4 ms·
A one in eighteen chance of error isn't really good enough to convict someone on in the absence of other evidence. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n
by zik 3y ago
A one in eighteen chance of error isn't really good enough to convict someone on in the absence of other evidence.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerprints-180971640/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-fingerpri...
[2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240110120225.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240110120225.h...
- Tagbert 3y agoand that would be the point. Any single piece of evidence, particularly something with a noticable error rate, should not be enough to convict someone. It might be enough to investigate someone, but there should be corroborating evidence.