|Posted on Wednesday, January 01, 2003 - 12:39 pm: ||
Perfect, thank you so much!! :o)
|Posted on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 06:26 pm: ||
Because it is a birch tree, your adroit investigator has photographed the bloody hand print in place, made careful notes and collected the piece of bark for lab analysis. He peeled off/cut away that section of smooth, paper-like bark bearing the impression and breathed a sigh of relief because the bark did not split in the area containing the impression... and because the impression did not flake off due to the flexing movement of the bark. Before departing the crime scene, he uploaded a 1000 pixel-per-inch close-up image of the best fingerprint areas from the hand print (with a ruler/scale in the image) via his agency's radio-data link to their AFIS unit. Upon receipt of the file, the AFIS unit will immediately begin steps for launching a search against local, state, regional and national fingerprint databases including computerized fingerprint records of over 50 million persons previously arrested by police.
The quality/quantity of friction ridge detail present is not sufficient to enable an identification in the opinion of the investigator who had four-hours of training, twelve years ago, concerning how to collect latent print evidence. The investigator does not realize that if the surface is smooth enough to accept an impression, multiple blood enhancement techniques are available to enhance a bloody impression. The investigator uses fingerprint powder and a brush to make a futile attempt to "dust" the hand print so that his supervisor (and any news media watching from afar) will believe he has made a real attempt to recover identifiable latent prints.
Some crime scene examiners/investigators are excellent and will spend whatever hours are necessary to exploit the full evidence potential of partially visible latent prints on a relatively smooth surface. Many investigators lack the training to enable them to get the maximum value from latent print evidence. Still others have the knowledge and skill to do a fine job of recovering such evidence, but work for overworked and understaffed agencies where, unless it is a high-profile case, they are only able to hit the high spots of the evidence they encounter before they have to rush off to the next crime scene... the next crime scene where they will also have insufficient time to do everything possible to solve the crime.
|Posted on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 03:49 pm: ||
I am writing a crime novel and my evil-doer has left behind a partial smear/print on the trunk of a tree in the wooded area where the body was being dumped. The smear is in the victim's blood, of course. I am wondering what, if any information an investigator could get from it. Can a fingerprint be left on a tree trunk? Is there any other information about the criminal that such evidence would/could transmit?
Thanks for your help!