CLPEX Chat Board

The following is part of a news article from New Zealand:

A police fingerprint expert has told the Bain retrial that the prints found on the murder weapon belonged to the accused.

David Bain is charged with killing five members of his family in Dunedin in 1994.

Kim Jones, a police fingerprint technician, told the court the position of the fingerprints on the rifle matched David Bain's.

"They were sharp, sir, very definitive and fine. No doubt whatsoever made by the same person, namely the accused."

There is no dispute David Bain owned the rifle and his fingerprints were likely to be on it. The defence claim they got there months earlier when he was shooting rabbits. Jones says they were recent.

"These fingerprints have been placed with such pressure on the firearm in question here, they were so defined, so clear it could leave me in no doubt whatsoever they were of recent origin."

The rifle was found lying beside Robin Bain, David's father. The witness says it was covered in what appeared to be blood. He was also asked how the prints were made.

"The hand was slapped over the rifle...with considerable force and pushed in a downward motion," Jones replied.

He says the rifle was gripped tightly and the prints could not be made by simply picking it up.

I have never met Mr. Jones, nor am I familiar with his work or qualifications, but is anyone else bothered by his attempts to put an age on a latent print, then give testimony to that effect? I was always taught, and have taught, that the many variables found in the condition of the hand and the condition of the surface make it extremely difficult to provide a specific time when the print was left.

Since my only information on this case is coming from the press, I'd like to hear from Mr. Jones or an associate, if he posts on the message board.

Darrell Klasey

The only time I'm comfortable with attempting to provide "age of print" information is when I know, or can find answers to the variables.
I recall once developing (enhancing to be more accurate) a patent print on a vehicle surface outside the scene of a break-in. The print was impressed into overnight frost. I was prepared to testify (but never had to due to a plea of guilty) that the impression could not have been made prior to the existence of frost that evening. I contacted the weather service and obtained meteorological data which showed hourly temperature readings and narrowed the time frame when frost could have occurred on the vehicle.
Another example would be a broken double-paned glass window, with impressions on the inside (between the panes). This scenario offers no other logical conclusion than that the prints were deposited after the breaking of the window.
Similarly, cash register receipts are produced from a roll of paper or thermal paper and are usually date and time-stamped. Obviously fingerprints found upon such an item can be "aged" as no older than the receipt itself.
The testimony you have shared is indeed venturing into dangerous territory but, as you point out, is part of a news article - so that sends a red flag, in my mind, as to its accuracy. I would prefer to hear from the witness, as you suggest, before making any further comment.
TAS

Another example would be a broken double-paned glass window, with impressions on the inside (between the panes). This scenario offers no other logical conclusion than that the prints were deposited after the breaking of the window.

I think this falls in the "exception to the rule" catagory but I know of a case (sexual assault) where the print was in between the panes in a double-paned window. An IAFIS identification was made and the print belonged to a man working for the window manufacturer in a different state!! He was only guilty of building a window.

Hard to make too much of the news story. I note that in the first trial, there was reference to fingerprints in blood on the rifle and that some blood was human but that the fingerprint blood was not human. (Defense theory is that the father, whose fingerprints were not found on the rifle, did the murders and committed suicide.) I don't see that statement in accounts of the retrial, now underway. It may not have been quite so questionable to declare the prints "recent" if they were impressed in blood that "covered" the rifle. I'm not sure about the "slapping" and not being made by simple contact. I have a suspicion that both the "recent" and the "slapping" refer to the victim print on the silencer, the point being to infer that it was made during a forceful defense. Clearly, there's a lot of testimony, and the reporters are getting a bit lost in it and I think are now under some extensive gag orders.

Bain rifle was 'entirely covered in blood'

Bain trial, Day 30 update. By Anne Clarkson

A fingerprint officer who was given the rifle used in the Bain family murders for testing, said the weapon appeared to be covered “in its entirety” in blood.
Kim Jones said he found four left hand fingerprints on the right of the fore-end part of the rifle, and three right-hand fingerprints on the side of the silencer.
There were other points of contact on the rifle but they were unsuitable for identification, he told the 30th day of the trial of David Cullen Bain on charges of murdering five members of his family.
The four fingerprints were David Bain’s and he said they were sharp and very defined which meant they were applied with pressure.
The rifle was gripped very tightly and the fingers would have been covered in blood before they touched the rifle.
Only one fingerprint on the silencer was able to be identified and it was Stephen Bain’s. He said it was recent and was a pressure print.
When he inspected the rifle again in 2003, the prints had degraded and the outline of them had deteriorated significantly. The composition of blood is mainly water and that had evaporated to make them dry and flakey, he said.
A partial palm print in blood on the side of the washing machine was David Bain’s, he said.
The jury asked if the print was tested against Robin Bain’s print, and he said it wasn’t necessary to do that because it was definitely David’s print.

From another news source:

Mr Jones told the court he examined the weapon the day after the killings and found two sets of prints.
He was later asked to compare those prints with some taken from David Bain and found one of the sets matched perfectly.
Mr Jones told the court the prints on the rifle were David Bain's and that he had "absolutely no doubt about that". He said he thought the prints were made in blood and were sharply defined.
Mr Jones demonstrated how a powerful, forceful slapping motion down into the rifle would have created them and said they would not have been made by someone who had simply picked the rifle up.