|
|
|
Latent Fingerprints - One Year Later
(This article appeared in the October 1986 issue of Fingerprint Whorld) WENDELL W. CLEMENTS Los Angeles Police Department Are you able to determine the age of a latent print?" is a question commonly asked of everyone who has given expert testimony in a court of law. It can only be answered in the negative, unless there is an eye-witness who observed the defendant handle the object or area were the prints were discovered. There may be other circumstances that provide us with information to make an educated guess as to the age of latent prints, but that would be the exception and not the rule. The age of latent prints, fingers and palms, can have a strong impact on the outcome of a case, convincing a jury that physical evidence, latent prints, may be the deciding factor in the defendant's guilt. The issue has been a thorn in the side of prosecutors who have little else to offer as evidence. An incident that occurred in Los Angeles will offer no comfort to the prosecutor concerned with the age of latent prints identified to a defendant. In August, 1983, a Los Angeles Police Department latent print investigator responded to the scene of a church burglary. He developed two latent fingerprints from the point of entry that were eventually identified as the suspect's left middle and ring fingers. The suspect was apprehended, prosecuted and convicted of the crime. In September, 1984, a Los Angeles Police Department latent print investigator responded to the scene of a church burglary. He developed two latent fingerprints from the point of entry that were eventually identified as the suspect's left middle and ring fingers. Sound familiar? The suspect was not apprehended, prosecuted and convicted. Why? He hadn't committed the crime! The church burglarized in September, 1984, was the same church burglarized in August, 193, and the person identified to the latent fingerprints from the second burglary was in prison for the first burglary at the time of the second crime. Interesting, isn't it? As you may have guessed, the answer to the riddle is that the second latent print investigator, in 1984, developed and lifted the very same latent fingerprints developed and lifted by the first latent print investigator a year earlier. Placed over each other, lift on lift, the latent fingerprints fit like a glove, matching position-wise and in every detail. The only difference is that the ridge structure in the second lift is weaker, though clearly identifiable. It isn't unusual to develop and lift the same latent prints more than once. Glass and smooth, painted metal surfaces lend themselves to the possibility. In this case, the latent fingerprints were developed with magna powder on an interior wood door frame, and the time element is very significant in that more than 12 months elapsed between the first and second latent print investigations. The question is not only how long latent prints will remain on an object before development, but how long they remain after development and lifting, as in this case, and retain clarity of detail. Also of interest is another question: If the person convicted of the first burglary had not been in prison at the time of the second burglary, would he not have been charged with the second crime? It can be argued, and correctly so, that this situation has absolutely no bearing on the validity of latent print science, as there is no doubt as to the identification of the latent prints. We have the responsibility of testifying to our findings and conclusions, based on knowledge and experience acquired over a period of time. If we are to remain objective, allowing others to decide issues of guilt or innocence, we are charged with presenting scientific evidence in an honest and impartial manner. It is not for us to be concerned with the legal or moral questions of each case in which we are involved. Whatever the outcome, we have done our duty. (Editor -- Years ago I reviewed a case where the suspect was accused of two burglaries several months apart. Both burglary allegations were based principally on latent print identifications. The suspect admitted the first and adamantly denied the second. A review of the latents from both scenes revealed them as first and second lifts, three months apart. The same expert had conducted both investigations. During the second investigation, he recalled the first time he was there and examined the surface for evidence from the prior printing, no indication or evidence of the prior dusting and lifting of prints remained. The victim also concurred and indicated he had washed the window by spraying it with a water hose after the initial investigation. Besides the obvious caution this case provides, it is also significant as the second lifts were of a better quality in appearance -- even three months after deposition.)
This article was reprinted in "THE PRINT" 10(7), August 1994, pg 6 |