4 ms·
Bite mark was proven false, but what's suspicious about matching fingerprints?
by sn_master 4y ago
Bite mark was proven false, but what's suspicious about matching fingerprints?
- giantg2 4y agoI don't know how true it is but I've heard that they haven't done any studies to find out how likely it is that two people have the same prints. I have also heard that there is no objective criteria for things like number of matching points to determine a "match". But maybe the original commenter has additonal info, or other people have info to refute it.
- mc32 4y agoThe only things I can think of is that partials can match other fingers’s fingerprints and the temporal aspect —when was the print left, in the act of committing the crime or before or after? Still it’s not pseudoscience like lie detectors, bitemark and bloodsplatter analyses.
- tedunangst 4y agohttps://sites.rutgers.edu/fingerprinting/ https://sites.rutgers.edu/fingerprinting/