In spite of the long-held belief that fingerprint identifications are the pinnacle of forensic evidence, it is becoming increasingly evident that some identifications can be unreliable and erroneously labeled as 'conclusive' when they are not. Unfortunately, many Police Fingerprint Bureaux still generate fingerprint reports that adhere to procedures established many years ago, rather than meeting the significantly improved standards expected in contemporary forensic science. For instance, despite well-documented errors and modern scientific research highlighting the risks associated with cognitive bias in fingerprint comparisons, the reporting of purported fingerprint identifications continues to follow a pattern reminiscent of cases from over a century ago. Our fingerprint experts have developed a methodology aimed at minimizing the potential for cognitive bias. They have also conducted research into fingerprint placement and longevity. Our approach prioritizes transparency and results that are based on the expert's own practical experience and their examination of the crime scene print before being influenced by external factors. Upon assessing our comparison findings, we are then able to provide insights into the 'activity level' of the fingerprint evidence. This involves examining how the contact occurred and estimating the age of the fingerprint. Such an interpretation of the evidence enables us to determine whether the fingerprint findings align with the allegations or if they are more consistent with the defendant's account of events. In past cases involving the longevity of fingerprints, we have been able to demonstrate the innocence of defendants, as their prints endured for many years after a prior legitimate contact with the surface.
