ACV            "The myth of fingerprints"

This heading is a repeat of the New Scientist report on page 3 of the September 05 (issue 2517). The article describes a number of proven mis-identifications of people by fingerprint analysis.  The report bitterly complains that there is no analysis of the levels of uncertainty that exist in every other field of science.  I know about Uncertainty of Measurements (UoM) as I worked in the field of electrical calibration before I retired, and "uncertainty of measurement" is a key part of the process  There are simply no figures that can be presented to the jury, as there are, for example, with DNA analysis.

So if you ever appear before a judge charged with some crime that you have been 'proved' to have committed using fingerprint evidence, simply ask the prosecution what the uncertainty figure is of the fingerprint evidence that has been put before the jury.  The subject has never been seriously discussed or calculated (according to New Scientist).

The article refers to Brandon Mayfield being held in connection with the Madrid bombings after his prints were supposedly found on a bag in the Spanish capital.  It took several weeks before the Spanish police revised their suspect to be Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian living in Spain.  Simon Cole, a criminologist of the University of California has quoted three out of the known 22 cases of mis-diagnosis, and has reported in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Vol 95 p 985)..

The "infallible evidence" is not so infallible after all