3 ms·

Very strange and misleading article. They talk about using a photo of a finger to catch someone based on their finger print. But then later on they write: "Howe

by poxrud 9y ago

Very strange and misleading article. They talk about using a photo of a finger to catch someone based on their finger print. But then later on they write: "However, there were just parts of the middle and bottom of a finger visible - records only keep the top part.This meant the image did not find a match on national databases." So really neither the fingerprint or whatsapp had anything to do with the arrest.

rubyfan 9y ago
Sounded something like parallel construction to me. We think it’s this guy and we can match a small portion of his fingerprint with the picture. Maybe it’s statistically significant beyond reasonable doubt but seems like a little too much of a stretch to me.
- sirclueless 9y ago
  This is not parallel construction, assuming their "other reasons" for suspecting these people are legitimate and disclosed. Parallel construction is when law enforcement receives information about a crime in an illegal way or a way that cannot be disclosed, and reconstructs a plausible way in which the crime might have been discovered. This is just building enough evidence to convict someone based on matching a photograph of a partial finger to a suspect's hand. Which sounds perfectly reasonable and legitimate (as legitimate as fingerprints can be). Just because there's not enough in the photo to match a national database doesn't mean there's not enough to be statistically certain it's a match with the suspect.
  - rubyfan 9y ago
    That’s why I said “something like”, it’s not quite parallel construction but something like I already know it was you, and I can see part of your fingerprint in this photo The article is light on details about how the fingerprint was actually used so one can only speculate. My assumption here though is that whatever they recovered wouldn’t stand up on its own but used in conjunction with other evidence it might have added to the case against the parties. It’s hardly as impressive as the article title makes it out to be.
IshKebab 9y ago
It did - they had a smaller list of suspects and used the palm print to match against one of them, rather than searching the entire UK database for a fingerprint. At least that's what it sounds like. You're right this is a really badly written article.

by poxrud 9y ago

rubyfan 9y ago

Sounded something like parallel construction to me. We think it’s this guy and we can match a small portion of his fingerprint with the picture. Maybe it’s statistically significant beyond reasonable doubt but seems like a little too much of a stretch to me.

sirclueless 9y ago
This is not parallel construction, assuming their "other reasons" for suspecting these people are legitimate and disclosed. Parallel construction is when law enforcement receives information about a crime in an illegal way or a way that cannot be disclosed, and reconstructs a plausible way in which the crime might have been discovered. This is just building enough evidence to convict someone based on matching a photograph of a partial finger to a suspect's hand. Which sounds perfectly reasonable and legitimate (as legitimate as fingerprints can be). Just because there's not enough in the photo to match a national database doesn't mean there's not enough to be statistically certain it's a match with the suspect.
- rubyfan 9y ago
  That’s why I said “something like”, it’s not quite parallel construction but something like I already know it was you, and I can see part of your fingerprint in this photo The article is light on details about how the fingerprint was actually used so one can only speculate. My assumption here though is that whatever they recovered wouldn’t stand up on its own but used in conjunction with other evidence it might have added to the case against the parties. It’s hardly as impressive as the article title makes it out to be.

IshKebab 9y ago

It did - they had a smaller list of suspects and used the palm print to match against one of them, rather than searching the entire UK database for a fingerprint. At least that's what it sounds like. You're right this is a really badly written article.