Question about fingerprint evidence that I saw on a TV documentary.

[harmonica]

On the show they discussed how, a persons fingerprints can be taken from a glass for example, and planted at a crime scene, and the police would collect the prints but not know if they were fake. If this is true, then it could easily mean that a lot of convicted people, could be innocent. So if it's true, how come when the police collect prints, they do not analyze whether or not the perpetrator actually touched the objects, as oppose to the fingerprints being copied and planted?

[scott715us]

What show are you referring to? If you're able to lift a good print (that's readable), you're going to have a harder time sticking it back down on another surface, lifting the tape, and leaving it there in decent shape. Is it possible to do? yes. Does it occur often? he** no.

You're only taking one thing into consideration. Let's use this conspiracy theory for a second and say someone planted a person's print at a crime scene. If it's an identifiable print and the person is identified, we the police would do a follow up interview/investigation to determine whether that person was actually there or not (among many other things). The only thing that a fingerprint will do is place a person at the scene where the crime occurred. It doesn't mean they were there WHEN the crime actually happened. If my house was burglarized, who's prints are they going to find all over the place? MINE. Does that mean I broke into my own place? It's called circumstantial evidence for a reason. That's not to suggest that fingerprint evidence is useless, as I'm sure it's helped solve many cases, but it's only a small piece of the puzzle we're using to help solve a crime.

[retdetsgt]

I've never heard nor seen of fingerprints being "planted" at a scene. You would have to take an object with the prints on it already or cut off the fingers and take them to the scene to do it.

The act of originally lifting the prints pretty much destroys the ability to do it again.

What show did you see?

[Creeker]

...and the prints would be inverted if this actually ever occurred, and any decent analyst could see it in a heartbeat, if the Tech on scene didn't notice.

For the record, any print that is lifted on a scene and thought to be a "match" for any suspect is then compared with a hard copy and 2 analysts must agree - independent of each other- that they are a "match".

I am not even going to go into AFIS with you, because you don't need to know.

Sounds like a Defense Attorney is floating myths to confuse any potential jury.

[cntryboy0531]

I've never heard of that happening. I would think it would be impossible to lift a print with a piece of tape, and then reapply it to another surface. Tape is kind of sticky, and it sticks stuff, not releases it.

[JR180]

Even if that was possible I doubt that most criminals would be smart enough to pull it off and do a good job of it.

[txinvestigator1]

On the show they discussed how, a persons fingerprints can be taken from a glass for example, and planted at a crime scene, and the police would collect the prints but not know if they were fake. If this is true, then it could easily mean that a lot of convicted people, could be innocent. So if it's true, how come when the police collect prints, they do not analyze whether or not the perpetrator actually touched the objects, as oppose to the fingerprints being copied and planted?

Comma splice much?

The police do not "lift" fingerprints. They lift latents. Google the terms.