Madrid Fingerprint Evidence Case Study
What happened in the investigation of the Madrid bombings with the fingerprint evidence?
While investigating a series of explosions in the subways of Madrid, authorities had found partial fingerprints over the bag of detonators. The fingerprint evidence made its way to the FBI. When running the fingerprint evidence through their system, they found a fingerprint match. The match belonged to an attorney in Portland, Oregon.
What assumptions have been made about fingerprints? What are the problems with these assumptions?
The biggest assumptions about fingerprints are that fingerprints are “infallible,” or dependable, and “no two people have the same fingerprint.” One of the biggest problems with these assumptions appears in the Madrid bombing …show more content…
Why?
The technique thought to be solidly scientific is DNA analysis. Other techniques were formed by law enforcement for identification, though DNA analysis came from medical science.
Do defense teams have the ability to mount a defense against evidence? What affects their ability?
Defense teams may have the ability to mount a defense against evidence, though they often lack resources and money to hire experts to challenge evidence.
What makes someone an expert? What potential issues are there with this?
Typically, being certified by a trusted system of education can designate someone as an expert. These systems may not provide the lessons that are required, and rather focus on producing as many certifications to people as possible to make their system more attractive to potential students.
Given the problems with forensic evidence, how should the criminal justice system respond?
I believe that the criminal justice system and system for forensic science education should make more of an effort to educating forensic analysts. With more effort, the amount of problems with forensic evidence would deplete greatly, and the criminal justice system would have an easier time prosecuting
While investigating a series of explosions in the subways of Madrid, authorities had found partial fingerprints over the bag of detonators. The fingerprint evidence made its way to the FBI. When running the fingerprint evidence through their system, they found a fingerprint match. The match belonged to an attorney in Portland, Oregon.
What assumptions have been made about fingerprints? What are the problems with these assumptions?
The biggest assumptions about fingerprints are that fingerprints are “infallible,” or dependable, and “no two people have the same fingerprint.” One of the biggest problems with these assumptions appears in the Madrid bombing …show more content…
Why?
The technique thought to be solidly scientific is DNA analysis. Other techniques were formed by law enforcement for identification, though DNA analysis came from medical science.
Do defense teams have the ability to mount a defense against evidence? What affects their ability?
Defense teams may have the ability to mount a defense against evidence, though they often lack resources and money to hire experts to challenge evidence.
What makes someone an expert? What potential issues are there with this?
Typically, being certified by a trusted system of education can designate someone as an expert. These systems may not provide the lessons that are required, and rather focus on producing as many certifications to people as possible to make their system more attractive to potential students.
Given the problems with forensic evidence, how should the criminal justice system respond?
I believe that the criminal justice system and system for forensic science education should make more of an effort to educating forensic analysts. With more effort, the amount of problems with forensic evidence would deplete greatly, and the criminal justice system would have an easier time prosecuting