| Author |
Message |
    
Terri Part (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 148.186.4.102
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 12:43 pm: | 
|
Thank you for the speedy response. That gives me something to work with. |
Gerald Clough (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From: dell-ics1.oag.state.tx.us
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 09:37 am: |
|
That's probably what is suspected, that the marks are glove impressions. Fabric gloves pick up environmental oils and skin secretions, and impressions that are consistent with the kind of weave used in gloves is the tip-off that they were worn.
You can't be sure, of course, if it's a glove or a shirt cuff used as a glove or something else, but there are two types of potential evidence. One is consistency with a particular fabric of gloves found in the possession of a suspect or if the same mark is seen in other burglaries. Some latex and vinyl gloves have gripping surfaces molded at the fingers, and those marks might identify the maker of the glove. It's "class" evidence and merely shows that it could have been made by a similar fabric. If the portion of the fabric that made the impression had a flaw, either a unique manufacturing defect or damage, it might be able to identify the particular glove. |
Terri Part (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 148.186.4.102
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 05:24 pm: |
|
What does the phrase mean "I dusted the metal liquor container that had been removed from inside the dining room hutch cabinent for latent prints. I did not find any finger prints, but there appeared to be some impressions from fabric material. I lifted the fabric impressions."
Is this even possible to lift a fabric impression and if so, what is the conclusive scientific evidence (i.e. that someone wearing fabric gloves handled the item)? |
|