Posted on 09/13/2005 11:48:13 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Irvine, Calif., September 13, 2005 While forensic scientists have long claimed fingerprint evidence is infallible, the widely publicized error that landed an innocent American behind bars as a suspect in the Madrid train bombing alerted the nation to the potential flaws in the system. Now, UC Irvine criminologist Simon Cole has shown that not only do errors occur, but as many as a thousand incorrect fingerprint “matches” could be made each year in the U.S. This is in spite of safeguards intended to prevent errors.
Cole’s study is the first to analyze all publicly known mistaken fingerprint matches. In analyzing these cases of faulty matches dating from 1920, Cole suggests that the 22 exposed incidents, including eight since 1999, are merely the tip of the iceberg. Despite the publicly acknowledged cases of error, fingerprint examiners have long held that fingerprint identification is “infallible,” and testified in court that their error rate for matching fingerprints is zero.
“Rather than blindly insisting there is zero error in fingerprint matching, we should acknowledge the obvious, study the errors openly and find constructive ways to prevent faulty evidence from being used to convict innocent people,” said Cole, an assistant professor of criminology, law and society.
The study appears in the current issue of the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
Cole’s data set represents a small portion of actual fingerprint errors because it includes only those publicly exposed cases of mistaken matches. The majority of the cases discussed in this study were discovered only through extremely fortuitous circumstances, such as a post-conviction DNA test, the intervention of foreign police and even a deadly lab accident that led to the re-evaluation of evidence.
One highly publicized example is that of Brandon Mayfield, the Portland lawyer who was arrested and held for two weeks as a suspect in the Madrid train bombings in 2004. FBI investigators matched prints at the scene to Mayfield, and an independent examiner verified the match. But Spanish National Police examiners insisted the prints did not match Mayfield and eventually identified another man who matched the prints. The FBI acknowledged the error and Mayfield was released.
Wrongful convictions on the basis of faulty evidence are supposed to be prevented by four safeguards: having print identifications “verified” by additional examiners; ensuring the examiners are competent; requiring a high number of matching points in the ridges before declaring the print a match; and having independent experts examine the prints on behalf of the defendant. However, each of these safeguards failed in cases Cole studied. In fact, in four of the cases, independent experts verified the faulty matches.
Despite print examiners’ zero-mistake claim, Cole points out that proficiency tests conducted since 1983 show an aggregate error rate of 0.8 percent. Though that may seem small, when multiplied by the large number of cases U.S. crime laboratories processed in 2002, it suggests there could be as many as 1,900 mistaken fingerprint matches made that year alone.
“While we don’t know how many fingerprint errors are caught in the lab and then swept under the rug – or, worse, how many have still not been caught and may have resulted in a wrongful conviction – we clearly need a full evaluation of the errors,” Cole said. “The argument that fingerprints are infallible evidence is simply unacceptable.”
Call it obscene, but I just love when the "infallible" sciences are proven woefully mortal.
aren't fingertip matches ultimately made by humans ?
I understand. It's not often that someone like you gets to laugh at those "pointy-headed liberal knowitalls who think they're so smart because they went to school and got good grades and really cool jobs when they graduated."
Like the lie detector test, it seems that fingerprinting was based to a certain degree on subjective testing.
Say that the next time you're on the operating table.
Somewhere, there are 2 snowflakes just alike, and somewhere there are 2 or 3 fingerprints just alike.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
Finger prints are not only infallible, they can be transfered from one place to another.
We have documented cases of forensic labs that have faked evidence as well, notably an FBI Lab in Oklahoma.
I think your confusing the number of popular-press science stories (written by people with as much understanding of science as you) you read and the actual number of scientific research projects going on at any one time. The former is a very, very tiny fraction of the latter.
Please, enlighten us.
The voices in my head tell me crap like "be nice to them. They're ignorant, not evil." I try to ignore them as much as possible.
I never said I didn't agree with the conclusions of the article. I was simply commenting upon the comments of the thread creator. The two are not synonymous.
Finger prints are not only infallible, they can be transfered from one place to another.
I think you mean "fallible," as in "can be wrong."
We have documented cases of forensic labs that have faked evidence as well, notably an FBI Lab in Oklahoma.
Really? Documented by whom? Was anyone tried for falsifying evidence? If not, why not?
Hopefully, the principles of investigatory science are being applied in addition to fingerprints. Such "silly things" as motive and opportunity coupled with any other pieces of evidence.
Do you not agree? Why not? Explain? Instead of demanding that I elaborate, why don't you first think about it and determine whether or not there are differences?
Hey Junior, be nice, hm?
For the same reason I don't have to explain to UFO nutters why there aren't UFOs--you're making the claim, you back it up.
bflr
Thanks for the link. I dunno about that site, though. It kind of comes across as Debka, but without all the pretty graphics.
Actually, it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that both disciplines use the Scientific Method.
This may be true, but remember the DMV is never wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.