Today's' Guardian had an article about junk science forensics:
What caught my eye [among other things in an interesting article]:
What united the group of 12 “founding fathers” of forensic odontology
was the belief that bite mark evidence could be used as a new tool up
there with fingerprints, toxicology and other established methods.
And I got to thinking about fingerprints: is there actually real science
that fingerprints are unique? Or are fingerprints just "established"
[somehow] .. Apparently they're at least sometimes not unique:
and I wonder how hard/easy it is to contest "fingerprint evidence". My
guess it is very hard, but not for any proven scientific reason, just
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--