Fingerprinting Case

They first had to identify whether the body was indeed Tiernan’s or not and two days after the body was found, fingerprinting methods indeed determined that the body was Leanne Tiernan. Despite her body being found 9 months later, her body was still intact enough to gather fingerprints. Fingerprinting proves to be a critical method in forensic cases as no two individuals have been recorded having the same fingerprint, making it an ideal way to identify suspects or victims. Fingerprints are also individual characteristics making it nearly 100% chance that it could be traced back to a source. Getting something Tiernan may have touched can then be compared to a fingerprint(s) taken from her body. Fingerprints have ridge characteristics known as minutiae and can also be classified on their general pattern known as loops, arches, and whorls. Fingerprints also do not change unless damage is done to the dermal papillae, which makes fingerprints a powerful use of evidence. Extracting a fingerprint from Tiernan would require pressing a finger into an ink pad and then transferring the impression onto a card that would be examined by a professional. However, getting a sample to compare her fingerprint would require investigators to find a latent fingerprint (prints that are left on a surface which are invisible to the naked eye) of Tiernan. When we touch something, we leave impressions on surfaces due to the sweat and oil and as long as the

crime scene could be analyzed and compared with a sample from a suspect. A match could place

Technology in the late 60’s was insufficient to collect DNA samples from suspects, however, in 1998 Riverside Police collected skin samples from their only remaining suspect in the case. The results of these tests have not been released to the public.

Marieb stated (435), DNA fingerprinting can prove that a suspect was actually at the scene of a crime and establishes innocence.” Before the evolution of DNA fingerprinting, persecuting attorney and our judicial system depended on many aspects of reliable sources to convict a criminal. They depended on the eyewitnesses who were likely to recant on their statements, tampered evidence, and bias jurors. Presently, DNA fingerprinting have aided in exonerating hundreds of cases including Ray Krone, also known as The Snaggle Tooth Killer. He was exculpated by DNA evidence after he served 10 years and was facing the death penalty for a crime he didn’t commit. He was wrongly convicted of murder and the circumstantial evidence at the time was the bite marks they found on the victim’s body resembled his teeth. DNA revealed Kenneth Phillips was the culprit. He was the 100th inmate vindicated through DNA from death row since 1976. Even though, this is a fascinating process. It is not a perfect system. Similarly, fingerprints were used in the past, yet the current progression speaks for

The article that I found discusses how DNA evidence was used to convict a suspect after twenty years under investigation. The homicide case was recently closed on the rape and murder of Ophelia Preston, a 24 year-old female in Milwaukee County. Preston was deaf and mute and also suffered from a cocaine addiction, which led her to meeting Melvin Lee Jones.

For over a century fingerprints have been one of the most used tools of forensic science. Fingerprints have been used to identify criminals of small crimes

The use of fingerprinting as a means of identification was born out of the need of law enforcement officials to have permanent records that could determine if a convict had been previously arrested or imprisoned. Before the advent of fingerprinting, law enforcement used a number of different methods to try to accomplish this. Ancient civilizations would tattoo or physically maim prisoners. In more recent times, daguerreotyping (that is, photographing) was used, but proved to be less than reliable, because people had the ability to dramatically alter their appearance (Skopitz). As a result, this method too, became obsolete with the discovery of fingerprinting, an absolutely infallible

On the 22nd of August 2015 a young female in her teens was murdered at Austin Hospital. There were many clues found including: fingerprints, a driver's licence, hair, yellow fibres, a necklace, sum of money, and a syringe with fingerprints. All three occasions of fingerprints were made by the same person and the were on: a DVD case, a syringe and on a dish. The blood next to the patient and on the floor did not match the patient or any of the staff working in the hospital so the murderer seems to have visited from outside.

The results in this lab showed that suspect 2 was a match for the DNA found at the crime scene. This was determined by DNA fingerprinting. In this lab, the samples of DNA from two suspects and the DNA from the crime scene were cut with two different restriction enzymes and then the DNA was run through gel electrophoresis. The different restriction enzymes cut the DNA in different places, so when the DNA was run through the gel, the gel showed two fragments for each sample based on their size. The fragments shown are known as bands of DNA. These bands of DNA for each suspect were analyzed and compared with the bands of the DNA from the crime scene. The bands of DNA were compared based on the distance they traveled through the gel from the wells.

DNA Fingerprinting, also known as DNA Profiling, is a method used to identify a person using DNA patterns that are specific to him/her. 99.9% of DNA is identical in every human being, but .01% is enough to distinguish between people. It is most commonly used in criminal cases to link a criminal to his/her crime scene, but is also used for paternity/maternity tests, and immigration records. Usually a skin, hair, or body fluid sample is collected from a crime scene or criminal or test candidate, then DNA is extracted and cut using enzymes that recognize patterns in DNA and run through a gel by an electric current in a process called electrophoresis (Annely).

Fingerprinting is used for many things, such as a robbery, or at a crime scene. Fingerprints were first discovered in 1870 by Alphonse Bertillon, who was a French anthropologist. In 1892, Juan Vucetich had made the first criminal report using a fingerprint. In 1905 America used fingerprints for identification. When America started using fingerprints for identification they had to match the fingerprints manually when needed. When technology was able to enter fingerprints, and match them with anonymous ones, it helped identification immensely.

Fingerprints are impressions left by friction ridges present on the skin of fingertips [Champod & Lennard 2004; Mozayani & Noziglia 2006]. Each friction ridge contains pores that are attached to sweat glands under the skin. These ridges are formed in the dermal papillae, the uppermost part of the dermal layer, and can be found on the soles of the feet and palms of the hand (Figure 1.1) [Champod & Lennard 2004; Mozayani & Noziglia 2006]. The ridge patterns can be physically examined to determine points of identification when comparing a sample fingerprint to an exemplar. A detailed description of these patterns is provided by Lee and Harris (2006).

DNA fingerprinting is used in criminal investigations because it is a very effective way to find out

Every time somebody touches something, they leave behind a unique signature that forever links them to that object. This link is their fingerprints, which are unique to every person, for no two people have the same set, not even family members or identical twins. Palms and toes also leave prints behind, but these are far less commonly found during crime scene investigations. Therefore, fingerprints provide an identification process that is applicable to background checks, biometric security, mass disaster identification, and most importantly, crime scene investigations. Fingerprints are so differentiated because they are made up of distinct patterns of ridges and furrows on the fingers. The ridges are the “raised” portions of the prints, and the furrows are the “recessed” portions. This perceived uniqueness has led some people to falsely accept fingerprint analysis as absolute scientific fact. Although overall fingerprints are reliable, there are definitely situations where their accuracy can come into question.

For purposes of forensic identification in cases of law enforcement and other areas where human identification is needed, fingerprints have been widely acclaimed to be of an invaluable importance and has therefore seen a close to unanimous acceptance as the gold standard of forensic evidence where biometric identity is concerned. Recently however, as was rarely done in times past, the scientific foundations of fingerprint expert testimonies in court are beginning to be challenged [2]. There are some commentators who now query the scientific validity of forensic fingerprint identification. Reference has been made to