<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Fingerprints</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/fingerprints/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:24:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Fingerprints aren&#8217;t proof</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forensics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Institute of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fingerprints]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Standard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYPD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13019174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite its aura of infallibility, courtroom claims of fingerprints’ uniqueness are slowly receding]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.psmag.com/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/08/PacificStandard.color_1.gif" alt="Pacific Standard" align="left" /></a> Scientist Nancy Knight documented snowflakes in 1988 while studying cirrus clouds for the National Center for Atmospheric Research. During a Wisconsin snowstorm she found two identical sets of snow crystals – identical under a microscope, at least – <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/13/1784760.htm">giving lie to the old belief that no two snowflakes are alike</a>. That aura of uniqueness also surrounds the arches, loops, and whorls at the tips of our fingers, and to this day most fingerprint examiners remain steadfast that no two fingerprints are exactly alike.</p><p>“Fingerprint examiners typically testify in the language of absolute certainty,” <a href="http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/all-faculty-profiles/professors/Pages/jennifer-l-mnookin.aspx">professor Jennifer Mnookin</a> at the University of California Los Angeles has written. But like many other claims for forensic science, the assertion that fingerprints are unique lacked a solid scientific basis and now is viewed with new caution.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/23/fingerprints_arent_proof/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
