A blow to the credibility of fingerprint evidence

[andyjackson1828]

SEVEN YEARS ago a fingerprint left on a glass of water sent Roxbury resident Stephan Cowans to prison for 30-45 years for shooting a police officer.


Cowans was recently released after startling revelations made it clear that he was not the shooter. DNA tests on clothing left near the crime scene and on a saliva specimen from the glass did not match Cowans's DNA. The prosecution still insisted it had the right guy -- after all, his fingerprint was on that glass. But when that fingerprint was reanalyzed by experts, it turned out not to match Cowans after all.

However this particular fingerprint error ends up being explained, it raises important issues that go well beyond the Boston Police Department. The science of fingerprints, once thought to be impregnable, is far from secure. Courts must be hesitant to admit fingerprints as evidence until there is better information about how often mistaken identifications are made.

There are only three possible explanations. One is fraud on the part of the fingerprint examiner. Another is incompetence. The third is error. Each reveals a significant problem in our current use of fingerprint evidence.


The rest at...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/02/a_blow_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/

[1a2b3c]

1. Fingerprints are not fool proof

I always thought that. I wonder how many people are in jail at this moment because they had a fingerprint closely related to the criminals fingerprint?

[enki23]

2. DNA evidence is a lot better... but...

still not immune to fraud.

[forgethell]

4. Nothing, nothing is

immune to fraud. Fingerprints, scientific research, financial shennanigans. And the more complicated it is, the easier it is for smart crooks to steal, embezzle, and defraud. Only poor, dumb, uneducated boobs have to stick a gun in your face today.

[MrSandman]

3. IIRC, standards on the number of matching

comparison points may vary between examiners. This may have been standardized by now.

[-..__...]

5. There's a 4th explanation...

mentioned in your post: DA's are never wrong!