CA Development "Signature"
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:34 am
Greetings;
Scenario: Cold case file with a fingerprint reportedly from an 'item of interest'. The print is now identified.
Problem: Was the fingerprint 'developed' on the item (subjected to CA fuming) at the time, or was the print a pre-existing 'patent' print with a 'white - ish' matrix ( ie, liquid paper, paint, etc. ). The original examiner admits that either possibility exists, that he simply may not have noticed the print on the item until after subjecting the item to CA fumes. It is the only fingerprint on the object.
Question: How would we conclusively establish that the fingerprint was, or was not, a cyanoacrylate impression?
I'd appreciate any thoughts.
Terry
Scenario: Cold case file with a fingerprint reportedly from an 'item of interest'. The print is now identified.
Problem: Was the fingerprint 'developed' on the item (subjected to CA fuming) at the time, or was the print a pre-existing 'patent' print with a 'white - ish' matrix ( ie, liquid paper, paint, etc. ). The original examiner admits that either possibility exists, that he simply may not have noticed the print on the item until after subjecting the item to CA fumes. It is the only fingerprint on the object.
Question: How would we conclusively establish that the fingerprint was, or was not, a cyanoacrylate impression?
I'd appreciate any thoughts.
Terry