Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Fingerprints, and inexact science

The question that was sought at the turn of the twentieth century was whether or not fingerprints are really unique, and whether or not smudges should be used in court as evidence against a suspect. According to an article in the LA Times, Henry Faulds was a Scottish doctor who was the first to propose using fingerprints to solve crimes. But fingerprints have since been abused and misread by fingerprint examiners since.

Faulds was the first person to use a fingerprint to solve a crime, even though minor. Someone had broken into his laboratory and stole bottles of alcohol. He discovered a fingerprint on a vile, and discovered the burglar. In 1905, a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of an elderly couple. The fingerprint was a smudge in blood and there was no other evidence to suggest that the man was the killer. Faulds stepped forward and said that using a partial print to prove that someone committed the crime is not enough, especially to prove that the person killed another. In other words, just because a print was left behind doesn’t mean that person committed the crime. Other evidence should be presented.

Is fingerprints an exact science? The article addresses the fact that no one has yet researched such an assumption. It has been assumed that fingerprints are unique for centuries. In fact, ancient Babylonians would press their prints in wet clay tablets as their signature. But can these prints really be used, without a shadow of a doubt, to convict someone? Fingerprint experts conclude that their findings are exact, but we are humans and there needs to be room for error.

In fact, several agencies have been shut down pending investigation. The agencies’ laboratories are under investigation because of the wrongful conviction of several different people based on fingerprints alone.

What do you think? Are fingerprints an exact science?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-felch20-2009mar20,0,1810975.story

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Crime Scene Technicians

Nothing in life is better than one’s own experience. I have explained the different forensic techniques and the technology that is used by scientists to capture offenders, but I have yet to explain what really happens at a crime scene. This is where my personal experience at crime scenes has come in. Each crime scene is different, and with that, different techniques are utilized. Let me share my experiences with the real CSIs.

I have had the opportunity to attend several ride-a-longs on behalf of the Sacramento Police Department, and the volunteer program that I am a part of. The real CSIs are nothing like one may see on the hit show. These CSIs don’t carry a firearm, they are not dressed in high heels and slacks; these CSIs are dressed in a uniform similar to what police officers wear, and to top it off, they wear a bullet proof vest and combat boots. They strickly do the field work, but every once and a while they will process for fingerprints on items collected at a scene. They do not process for DNA, hairs, for bugs, and the like.

One is not sure what to expect at a scene: an un-cooperative victim, the suspect not in custody, police have already cleared the scene. When the crime is not a major crime, i.e. homicide, the police are very rarely on the scene. The only times there were still officers on the scene during my ride-a-longs was when there was an attempted murder, a murder, and a robbery at a restaurant; otherwise, once the police officers gather witness/victim statements and have cleared the scene, they will leave, and the CSIs take over. When the CSIs need police assistance, they radio for it.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pictures that are taken during a CSIs shift. There are more pictures than there us physical evidence collected. The scene must be documented, items photographed in place before collection, and any injuries sustained by the victim and suspect. Collecting evidence from a scene is an extremely tedious job. At a homicide that occurred in the early morning of November, the night shift began their documentation of evidence, and the day shift then took over. I was allowed to assist and observe how a crime scene was processed. It took the entire eight hours to document the scene (pictures, video, and sketch), collect the evidence, and log the items into the data base.

Even though the real CSIs may not be as glamorous as seen on TV, or be able to solve a crime in an hour, they are an extremely important part of the police division. More crimes have been solved since the CSIs have veered away from dual responsibility (CSI and an officer at the same time). It’s tedious, hard work, but someone has to do it.