this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
119 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8245 readers
453 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I may have exaggerated a bit. Fingerprint evidence is almost entirely subjective analysis, relying on the person looking at the prints being ethical and unbiased. A perfect description of cops, if you ask me.
There have been a lot of high profile cases where fingerprint evidence was a "100% match", even though that would been impossible. The Madrid train bombings 20 years ago are the first case that immediately comes to mind—a guy halfway across the world, who had no passport, and hadn't left the country in a decade, had "his" fingerprints all over the bombs. But, he'd recently converted to Islam, and the wAr On TeRrOr had just started firing on all cylinders in Iraq, so he got Patriot Act'd for a month.
Fingerprints may very well be unique, but subjective analysis ain't real science.