Examination of Firearms Review: 2007 to 2010 - Interpol

that Process Statements do not really attribute the mark to a source; it is only stated
that the two impressions match, but how often this could happen in a population is
not assessed. Source Attribution Statements are considered to represent overclaiming,
while Identity Statements, which were less frequent in the 34 cases
reviewed, go against the principle that no two impressions could be identical. In a
later article, the same author argues that fingerprint individualization evidence
satisfies neither the Daubert nor the Frye admissibility standard (196). Mnookin (174)
argues that testing is needed to assess the scientific validity of a method, rather than
explanations of the premises and the methods used. She considers that to know how
a method works is less important than knowing that it works. An argument against
the usefulness of uniqueness and the lack of necessity for individualisation
conclusions in the legal system is presented in (175). A different approach to
uniqueness, individualization and identification is used by Kaye (181), who discusses
general and special uniqueness as well as ‘local’ and ‘universal’ individualizations.
The same author argues that very small probabilities of fortuitous correspondence
can reasonably be considered negligible (182). The author links this argument to the
way that all science works today: Some inductions which, according to both laws of
probability and Popper's writings, cannot be absolutely proven as true are,
necessarily, considered as such. This directly responds to Saks and Koehler, who
criticise the “uniqueness fallacy” which can occur when the frequency of occurrence
is smaller than the number of objects that exist (e.g. f*n