Article

2005-02-16 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-02-16 2:07:14 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ..and, when detected on a suspect, can conclusively implicate a felon.

Assuming the suspect, is indeed, the burglar. The question is, what if this person only handled the marked merchandise unwittingly? The marker fluid is great for marking items, but won't tell who the person is that actually burglarized the place where the item was originally kept. Not to mention the possibility that many more individuals came into contact with the item and/or the burglar and some of the particles in the marker fluid could be transferred via casual contact.

The Poms shouldn't celebrate just yet.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-16 2:47:07 PM|| 2005-02-16 2:47:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 While in the U.S., burglars can also be tracked and identified by another fluid. This fluid is cheap, plentiful, and best of all the bugrlars have to bring it with them.

Posted by (lowercase) matt 2005-02-16 3:17:57 PM|| 2005-02-16 3:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Within a few years of the popularization of fingerprinting in England, and the acceptance of its admissability in court, thieves in London were found to be wearing gloves with the fingerprints of a deceased man on the outside tips, twice impressed into rubber, so they would be accurate, and not mirror-image. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-16 3:30:32 PM|| 2005-02-16 3:30:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Finally Crazy Water Krystals have found their niche.

Posted by Shipman 2005-02-16 5:48:37 PM|| 2005-02-16 5:48:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Anonymouse> Why didn't they just wear ordinary gloves in order to leave no fingerprints at all?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-02-16 6:04:16 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-02-16 6:04:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Aris: they wanted to plant exculpatory evidence at the crime scene. Even then, police had developed detailed modus operandi files, which would narrow their search to maybe a half-dozen known offenders. So the expectation was that they would individually be questioned about the crime. Then their solicitor would point out to the police that someone else's fingerprints had been found at the scene. This would protect everybody with that m.o., not just the one criminal. It would also be very difficult evidence to impeach in court. And it was effective, if expensive, to do until the multipoint identification system of fingerprints was developed, which was accurate enough to detect a 'real' vs a 'fake' fingerprint. Ironically, in the US, some criminals tried to burn off their fingerprints with acid, which was not only horribly painful, but didn't work, as even if their fingerprints didn't "come back", their fingers still left distinctively individual smudges.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-02-16 6:37:59 PM|| 2005-02-16 6:37:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Ironically, in the US, some criminals tried to burn off their fingerprints with acid, which was not only horribly painful, but didn't work, as even if their fingerprints didn't "come back", their fingers still left distinctively individual smudges.

gave em distinct lisps when doing sign language as well. Embarrassin'

Posted by Frank G 2005-02-16 7:12:37 PM|| 2005-02-16 7:12:37 PM|| Front Page Top

14:02 Crerert Ebbeting3481
09:14 1233JEFF
08:49 1233JEFF
08:38 1233JEFF
23:59 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 phil_b
23:46 gromky
23:43 .com
23:39 phil_b
23:38 .com
23:37 Frank G
23:35 Frank G
23:30 Frank G
23:25 .com
23:24 Frank G
23:18 phil_b
23:13 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:02 Robert Crawford
23:01 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:59 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:54 .com
22:43 Desert Blondie
22:41 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
22:40 IToldYouSo