Fingerprint Fabrication Refutation

Показать описание

This is a response to a website that claimed a fingerprint was fabricated and actually presented as evidence in court. The program involves the examination of the alledged fabricated print and another exemplar print taken by the accuser. In this video, I display the two fingerprints in a side-by-side position. I then mark the ridge features in each and display them together on the screen. The ridge features then can easily be seen to be in a compliant position indicating that the two prints were made from the same finger.

The second phase of the video displays how the accuser incorrectly detected ridge feature noncompliance in a section of the print. Here, I think I clearly describe that there is no ridge structure non compliance.

The fabrication accuser boldly challenged anyone to refute his opinion about the fabrication of the print and the conclusion that the two prints did not originate from the same finger.

At the core of this examination is the inability of the accuser to recognize how the ridge structures are altered by a cut and the resulting scar. When he unwittingly compared the prints and noticed a difference, his wrongful presumption was that it had to be fabricated, not that the difference in ridge structure was attributable to the skin healing and scarification process.

On his website, he advances that he actually testified to his findings in court. He further accused a person whose name I deleted from my program to have fabricated the print somehow.

This study, because of its uniquness and novelty has been integrated into the Friction Ridge Examiner Competency Training Initiative coursework along with other before and after scar comparisons.

I am expecting my fingerprint colleagues will get a laugh from this and ask me why I took the time to bother refuting this. In reality, it surfaced from a conversation I had with my fingerprint colleague of 40 years Mr. Johnny Leonard and I know fingerprint students will be amused by this error.