| Author | Message | ||
     Gerald Clough (Gerald_clough) Member Username: Gerald_clough Post Number: 6 Registered: 07-2008 |
I quite agree. If the impressions can, for instance, be determined to be that of a finger, and a less-than-sufficient quantity of clear detail can be reasonably situated relative to the finger tip orientation, and no such detail(s) can be found in the record, it is excluded. Rarely does anything that can be determined to be a fingerprint have NO value. It may support only the finding that the object was handled or handled in a particular way, but that is some information. So your example is "insufficient for identification" but may still be used for exclusion. I engaged in what may be a brief discussion of the different natures of exclusion and identification on the Clpex discussion board under the Bottom-Up Analysis thread this week. I don't know if it will continue. | ||
| Supersleuth (Supersleuth) Member Username: Supersleuth Post Number: 3 Registered: 08-2008 |
Would you label the following latent print insufficient? A latent print has a visible pattern but reveals insufficient characteristics for individualisation? My personal opinion is that the latent print can still be compared with known fingerprints in order to eliminate them. I know the old school way was that a latent was insufficient if it didnt have enough characteristics - regardless of pattern. I'm interested to know the current thinking in this dilema |
