What is Digg?Sponsored by Edmunds.com
Secrets of a Professional Negotiator view!
edmunds.com - Proven tactics for getting car dealerships to drop their asking price. Yeah, it works.
129 Comments
- TheLunchLady, on 03/27/2009, -5/+67Wha? CSI is a lie? This is just terrible! So Jack Bauer doesn't save the world 24hrs at a time? And Gordon Ramsay doesn't turn a restaurant around in one hour? Man oh man. There arn't T3s everywhere moderately kept at bay by Sarah? What about all those tidy Law & Order convictions? Duhn Dunh! Indeed! CSI is not a science journal; it's a SHOW. Entertainment. You have to suspend your disbelief for the sake of the entertainment. You didn't really think SuperMan could fly, could you?
- serif69, on 03/27/2009, -0/+61Obviously they didn't enhance the fingerprints enough to get an accurate match.
Enhance...
Enhance...
Enhance... - pingpants, on 03/27/2009, -2/+32more people wrongfully imprisoned
- rnawky, on 03/27/2009, -3/+29Does that page have enough ***** ads on it?
No Ads Version:
When Thomas and Ann Farrow were found murdered in their paint shop, their heads crushed with a blunt object, the only clue was a bloody right thumbprint on the store's empty cash box.
* ChildPrint Child Fingerprinting ID KitHigh-quality comprehensive fingerprint/DNA ID kits for parents, low cost custom logo giveaways for police, businesses, o…www.yoursafechild.com
* Fingerprint ReaderWe carry digital persona scanner. U gold, platinum and OEM - we ship worldwide via UPS.www.fulcrumbiometrics.com
* American Livescan & Shipping Center, IncAt ALSC, you will find a large selection of moving, shipping boxes and packing supplies. We also offer private mailboxes…www.livefingerprint.net
Sponsored Links
The brazen murder shocked the people of Debtford, a sooty industrial suburb of London. They clamored for police to find the killer.
The year was 1905. Forensic science was in its infancy. Scotland Yard had only recently begun collecting carefully pressed fingerprints from criminals, stashing the cards in pigeonholes of a makeshift filing system.
But Scotland Yard Inspector Charles Collins believed that the bloody print could help him solve his crime. After learning that a man named Alfred Stratton had been seen near the crime scene, he collected the unemployed ruffian's thumbprint and compared it with the one left at the crime scene. A close inspection showed there were 11 minute features that the two prints shared.
The prosecutor at Stratton's trial told jurors the similarities left "not the shadow of a doubt" that the crime-scene print belonged to Stratton.
But the defense had a surprising ally at their table: Henry Faulds, a Scottish doctor who two decades earlier was the first to propose using fingerprints to solve crimes.
Faulds believed that even if fingerprints were unique -- there was, after all, no scientific basis for the popular assumption -- the same was not necessarily true of "smudges," the blurry partial prints accidentally left behind at crime scenes in blood, sweat or grease.
A single bloody thumbprint, he felt, was not enough evidence to convict anyone of murder.
Stratton's trial would be the first test of the new science of fingerprinting, and it raised concerns that, more than a century later, still have not been addressed.
Today, fingerprints are once again on trial.
In 2007, a Maryland judge threw out fingerprint evidence in a death penalty case, calling it "a subjective, untested, unverifiable identification procedure that purports to be infallible."
The ruling sided with the scientists, law professors and defense lawyers who for a decade had been noting the dearth of research into the reliability of fingerprinting. Their lonely crusade for sound science in the courtroom has often been ignored by the courts, but last month it was endorsed by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. - Stiles05s, on 03/27/2009, -0/+25How could this be? *puts on sunglasses*
- ColorWheel, on 03/27/2009, -0/+23Did seriously no one ever *think* to verify in the past 100 years whether or not fingerprinting was beyond-reasonable-doubt forensic evidence?
- rnawky, on 03/27/2009, -0/+19***** ***** ***** ***** where did that ***** about ChildPrint and UPS come from, it wasn't even visible when I copied that text.
Sorry Digg, I've failed you. - bjs3171, on 03/27/2009, -3/+18are you seriously implying that DNA is not reliable?
- bjs3171, on 03/27/2009, -0/+15what? if you have a clear fingerprint, and you can compare it to a clear record, of course it's reliable. if the print you have isn't clear, or complete, of course you need further evidence, but that's beside the point.
- MSP1, on 03/27/2009, -0/+14The CSI lie that gets me is when they take a few dozen pixels out of a grainy image and turn it into an HD version of a face or a number plate. You can't infer information that isn't there. You would have to make it up!
- Badandy127, on 03/27/2009, -0/+14They do not have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible. It's a fictitious show, anyone drawing scientific conclusions or knowledge from a prime-time drama needs to have their head examined.
- litheon, on 03/27/2009, -0/+13Not gonna lie... I closed that the second I saw it looked like a parked domain page.
- diggitydingdong, on 03/27/2009, -3/+16Given only a fingerprint and an obvious suspect, it's probably good enough. The simplest answer is usually right when it comes to crime.
- senorboombino, on 03/27/2009, -0/+13Now I can go and commit those crimes I've always to without buying those expensive gloves. ; )
- cowboy86, on 03/27/2009, -0/+11I believe it. When I was in the second grade, we got those fingerprint cards where you press your left thumbprint on them. This kid Timmy and I had completely matching left thumb prints. I remember because the finger print people were really confused by it. I went to put my finger on the scanner as a new entry and it kept saying I was already in the system. I always thought fingerprinting was ***** anyway. If only criminals masturbated at every crime scene we wouldn't have these problems.
- specialK16, on 03/27/2009, -0/+11And there is no extremely hot killing machine called Cameron?
Damn you TheLunchLady. - skintigh, on 03/27/2009, -0/+9Dugg for failing me.
- insanebrain, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8LaTimes. . .you need a web designer. .. because. . .damn your site SUCKS !
- yesbeegee, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8The punishment should lose the grime!
- bluehouse, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8First the cake and now CSI! My world is starting to crumble
- eclasssystems, on 03/27/2009, -2/+10So that means, my fingerprints... aren't really fingerprints at all.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+8There were geeky, "it's an ART, not a science" excuse-making articles written for/by judges and lawyers, but the news media myth generally prevails when it comes to fingerprints. Interestingly, it's now possible in some cases to get DNA *from* a fingerprint.
- Badandy127, on 03/27/2009, -3/+10I believe that is what he is implying. What an idiot.
pinkflyingpig: Mind telling us how a DNA sample is inaccurate? - Drahkar, on 03/27/2009, -2/+9Actually CSI isn't a lie. They never convict on fingerprint evidence. They use it to point themselves at someone to investigate further and find solid proof that they person is guilty. Just thought I'd point that out.
Thats part of the problem with Modern Police. They are lazy. They just use whatever little evidence they have to point a finger at someone because they are being hounded to find someone that is guilty. Doesn't really matter if the person is actually guilty.If they actually are thats even better, but as long as they can make it stick, thats what is important. At least thats how it seems these days. - Letmix, on 03/27/2009, -0/+7I am in the field of criminalistics, or what most people call "CSI". I am not in the fingerprinting section but I also have a master's degree in Criminalistics. Fingerprint matching is definitely an area where conclusions should be "Does not exclude the suspect" instead of "100% match". Same goes for hair analysis. I mean, even DNA is held to a statistical standard and that is WAY more conclusive than fingerprints/hair. However, I don't understand why there are so many comments about CSI, Bones, Numb3rs, etc.
Those TV shows have no bearing and really no insight into what really goes on in a crime lab (or this article). Those TV shows are the worse thing that has happened to the science we do in order to convict, and in many cases absolve a suspect, of a crime. Those TV shows aren't even mentioned in the article!
The article is more about poor court room testimony/questioning (it happens a lot), to where the jury was so confused on the subject they probably felt that the evidence meant more than it really did. In court, witnesses are held to strict "Yes/No" answers most of the time when things really cannot be answered in such a manner. And attorneys (especially defense attorneys) will take their clients money and try a case they have no education about. Defendants are largely taken advantage of in that regard, and it is unfortunate for them. And that is what can lead an innocent person being put away. [I have testified in court over 30 times.] - ironhide, on 03/27/2009, -2/+9YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
- ilmickeyli, on 03/27/2009, -0/+7puts on sunglasses over sunglasses
- meekerunger, on 03/27/2009, -2/+8YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
- DeadOhioSky, on 03/27/2009, -0/+6FTA:
In 2004, the Boston Police Department was forced to shut down its fingerprint lab after a "glaring mistake" led to a wrongful conviction. That same year, the FBI's top fingerprint analysts were forced to admit that they were wrong after claiming to be "absolutely confident" that a fingerprint had linked a lawyer in Oregon to the Madrid train bombings. The Los Angeles Police Department is now reviewing nearly 1,000 fingerprint cases after an internal review that found two people had been wrongfully accused by fingerprint "matches." - HillBully, on 03/28/2009, -0/+6CSI is a Lie! Attractive-looking women/men criminal investigators are a myth.
http://i43.tinypic.com/1199j74.jpg - nebujal, on 03/27/2009, -1/+7Let's all just be lucky that zoom and enhance is real.
- gl77, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5its not a black & white issue like on CSI. you cant just put a fingerprint into a computer and in 5 minutes or less expect a perfect match. first, the print has to be good enough to get some sort of match and that means it cannot be smudged too much and it has to be processed and lifted correctly. then it has to be scanned into the FBI's fingerprint database correctly, then you can search for a match on IAFIS , which can take hours or days, then after all that is said and done, you MAY get several results for your search, at which time they must be analyzed and compared in order to make a preliminary match, then sent to a neutral third party fingerprint expert who decides whether it is a match, not a match, or inconclusive and the only way it should be admitted into a court of law is when it is considered by all parties involved to be a match.
that's what i have learned by taking two Fingerprinting courses at college, anyway. - bjs3171, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5shouldn't you be selling tinfoil hats, instead? Christ.
- tatonca, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5Actual the number of CSI episodes where the science is actual used to convict is very low. The show works by using the evidence to track down a likely subject who then confesses by the end of the episode - far more dramatic. There are few episodes that take the evidence into the courtroom - and only one I can think of - the episode where Grissom discovers the latent print on the matchbook during a proceeding - where fingerprint evidence alone altered the outcome of the case...
In case anyone out there was actually interested in the truth of the headline that is... - Megor, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5no kidding there are more ads in the page then content!
- kinseyincanada, on 03/27/2009, -2/+7who the hell capitalizes man in Superman?
- anexanhume, on 03/27/2009, -1/+6Yes, did you? That's why we're disputing the title. It says accurate whereas the article only addresses the measure of doubt in any case. Because mistakes can happen doesn't make it an inherently inaccurate method.
- avaugha4, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5FTA: (in 1905)
But the defense had a surprising ally at their table: Henry Faulds, a Scottish doctor who two decades earlier was the first to propose using fingerprints to solve crimes.
Faulds believed that even if fingerprints were unique -- there was, after all, no scientific basis for the popular assumption -- the same was not necessarily true of "smudges," the blurry partial prints accidentally left behind at crime scenes in blood, sweat or grease.
A single bloody thumbprint, he felt, was not enough evidence to convict anyone of murder.
Seems like they just ignored it. - SkippyDoorknob, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5You mean I can't get an image of a license plate reflected off the sunglasses of a driver seen from an ATM camera 3 blocks away?!
- daimposter, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5actually, if they are already in jail and are innocent, they were wrongfully imprisoned this whole time.
- gttim, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Yeah, but Jack McCoy doesn't need that pansy ass crap like fingerprints. He can get a conviction anyways!
- skintigh, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5"what? if you have a clear fingerprint, and you can compare it to a clear record, of course it's reliable"
Citation needed.
What evidence can you quote to prove your assumption? What study has been conducted to prove no two people have the same prints? Answers: none and none.
It's my personal *belief* that no two people have the same 10 prints, but I bet a ton of people share one or more. Of course, belief and assumption generally aren't allowed in a court of law...
FTA:
"The question is not whether fingerprints are unique -- most scientists agree they probably are, though that assumption remains largely unstudied." - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5SkippyDoorknob-"You mean I can't get an image of a license plate reflected off the sunglasses of a driver seen from an ATM camera 3 blocks away?!"
No, but you can create a gui interface using visual basic to get an ip address.
source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB0ZviqXac&fea ... - gfxlonghorn, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4homer00:
Realizing that it is incredibly nerdy, makes you a nerd. It is completely relevant because CSI literally just put in 3 random computer words and tried to fit them together. - avaugha4, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Endless Caruso one liners FTW!!!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
- ninsei, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Holy *****! Are you telling my TV LIED to me?
- Marrach, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3I think people who like Crime/Detective shows have an innate desire to see Crime Neatly and irrefutably solved so that Wrongdoing can be definitively punished.
CSI and Bones add the dimension of glass-walled Labs filled with equipment, computers and Hi-Def monitors and serious men and women in starched white coats. Once they turn on the Image Enhancers, the Perp is trembling in his shoes wherever he is. Law Backed by Science means the World is Safeguarded against the Chaos that lurks in men's souls.
My problem with these shows is their concept. I once heard a Police Detective being interviewed who expressed his professional dismay at the impression that shows like CSI and Bones presented. He said, that those labs do NOT exist in real-life for Real-life crimes. All they have in the NYPD for a murder in Brooklyn is interviews, picture snapshots of the crime-scene, witness interviews, detective footwork, and yes: Fingerprints. Fingerprint isn't PERFECT. But it's still better than 'Hearsay'
My last disillusionment with crime shows like CSI was the realization that all the Crime's in the show stories were about Rich People and Powerful people. And I had an innate dislike of the inadvertant, underlying message: That the Law only Rightfully works for the Wealthy. That's when I stopped watching them. I LOVED "Bones", but I couldn't stomache the ongoing premise. The same for CSI. They never seemed to have stories where they used all that clean technology for 'Ordinary People'. So found I stopped watching.
So all us Ordinary people have, are the cops, the detectives, and Fingerprints. - GiggleStick, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3You have failed us all rnawky. May God have mercy on your soul.
- homer00, on 03/28/2009, -0/+3The one with the blue shirt on the left proves you wrong.
- stix213, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Anyone else notice the only "evidence" cited is the 1905 opinion as part of the failed defense in a murder trial?
Buried -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
