CLPEX Chat Board

That's a red flag! It may be true for the property room, but I find it hard to believe there would be no cross-reference index for victim and/or suspect names in the records section.

I'm quite confident that Boston PD is stonewalling the request, tho I'm somewhat surprised at the resistance after the lawsuite ended and Cowans died.

When this first came up, I tried to get the trial exhibits from the AG's office (which had them for its investigation) and got a few items and a letter claiming the rest (including the original trial exhibits that were, by definition public documents) where privileged investigatory material. I admit I haven't had a lot of time to pursue this, but various letters and calls to the AG, Suffolk DA, and Boston PD haven't produced anything since.

Ms. Steele,
The comparison chart that you posted can not be the alleged Cowans print because it's a match. It's most likely another print from the same case belonging to the people in the house where the assailant hid. For those wondering about the dark "V", the print is on a broken shard of glass. The "V" is caused by the refracted light through the edge of the broken glass.
To get a better rendition of the chart, open in photoshop, go to levels, use the white eyedropper to choose the backing card and let the adjustment be made. Then resize by resampling to 600ppi. Trace the ridge lines and that should get you past the "blobs." There is no deception here. It's a good ID.

It shouldn't be from a broken glass if it is from Cowans -- I've got a photo of the print, in place, on the unbroken glass. I emailed a scan to Kasey. I hadn't seen any indication that the glass was broken between being taken into custody and being processed.

It is possible that the reporter doesn't have the right image -- still no answer from him to a couple of emails about a better quality image.

One of the problems with Cowans is that there was never a public report in the fashion of the Stacey report or OIG report on the error. I've heard some stories in the news that the print on the glass was a match to someone in the house and that someone mislabeled Cowans exemplar. I've also heard stories that the court exhibit was a fabrication. We'll likely never know for sure until and unless the actual images come out.

Sometimes you need to step back from something to realize what it truly is. The latent print on the chart is on a broken piece of glass. Fragile evidence has been known to fracture while in evidence vaults where things are often piled on top of each other without regard for the contents. But again, this is not the Cowan's print because it is in fact a match to the inked print. It is also possible that between photographing the print when first developed, the glass broke. When prepared for court, the broken shard was photographed so the the jury would see on the chart what they saw when the physical (broken) evidence was put before them without an indication of careless handling.
Re: the Boston Police, it sounds like you are getting the run around.

Unless you have some special knowledge of what really happened, I don't think there's anything much that can really be said. We don't know whose print is the record in the exhibit. We don't know where the latent came from or how it came to look as it does. And we can't see the original exhibit or even a good image of it to judge if it is even faithful to whatever were the sources for those images. We can't see what was actually matched to make the arrest. And we can't see the elimination sets. I do not at all buy a scenario where the jar is processed and an impression lifted or photographed and matched and that it was then broken and a shard used for the exhibit. Although, given the habits of the agencies, anything is possible, that just sounds outlandish to me. I'm not convinced that the exhibit latent is a photo of a shard. But you could be entirely right. I wonder when or if we'll ever know.