CLPEX Chat Board

"The one-dissimilarity doctrine in fingerprint identification", John I. Thornton, International Criminal Police Review (ICPR), Number 306, March 1977.

References cited:
(1) 3 Nagpur L. Rep. 1 (India, 1907)
(2) "Fingerprints" in Proof of Facts, (Vol 5.), p. 98,
(3) Grice V. State, 142 Tex. Crim.R.4, 151 SW 2nd 211, 217 (1941),
(4) Report of the Warren Commission on the Assassination President Kennedy, NY Times, 1964,
(5) and (6) Galton, Francis, Finger Prints, 1892, p. 93,
(7) Puri, D.K.S., "Further Thoughts on Fingerprinting", ICPR, 17:130 (May 1967)
(8) Kingston, C.R.., Probabilistic Analysis of Partial Fingerprint Patterns", Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, 1964

At this point are we talking about dissimilarity in the 'classical sense' (my term) i.e. these two prints are not the same because these two points are dissimilar??

Or along the lines of what Michele brought up in reference to fig 22, scarring et al?? On the one hand yeah we can eliminate a print based on one point but on the other hand with permanent scarring in conjunction with a partial latent - not so much. So in that case Boyd probably has it correct?? With intentional scarring becoming more popular this could make things kind of a pain in the neck....