reads this sort of stuff. Of course the article is actually saying that there's an element of subjectivity and examiners make mistakes, so the headline suggesting fingerprints are not unique is misleading.

[Neville]

Two cases hardly equates to numerous cases either. I suspect this guy is not a fingerprint expert, he says nothing about the problems with DNA evidence.

[L.J.Steele]

I suppose we should care because the public reads this sort of stuff. Of course the article is actually saying that there's an element of subjectivity and examiners make mistakes, so the headline suggesting fingerprints are not unique is misleading.

Exactly. The public which includes jurors, judges, and attorneys, read and circulate these articles. (I got the link from a legal listsev.) It is worth knowing what's on the public mind and what sort of questions an attorney or judge might be wondering about.