Thanks in the most part to TV, fingerprints are misunderstood by most people.
First of all, fingerprints don't appear on most surfaces. If they do appear, you need a major portion of the print to classify it. Even if you get a useable print, they are still worthless without a suspect to compare them to. Unlike TV, your local PD does not have a supercomputer to plug the print into and get a name and picture of the suspect.
And finally, the criminals watch TV too, and they wear gloves.
With that said, I do hope the catch these low lifes, and your mom gets her stuff back.
2007-10-15 11:22:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by trooper3316 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
You could call CSI Vegas or another TV show maybe they will show up. Life is not like TV. I wish it was. We would always get the bad guy. Only prostitutes and drug dealers would die and I could get into a high speed chase everyday. There are several factors in fingerprinting... Does the department have a crime scene tech? Do they have someone on duty that can lift the print. Are there prints? Many times you can look with a flashlight at an angle and not find the print. Prints don't stick n many surfaces. Especially those that are porous. Did the suspect wear gloves. If I look for prints and see a glove pattern I am done looking... There is not point to pull a gloved finger print. Another thing to do could be foot prints... How did they enter? did they kick a door? We get at least half a dozen a year by foot prints on doors or hard wood/ tile floors.
2007-10-15 15:20:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by wfsgymwear 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it is up to them how to go about solving the crime. Fingerprints do not work on certain surfaces or if too much time has passed. If you don't have a particular surface, then fingerprinting an entire home would cost a fortune, easily more than the heirlooms are worth. I know that on TV crime shows fingerprints are portrayed as the ultimate solution to catch the thieves, but it just doesn't work that way in real life.
2007-10-15 10:39:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
My guess would be that finger printing would not aid the investigation. Unlike TV fingerprinting is not usually a productive exercize as it is rare that a clear print can be found. Maybe the surfaces involvedwere not conducive to printing and maybe too much time and too many people had come through the scene to make printing useful.
The bottom line is the course of the investigation is determined by the investigator not the victim.
2007-10-15 10:45:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
IT IS NOT THEIR JOB TO FINGERPRINT EVERYTHING. MATLOCK AND PERRY MASON WERE A LONG TIME AGO.
THINK ABOUT IT NOW WHO LIVED THERE AND WHOSE FINGERPRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE HOUSE?
UNLESS THE HOUSE WAS JUST CLEANED BY MERRY MAIDS THAT DAY, ALL PRINTS WOULD BE USELESS TO TAKE.
YOU SAY THEY WENT INTO DRESSER? DRESSER DRAWERS ARE WOODEN AND WOOD WILL NOT HAVE A PRINT UPON IT UNLESS IT IS PAINTED NOT STAINED.
2007-10-15 10:42:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by ahsoasho2u2 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Firstly, you don't know what our job is, since you're not a police officer. Stop making the assumption you do. It's very irritating. I don't pretend to know what your job entails, or how to do it. Don't do it to my job.
Secondly, stop watching so much CSI.
Thirdly, if they choose not to, no, you can't make them, no they can't have to.
2007-10-15 11:19:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by trueblue3167 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
Stop watching CSI
2007-10-15 11:23:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kevy 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
same thing with me.I asked them to fingerprint my apt. years ago when it got robbed and they didn't. Those cops are never there when you need them. and when you don't need them, they are up your butt!
2007-10-15 10:18:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by moseymo5 3
·
0⤊
3⤋