577
Charlie Kirk bullet analysis finds no conclusive link to rifle found near scene
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
577 points (97.7% liked)
News
36889 readers
3816 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Same with fingerprinting and blood spatter analysis. There is very little within the field of forensics that is backed by science. Fingerprints are not admissible evidence in many courts.
not anymore fingerprinting, a study came out recently how fingerprints can be very similar to one or another
"We're 100% certain the one responsible for destroying the eucalyptus bush is either you or this koala. Why don't you just admit it now and save yourself some trouble?"
*munches on leaves*
It was the koala!
Eats shoots and leaves!
The sinister panda that has been lurking around the scene of the crime chuckles to itself and capers off.
gangster koala
have you not heard what terrible beings koalas are?
I searched and couldn't find any information about fingerprints not being admissible in any courts. I've found a lot of stories about how they aren't 100% accurate (closer to 95-99 percent), but not one story about how fingerprints were not admissible.
Where are these "many courts" that don't accept fingerprints?
I seem to recall that the debate is more about partial prints, which are often all that's found at a scene. A "100% match" of a small part of a print isn't the same as a 100% match to the whole print. And even full prints can be of varying quality: the print can be smeared to varying degrees, or on a substrate that allows for diffusion of the print once it's made (e.g,, an oily surface).
Did you try?
https://science.psu.edu/news/barriers-use-fingerprint-evidence-court-unlocked-statistical-model
Fingeprints are not admissable, just some guy's opinion, because fingerprint identification has no real basis in science. Science is not based purely on someone's opinion. And no, they aren't 95-99% accurate (especially because it is just some guy eyeballing it), when tested by giving multiple "experts" the same set of prints, the "experts" come to disagreeing conclusions about if the prints match or not over half the time.
Oh, come on. You're just being pedantic. Fingerprints are allowed as evidence in probably every court in the world, as long as they have been reviewed by an expert. Yes, technically it is the expert's testimony that is the evidence, but that is the case with most "evidence." Prosecutors don't just show the jurors a medical chart and tell them to interpret that evidence. They have a doctor give testimony on why that medical chart means X, Y, and Z.
(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4008377/)
8% false negative and 0.1% false positive... so 92% accurate in that study. Just slightly better than your "half the time."
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/05/nist-study-measures-performance-accuracy-contactless-fingerprinting-tech
Computers can achieve 60% accuracy with contact-less scanning and 99.5% with contact scanning. A phone app can get 95% accuracy. Again, somewhat better than your "half the time."
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/history-and-legacy-latent-fingerprint-black-box-study
7.5% false negative and 0.1% false positive.
https://www.uclalawreview.org/reliable-application-of-fingerprint-evidence/
FBI study showed 99.7% accuracy, and Miami Police study showed 95% accuracy.
Partial prints are much less accurate than full prints, but to say that fingerprint analysis is so inaccurate that it isn't allowed in many courts is disingenuous. Expert testimony on fingerprint analysis is allowed in every court, which is what a normal person would mean when they say fingerprints are allowed as evidence.
There are points of similarity in fingerprinting, and every state has their own number of points to be a match. They all accept them as evidence.
You mean they bring in an "expert" to testify that the fingerprints match... and when you give 2 "experts" the same set of fingerprints to compare, they literally come to disagreeing conclusions in 50% of tests
It is not a scientific or analytical process with scientifically identified "points of similarity", its just a person who is deemed an "expert", who looks at 2 fingerprints and says "yeah these look similar, and they look similar in X different places so 👍"
There are the actual standards, then there are prosecutors perverting them. Prosecutors are the least trustworthy people on the planet. Total pieces of shit, no argument here. But fingerprints themselves aren't junk science as I've read, not like past hair analysis, blood spatter, bite mark analysis, 911 voice recording analysis, or any number of other junk sciences. As I understand it.
But don't let me dismiss your point out of hand, what gave you this opinion, did you read something as such, you have a source on this?