Fallen Myth - Fingerprints May Not Be Unique
By Anna
@LadyDuck (471337)
Switzerland
October 11, 2017 9:52am CST
We all believed to have unique fingerprints, but according to recent discoveries, it seems that this is yet to be proved.
The discovery shows that members of the same family, share the same fingerprint patterns.
Considering a partial fingerprint found on a crime scene, can lead to incriminate the wrong person.
Well, it was since 1901 that the police used this "infallible" method.
I wonder how many innocent people have been sent to jail for inaccurate reading of their fingerprints.
Have you read this news?
It seems that many things we gave for granted are finally not so sure.
Now I am curious to know if in the future, we will discover that also our voice and our tongue print are not unique.
80 people like this
76 responses
@topffer (42156)
• France
11 Oct 17
The police knows that there are similarities between fingerprints, and they want 7 or 8 similar points between 2 fingerprints before attributing it. At this level you cannot make a confusion between 2 persons of the same family, but it explains also why fingerprints found on a scene of crime cannot always be used when they are not neat/complete. Until now I never heard of 2 people having exactly the same fingerprints.
15 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
11 Oct 17
@LadyDuck The police can use a fingerprint with only 4 or 5 similarities as a piece of evidence when they have other pieces of evidence against somebody, but it will be presented in court like what it is, a piece of evidence and not a definitive evidence. Some people might not understand it.
6 people like this
@JamesHxstatic (29413)
• Eugene, Oregon
11 Oct 17
Fingerprints have been used and sometimes misused, but I think that @toppfer is right.
6 people like this
@vandana7 (100249)
• India
13 Oct 17
I can plant DNA samples, and DNA samples also have other drawbacks. I may arrive at the crime scene and have some of my finger prints there. It does not mean I was not there before, and it does not mean I just arrived. Prints can't be timed. Over the years, they also get contaminated.
1 person likes this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
13 Oct 17
@vandana7 This is a good idea, go there several times before the crime, so you can prove that your fingerprints are there because you went there before. While going there to create an alibi, plant DNA evidences collected from other people.
2 people like this
I think it's time I logged off. 
@suziecat7 (3350)
• Asheville, North Carolina
11 Oct 17
I haven't heard this. Now they rely more on DNA but who knows what they'll find out about that?
3 people like this
@Shellyann36 (11384)
• United States
13 Oct 17
I had not heard of this. I do think that @topffer has a very valid point.
3 people like this
@RubyHawk (99405)
• Atlanta, Georgia
12 Oct 17
I have read that and I too wonder how many innocent people are spending time in prisons for crimes they didn't commit. I know many are found guilty who are innocent, and this is one more factor to consider when charging anyone for a crime.
3 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
13 Oct 17
@RubyHawk Well, the countries with the best Judicial system in the world are Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark (in this order) and even in those counties there are innocents that were jailed and criminals that run (U.S.A. is number 18).
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
12 Oct 17
I think it's too easy to compare a partial fingerprint with a database and jump to conclusions. In my opinion there is not a sure method, have you seen the man who was jailed for years because he looked like another man? They should be more careful to check the alibi.
2 people like this
@RubyHawk (99405)
• Atlanta, Georgia
13 Oct 17
@LadyDuck Maybe they shouldn't use partial fingerprints at all. I think alibis are checked but a good lawyer can convince a jury on little evidence. Our system is said to be the best in the world but still some innocent people go to jail and some criminals remain free.
2 people like this
@1hopefulman (45120)
• Canada
11 Oct 17
No I haven't heard of this "new" information. Can you share where you read it?
2 people like this
@1hopefulman (45120)
• Canada
12 Oct 17
@LadyDuck Thank you! Very interesting. It seems that mistakes can be made. We are always learning.
"Unlike other forensic fields, such as DNA analysis, which give a statistical probability of a match, fingerprint examiners traditionally testify that the evidence constitutes either a 100 per cent certain match or a 100 per cent exclusion."
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
12 Oct 17
@1hopefulman I like to read those articles, there is always something interesting to learn.
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
12 Oct 17
Sure I can give you a couple of links
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609919/Not-handy-Fingerprints-flawed-way-identifying-criminals-arent-unique-thought-says-Home-Office-scientist.html
Fingerprint evidence linking criminals to crime scenes has played a fundamental role in convictions in Britain since the first forensic laboratory was set up in Scotland Yard in 1901.
2 people like this
@crossbones27 (49432)
• Mojave, California
15 Oct 17
Bad jokes bad jokes my lot banned me, bad jokes again. 
2 people like this
@crossbones27 (49432)
• Mojave, California
15 Oct 17
@LadyDuck Haha, Mylot loves me I think, never get to cocky miss lady. Now I just have the rest of population to worry about. Always cool to be appreciated by some one though, Thanks miss lady, thanks Mylot, Like I say, love the ones that show a better way and it comes at a price every time. Sad to say
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
16 Oct 17
@crossbones27 MyLot is a nice community, except for a few who get offended for a nonsense and they block you, the rest of people here are good people.
2 people like this
@DeborahDiane (40288)
• Laguna Woods, California
14 Oct 17
@LadyDuck - Wow! I did not know this. That is very thought-provoking. Perhaps it is better to use fingerprints in combination with DNA or other identifiers.
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
15 Oct 17
@DeborahDiane Many have been executed by mistake and we only know of a few. I imagine that they try to keep the thing secret, so they do not have to pay damages to the family.
2 people like this
@DeborahDiane (40288)
• Laguna Woods, California
16 Oct 17
@LadyDuck - I agree that when they make a mistake they probably work very hard to hide the fact. It has to happen, however. It is rare for us to be 100% sure of who committed a murder, unless it happened in broad daylight with lots of witnesses.
2 people like this
@MarymargII (12422)
• Toronto, Ontario
17 Oct 17
It is amazing how this is just considered now- perhaps we shouldn't take as 'fact' everything that was thought certain, as you say.
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
20 Oct 17
@MarymargII Of course we know that it is impossible to take a photo of every snowflake that falls in every part of the world. It is an assumption, may be another wrong one.
2 people like this
@MarymargII (12422)
• Toronto, Ontario
20 Oct 17
@LadyDuck So right and we all assumed it. Wonder if each snowflake is different- as we all were told they were.
2 people like this
@subhajitsil6 (961)
• Kolkata, India
11 Oct 17
Yeah.. I have also read it somewhere though cannot really distinguish where. Fingerprint is not the ultimate, but retina verification is.
I don't know if someday there might similar retina also comes in, but as of fingerprint already there are many evidence of it.
But, still even after having many evidences, the no of errors are so less, that it can still be considered to be one of the good method of verification, but of course not the best.
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
12 Oct 17
@subhajitsil6 DNA, for the moment it seems that this is 100% sure.
1 person likes this
@subhajitsil6 (961)
• Kolkata, India
12 Oct 17
@LadyDuck So what do you suggest. Fingerprint, iris, and face recognition is ofcourse not a stable method to take. So what should e done?
2 people like this
@dgobucks226 (35574)
•
11 Oct 17
I never knew about this fingerprint controversy? 
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (471337)
• Switzerland
12 Oct 17
@dgobucks226 The iris is supposed to be unique, the color can change with the age and it also changes if you take some medications against glaucoma. The dental records are used to identify people, but I suspect they are not useful to identify criminals, I do not see how they would leave their dental trace during a robbery, different if they kill someone and bite the victim.
2 people like this
@dgobucks226 (35574)
•
12 Oct 17
@LadyDuck I know they use dental records to identify people. I heard them talking today about finding another method for ID instead of using your social security number. One such comment was an Iris (eye)scan although how serious they are and if it would work is another matter.
2 people like this
