| Author | Message | ||
     Ernie Hamm |
It is not the fingerprint expert's 'job' to convince the jury. That is the prosecutor's responsibility. They do that with all types of witnesses and evidence and a latent print identification may only be a small part of the testimony. My contribution would be that the individual touched a specific surface. There may be some very incriminating aspects of that identification, like print made in/with victim's blood. However,that may also be challenged as to whether this occurred during the offense or 'innocently' afterwards. The circumstances on the significance of the print's presence is established by other testimony and legal arguments. | ||
| Megan Pietersen |
If you were called into a court room as an expert witness on fingerprinting, how would you convince the jury that the person you identified is in fact the perpetrator? | ||
| Mike in NC |
Sally, a quick answer to that would be that everything is evidence at a crime scene until you can prove otherwise. You photograph everything and collect those items that look/are/appear to be possible evidence. (i.e. cigg. butts, bottles, things dropped on the ground, etc) At a crime scene, most of the time you dont know what belongs and what doesnt when you first arrive. Thats why we look at everything, so we dont miss anything!!! hope this helps a little | ||
| sally |
how do ppl tell the differenece at a crime scene in what is evindence and what isn't |
