Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by tsimionescu on Friday October 21, 2022 @01:51AM (#33284929)

That is not how criminal convictions (is supposed to) work. You don't have to present evidence that proves that, out of these three people, this one is the most likely killer. You have to prove that, beyond any reasonable doubt, this person has definitely committed the crime in question. If there is some reasonable possibility that some unknown person could have come off the street and committed the crime while leaving fingerprints that happen to match one of the suspects, then that suspect should not be convicted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by mhuffman on Friday October 21, 2022 @03:16AM (#33285393)

>supposed to "supposed to" is doing a lot of work there. People routinely get railroaded in criminal trials because they are too poor to afford good defense or for even sillier reasons like the prosecutor is better looking or more charismatic than the defense attorney.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by tsimionescu on Friday October 21, 2022 @03:46AM (#33285577)

Absolutely.

But making claims like "fingerprints are good for choosing which of the suspects is more likely to have done it" is harming the situation you describe, not helping. That is, it puts even more onus on the defense attorney to explain how the process is even supposed to work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by rhino369 on Friday October 21, 2022 @09:42AM (#33287913)

The totality of the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But not every piece of evidence must provide beyond a reasonable doubt.

If all you have is a finger print--then yea--the possibility someone else with a close match did creates reasonable doubt.

But if the thief was seen in the area at the time and you have a finger print, well that's less reasonable now.

TL;DR; apply Bayesian probability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by thrdbndndn on Friday October 21, 2022 @02:58PM (#33291759)

I'm not saying you should be convicted by a single fingerprint.

[ Parent | on HN ]