In the article I read, I learned that new research indicates fingerprint evidence isn’t always conclusie. I thought his was interesting as we’re currently learning about another forensic method that is not considered conclusive conclusive which is bite mark analysis. A study done by the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed that latent fingerprint analysis collected from crime scenes lack scientific foundation and are indefensible. Collecting latent fingerprints is done by dusting a smooth or nonporous surface with fingerprint powder, photographing them, and lifting them from the surface with clear adhesive tape. The lifting tape is then placed on a latent lift card to preserve the print. The article went on to discuss how while fingerprinting was one of the most commonly used methods in crime scene investigations, but there is no was to scientifically estimate the number of people who have the same characteristics leading some scientists to conclude it has no scientific basis.
This conclusion by one University doesn’y neccesarilychallegge the long history of successful fingerprint analysis in criminal cases. latent fingerprint examiners are able to rule out most of the population from fingerprint features, but there isn’t a lot of data out there that proves fingerprint features are unique. Thi could affect the forensic community because more tests could be done to find out just how conclusive fingerprint analysis really is, and the future of investigative practices could be changed.
This article overall was informative but a little choppy. There was background information that could’ve been included but wasn’t ,such as what a latent fingerprint is, that I had to look up myself to fully understand. I thought it ended with a very interesting quote : “most forensic disciplines have not been subjected to rigorous scientific study”. This made me a lot more curious about what other investigative practices have not been thoroughly studied.
Posted for L. Monahan
No comments:
Post a Comment