I would like to know the criteria by which the outside consultants and crime lab fingerprint examiners determined whether a print was sufficient for analysis. I would like to know how many points of comparison the auditors rely upon versus the crime lab examiners. Even better - on what scientific principal do either the auditors or the examiners rely on when claiming that fingerprints are "unique" or that what they do is even science.
If the issue here is that crime lab examiners were too "conservative" in determining whether or not there was enough of a fingerprint to examine, I don't have a problem with that. I fear that this audit may serve only to put pressure on examiners to "find" matches when analyzing fingerprint evidence.
See also: "Houston fingerprint lab problems prompt case reviews" (Houston Chronicle, 12/1/09)