Quite possibly. At least according to a report by the British expert that introduced the first automated fingerprint detection system to the Metropolitan Police and the Home Office’s first Forensic Science Regulator, Mike Silverman. He claims that despite what is widely believed it has not been shown that fingerprints are unique.
He points out that "not everyone’s fingerprints have been recorded so it’s impossible to prove that no two are the same" and added that while "it’s improbable, but so is winning the lottery, and people do that every week."
Silverman also notes that families can share elements of the same pattern and thinks that such factors as human error, partial prints and false positives mean that fingerprints evidence is not infallible.
Elaborating on some of the problems Silverman said that, "No two fingerprints are ever exactly alike in every detail; even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same finger. And the fingerprint often isn’t perfect, particularly at a crime scene. It might be dirty or smudged. There are all sorts of things that reduce the accuracy.”
He added that, "It requires an expert examiner to determine whether a print taken from crime scene and one taken from a subject are likely to have originated from the same finger."
He also pointed to other difficulties such as scanning fingerprints of the elderly as their skin loses elasticity making them warped and some conditions that leaves some people with smooth, featureless fingertips. I remember a police officer friend of mine telling me how his bricklayer son-in-law had virtually no fingerprints.
Silverman also pointed to several cases were innocent people have been wrongly accused based on inaccurate fingerprinting evidence. For example back in 2004, an attorney from Oregon, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly linked to the Madrid train bombings by FBI fingerprint experts who claimed to identify his prints as being on a bag containing detonating devices were found by Spanish authorities. The FBI described the fingerprint match as "100% verified" and as a result he was arrested and detained for two weeks before being released.
Also noted was a recent study by Southampton University found that two thirds of experts who were unknowingly shown the same sets of fingerprints twice came to a different conclusion on the second occasion.
Further Reading:
Why your fingerprints may not be unique
Are Forensics Experts Relying On Inconsistent Fingerprint Technology?
He points out that "not everyone’s fingerprints have been recorded so it’s impossible to prove that no two are the same" and added that while "it’s improbable, but so is winning the lottery, and people do that every week."
Silverman also notes that families can share elements of the same pattern and thinks that such factors as human error, partial prints and false positives mean that fingerprints evidence is not infallible.
Elaborating on some of the problems Silverman said that, "No two fingerprints are ever exactly alike in every detail; even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same finger. And the fingerprint often isn’t perfect, particularly at a crime scene. It might be dirty or smudged. There are all sorts of things that reduce the accuracy.”
He added that, "It requires an expert examiner to determine whether a print taken from crime scene and one taken from a subject are likely to have originated from the same finger."
He also pointed to other difficulties such as scanning fingerprints of the elderly as their skin loses elasticity making them warped and some conditions that leaves some people with smooth, featureless fingertips. I remember a police officer friend of mine telling me how his bricklayer son-in-law had virtually no fingerprints.
Silverman also pointed to several cases were innocent people have been wrongly accused based on inaccurate fingerprinting evidence. For example back in 2004, an attorney from Oregon, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly linked to the Madrid train bombings by FBI fingerprint experts who claimed to identify his prints as being on a bag containing detonating devices were found by Spanish authorities. The FBI described the fingerprint match as "100% verified" and as a result he was arrested and detained for two weeks before being released.
Also noted was a recent study by Southampton University found that two thirds of experts who were unknowingly shown the same sets of fingerprints twice came to a different conclusion on the second occasion.
Further Reading:
Why your fingerprints may not be unique
Are Forensics Experts Relying On Inconsistent Fingerprint Technology?
Comment