Mike Fletcher wrote:2. To provide evidence that the actual software is working correctly requires a software expert from the vendor company to be flown out from France. He cannot however testify that the prints match the defendant as he is not a fingerprint expert. The software is produced in France and then it is tested, retested and given an FBI certification which is globally accepted. Here’s my problem – are we expected to call a software expert from the vendor company in France for all disputed court cases in this regard?
I think the Prosecutor has his knickers in a knot over nothing. The technology is fine (I am on the same system). How many tenprint records are matched daily/yearly where you work? Surely you can baffle him with stats as to how many livescan forms come through and how reliable they are in reproducing friction ridge detail. Surely you have countless examples of the same crooks friction ridge detail being recorded flawlessly numerous times with this technology. You should see it day in and day out. Full sets of tenprints reproduced time and again with the detail correctly represented. I have no problem offering this evidence. Now if he is wondering about that specific machine on that specific day, surely you only need to check that full set of tenprints against a previous (if the crook has them) to verify that in an instant. Not even sure why he is concerned about this. I don't really think the software bloke is the bloke to give that evidence.
I don't think the Prosecutor needs to concern himself with "how" it works (ie, needing the vendor), just that it does. You can tell the court that courtesy of your experience IMO.