Why Fingerprints Aren't ProofSep 20, 2012
By Sue Russell
Scientist Nancy Wright documented snowflakes in 1988 while studying cirrus clouds for the National Center for Atmospheric Research. During a Wisconsin snowstorm she found two identical sets of snow crystals — identical under a microscope, at least — giving lie to the old belief that no two snowflakes are alike. That aura of uniqueness also surrounds the arches, loops and whorls at the tips of our fingers, and to this day most fingerprint examiners remain steadfast that no two fingerprints are exactly alike.
“Fingerprint examiners typically testify in the language of absolute certainty,” professor Jennifer Mnookin at the Univ. of California Los Angeles has written. But like many other claims for forensic science, the assertion that fingerprints are unique lacked a solid scientific basis and now is viewed with new caution.
“The language of certainty that examiners are forced to use hides a great deal of uncertainty,” the UK’s Lord Justice Leveson put it when addressing the Forensic Science Society.
Source: Pacific Standard Magazine