CLPEX Chat Board

What did you innocently touch 10 years ago that might come back to haunt you? My case study for a 10 year old fingerprint on a drainpipe in a theft case was recently published in Fingerprint Whorld.

http://www.keithborer.co.uk/news/view-a ... ersistence

I'm curious about the qualifications of the CSI that was making statements of fact; the one who

confirmed that the print was not in the paint but on the surface”.

.

I get asked (a lot!) if a particular item is worth submitting for latent print processing. Some of these items have included railroad spikes (rusty ones at that), wooden shovel handles, power cords from cell phones, etc. My response is always, "Well, there's likely not a great chance of getting anything, but we'll never know unless we try. It's up to you want to submit it. Keep in mind, I'm not a miracle worker and the chances will be pretty slim that we get something." But, I've read articles on the development of latents on rocks (the Israelis), and submerged tape (Evidence Technology Magazine http://www.evidencemagazine.com/index.p ... ew&id=1582) so I'm very hesitant to say anything about most things in terms of absolute fact.

I understand that as experts, we are expected to know a lot about a topic but anyone that thinks they know everything is foolish. No one wants to be wrong but the piece of humble pie that you have to eat afterwards might not go down too easy. Our reports are our words and if we are reporting that something is a fact when it can later demonstrated that it is not, maybe we didn't have enough information to begin with to make that statement. I think anyone should be willing to learn from a past mistake and be open to another interpretation but based on the statement the CSI made, it appeared that they were not open to any other interpretation.

I also seem to remember a similar incident about a burglary to a military base in Israel (I think?) where a latent print was developed on a window and the owner of that print was actually a worker who make the window before it got installed many years prior to the burglary...does anyone else remember reading that?

EDIT:

I just let my fingers do the walking. It was a college, not a military base and the prints were lifted on a window sill from the interior. http://theiai.org/member/jfi/JFI-2012-1-47.pdf

Hi josher89, thanks for your reply. I don't think the CSI's qualifications were ever an issue, I'm assuming that she had successfully passed the relevant courses in order to be examining scenes. Although presumably qualified, I think the main issue was the general assumptions she made when the accused provided what appeared to be a reasonable, albeit unusual, explanation for the presence of his thumb print.

I referenced the Israel college window case you mentioned in this case study. It reminds me of my own personal experience with a glass TV stand that I ordered a few years ago. When I received it there was a four finger sequence 'etched' into the underside of one of the glass shelves. The prints are still there now.

Simon

I think I was thinking what you said; not that she wasn't a qualified CSI; making an assumption out to be a statement of absolute fact seems to be a bit overreaching and should be avoided. I have no doubt that she was qualified to do CSI work; in fact I commend her on the fortitude she had to process the entire length of the downspout/drainpipe in the first place. I just urge caution regarding things that aren't in a person's primary job description.

From reading between the lines of the CSI's statement and notes, I don't even think she examined the entire length of the drainpipe, just the areas she could reach. It was unclear whether she examined the other drainpipe that the offender(s) probably did climb up.

You make a very good point about giving evidence on something that is not in a person's primary job description. One of the issues I raised in my report was exactly that; a CSI's job would normally entail recovering marks that are present at a scene. It would not normally include observing a person place a fingerprint on a surface and then examining the surface several months/years later to see if it is still there.

Hi Guys its been a long time since I was here!


This makes for interesting reading, it is a shame the CSI didn't bother to try to rub off the latent on the pipe, could have saved a lot of time and effort.

Here is 2 interesting links (thnx John T) though a practical step as above is probably sufficient.

http://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?tex ... n=40025958

or

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13550306

Hi Neville. It would be interesting to see what results the techniques mentioned in the links would give for marks such as the one on the drainpipe. These techniques generally seem to focus on the degradation of certain constituents of sweat whereas the mark on the drainpipe did not appear to be in sweat.

Hi Simon

I think your suspicions are well founded.