| Author | Message | ||
     Gerald Clough |
An article in the Jan/Feb 2004 Journal of Forensic Identification reported that results from experiments involving a variety of latent print processes on a variety of surfaces found that common processes in general and cyanoacrylate in particular did not appear to harm the optential for DNA recovery from surfaces from which DNA recovery would have been expected. Skin was not tested as surface, but it suggests that the glue fuming itself was not harmful. | ||
| d. castle |
In processing the scene of a homicide I fumed the victim with cyanoacrylate in effort to develop any latent prints. After the fuming process I noticed a very slight semi-circular abrasion on her right buttocks that I had not noticed during my examination beforehand. I took a swab of the area in case it was a bite mark. After DNA testing it was determined that the suspect could not be excluded as the donor of the questioned sample, but the ratio was somewhat low by DNA standards; 1 in 10.4 million. My question is this: Could the cyanoacrylate fuming process have effected the quality of the swab? |
