{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01813110181311018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041841004184100415, 'mean_word_length': 5.243478260869566, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Fingerprint identification: how far have we come?

Fingerprint identification has been an accepted forensic discipline for more than 110 years. But how far have we come with respect to the interpretation and reporting of fingerprint evidence? Should the discipline follow the DNA lead and introduce mathematical models for the assessment of fingerprint evidence, with the ‘statistic' – the number generated by the model – then becoming the evidence presented in court? Further to this, and with respect to evidence that can be given a statistical value, to what extent are we meeting our professional obligation to ensure that the weight of the evidence we present in court is fully understood and not misinterpreted?