Gathering forensic evidence is usually one of the damning processes in a criminal case. However, it is enough to turn a courtroom into a gaze. In an attempt to link the defendant to the crime, the prosecutor normally presents expert testimony on different forensic techniques, such as fingerprints comparison, DNA analysis, bit marks, and lip print. When presenting this forensic evidence, the prosecutor testifies that a characteristic associated with one sample from the crime scene matches another characteristic of a sample taken from a defendant. To make this forensic evidence valid, they must be diagnosed thoroughly and proved to be reliable (Saks et al, 2008).
Forensic evidence usually uses an array of evidence to crate individualization fallacy. The major patterns that are used to create this fallacy include fingerprints, DNA analysis, Lip prints, palm prints, bite marks, and firearm evidence. These sets of elements enable both the judges and the parties involved to assert a definite conclusion regarding the case and develop relevant measures. Empirical research demonstrates that most of the experts commit an array of errors when interpreting the probabilistic evidence associated with these criminal elements. These errors are approximately 0.1-0.001% in most cases. These errors demonstrated that to capture the criminal is not merely a hypothetical construct, but an important procedure that requires high skills (Craft, 2007).
In conclusion, palm prints, lip prints, and bite marks are not enough to create valid forensic evidences. Therefore, the proper application of the forensic technique by the experts requires a reliable frequency estimate for them to be regarded as relevant. The characteristics must be curtained to be substantially independent to one another in order to be a prospect in a valid court.
Craft, K. J., Owens, J. D., & Ashley, M. V. (2007). Application of plant DNA markers in forensic botany: Genetic comparison of quercus evidence leaves to crime scene trees using microsatellites. Forensic Science International (Online), 165(1), 64-70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.03.002
Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2008). The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1), 197-219. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198908396?accountid=1611