1287 users online (232 members and 1055 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 130
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    small town, VA
    Posts
    1,814

    fingerprints and pubic hairs

    I have a few questions:
    When LE says, not just in Darlie's case, that a print is unidentified does that mean the print isn't clear enough to tell anything or does it mean they can't match them? People always make a big deal about inidentified fingerprints and how important that is. I'm guessing a bloody fingerprint that can be clearly examined, but doesn't match anyone related to the crime is important, but not just any ol' print. Also how important is it if bloody partial or clear fingerprints which cannot be matched to anyone at all, including data bases? I've heard them called "phantom prints"
    Where was the pubic hair found in the Routier's house?
    Have at it girls
    Beesy Was Here

    So I held my head up high
    Hiding hate that burns inside
    Which only fuels their selfish pride
    We're all held captive
    Out from the sun
    A sun that shines on only some
    We the meek are all in one
    Creed
    My Own Prison


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,189
    Quote Originally Posted by beesy
    I have a few questions:
    When LE says, not just in Darlie's case, that a print is unidentified does that mean the print isn't clear enough to tell anything or does it mean they can't match them? People always make a big deal about inidentified fingerprints and how important that is. I'm guessing a bloody fingerprint that can be clearly examined, but doesn't match anyone related to the crime is important, but not just any ol' print. Also how important is it if bloody partial or clear fingerprints which cannot be matched to anyone at all, including data bases? I've heard them called "phantom prints"
    Where was the pubic hair found in the Routier's house?
    Have at it girls
    ok..heres j2m honest side--- what pubic hair?
    i have the same questions you do on the prints beesy- are they "smudged" or just not able to id---

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by beesy
    I have a few questions:
    When LE says, not just in Darlie's case, that a print is unidentified does that mean the print isn't clear enough to tell anything or does it mean they can't match them?
    Unidentifiable means they can't identify it. There are probably several reasons that might apply. One might be that they can't get a match because the fingerprint belongs to a person who is not in the system. Another reason might be that there are not enough points to enter it into the system to look for a match. It is called a "partial print." Anything more than this someone else will have to answer.

    In Darlie's case, the bloody fingerprint was smudged so they didn't have enough points to enter it into the system. However, it can be used to rule people out just based on what is there and clearly visible. As I understand it,there are two basic patterns. One is a swirl and I forget what the other is called. If you have a partial print with a swirl pattern, you can rule people out who have the other pattern. That is why she can't be ruled out. The bloody print is a swirl pattern and Darlie's ring finger is also a whirl pattern. If I recall correctly, Darin and the boys were ruled out because they don't have a whirl pattern, with the exception of Devon and he was ruled out because the blood evidence shows that he was never up and moving around after he was stabbed. Besides, the print is small but is probably a small adult, not a small child. I do believe Jantz, Darlie's last expert, opined that it belonged to an adult. Someone else can jump in on exactly what Jantz said. Seems like there was something about an adult female in his report, too.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Goody
    I do believe Jantz, Darlie's last expert, opined that it belonged to an adult. Someone else can jump in on exactly what Jantz said. Seems like there was something about an adult female in his report, too.
    Yeah, the basic upshot was that Jantz's use of the anthropological statistics showed that the print was twice as likely to belong to an adult female than to an adult male.

    It's important to remember that his study wasn't based on comparing points of ID in the fingerprint but measuring the ridges etc and comparing it to a sample group. I remember going through it with a fine tooth comb a few years back and being somewhat skeptical about the sample groupings etc.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T
    It's important to remember that his study wasn't based on comparing points of ID in the fingerprint but measuring the ridges etc and comparing it to a sample group. I remember going through it with a fine tooth comb a few years back and being somewhat skeptical about the sample groupings etc.
    Really? Do you remember why? Jantz is quite reputable, I think.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by j2mirish
    ok..heres j2m honest side--- what pubic hair?
    -
    There was an unidentified pubic hair found. I can't remember where it was found, but it is not unusual for unidentified hairs to pop up in a crime scene like that. Its presence does not automatically make it connected to the case. Someone, anyone, even family members could have tracked it into the house on their shoes. Good Lord knows we track in a lot more than that around here, esp if my critters have anything to say about it. LOL!

    The point is the hair cannot be matched to any of the known pubic hair donors, which probably only consists of Darlie and Darin in this case. Since the defense did not do testing of their own, we do not have a wider circle to compare it to. Like did it match Dana or her other family members, or any of Darlie's friends and neighbors known to be in the house, etc.?

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    outside a classroom
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Goody
    As I understand it,there are two basic patterns. One is a swirl and I forget what the other is called. If you have a partial print with a swirl pattern, you can rule people out who have the other pattern. That is why she can't be ruled out. The bloody print is a swirl pattern and Darlie's ring finger is also a whirl pattern.
    Loop, whorl (or swirl) and arch are the three types. Here is a good link:

    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/takingfps.html

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Goody
    Really? Do you remember why? Jantz is quite reputable, I think.
    Oh I have no doubt he is quite reputable. I'm sure he is very good at what he does (I actually contacted him at one stage and he took the time to respond to me to let me know he was going to speak to his legal representation to see if he was at liberty to talk about it - but he must not have been able to because he didn't get back to me after that. I'm just grateful he even bothered to take the time to respond to me in the first place).

    Here is the link to the post I wrote ages ago at GAC when I first looked at Jantz's affidavit. http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/...rged&msg=948.1

    This is worth a read for anyone who is wondering about the relevance of Jantz's findings for this case (because the defense have consistently misrepresented his findings)

    This is part of what I wrote in the post about the sample groups

    - Again what the defense does not mention is that Janzís sample groups
    * was not a consistent group across all three aspects of comparison
    * varied in number depending on which aspect of comparison he was looking at
    * that the number of females was ALWAYS less than the number of men or children
    * that one of the samples consisted of 35 Men, 18 Women and 28 Children when by comparison this other sample group from another study which indicated a significant disparity between the results of the female probability consisted of 1000 men

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Goody
    There was an unidentified pubic hair found. I can't remember where it was found, but it is not unusual for unidentified hairs to pop up in a crime scene like that. Its presence does not automatically make it connected to the case. Someone, anyone, even family members could have tracked it into the house on their shoes. Good Lord knows we track in a lot more than that around here, esp if my critters have anything to say about it. LOL!

    The point is the hair cannot be matched to any of the known pubic hair donors, which probably only consists of Darlie and Darin in this case. Since the defense did not do testing of their own, we do not have a wider circle to compare it to. Like did it match Dana or her other family members, or any of Darlie's friends and neighbors known to be in the house, etc.?
    thanks-

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T
    Oh I have no doubt he is quite reputable. I'm sure he is very good at what he does (I actually contacted him at one stage and he took the time to respond to me to let me know he was going to speak to his legal representation to see if he was at liberty to talk about it - but he must not have been able to because he didn't get back to me after that. I'm just grateful he even bothered to take the time to respond to me in the first place).

    Here is the link to the post I wrote ages ago at GAC when I first looked at Jantz's affidavit. http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/...rged&msg=948.1

    This is worth a read for anyone who is wondering about the relevance of Jantz's findings for this case (because the defense have consistently misrepresented his findings)

    This is part of what I wrote in the post about the sample groups
    Okay, Dani, break it down it simple terms for us. Are you saying you don't trust his sample groups and therefore his findings are thrown off or what?

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by StareGirl
    Loop, whorl (or swirl) and arch are the three types. Here is a good link:

    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/takingfps.html
    Cool, SG. Thanks.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Goody
    Okay, Dani, break it down it simple terms for us. Are you saying you don't trust his sample groups and therefore his findings are thrown off or what?
    I'm not a scientist and haven't much experience with sample groups etc so I'm not sure what it all means.

    All I'm saying is that a sample group of 18 females seems a VERY small sample on which to base any scientific study. What's interesting is that when the print was compared with that sample group it had a pretty small probability of belonging to a female (20.4%) whereas when the same measurements were compared with the much larger sample group (500 females) the probability of it belonging to a female was 47.5%. That is, when he drew on the much larger sample the probability of it belonging to a female more than doubled.

    That suggests to me that the probablity is that if Jantz's sample group had been significantly larger than a mere 18 females (also in the case of another measurment he did with only 21 females) that the probability of the print belonging to a female would have been increased.

    In hope that makes sense?

    The fact that the number of females in the sample groups was ALWAYS less than the number of men and children is also unfortunate.

    And I'll repeat something else I wrote on that thread (I had fun rereading it and laughing at Teary's responses!)- what I want to know is why Jantz didn't compare the measurements of Darlie's print to the bloody print. They had to go to a fair amount of trouble to get the boys prints but hers were right there on file and they could have had Jantz measure the prints to show it was inconsistent with Darlie's. Perhaps they did do that but he didn't publish it in his findings at their request?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652

    Jantz

    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T
    I'm not a scientist and haven't much experience with sample groups etc so I'm not sure what it all means.

    All I'm saying is that a sample group of 18 females seems a VERY small sample on which to base any scientific study. What's interesting is that when the print was compared with that sample group it had a pretty small probability of belonging to a female (20.4%) whereas when the same measurements were compared with the much larger sample group (500 females) the probability of it belonging to a female was 47.5%. That is, when he drew on the much larger sample the probability of it belonging to a female more than doubled.

    That suggests to me that the probablity is that if Jantz's sample group had been significantly larger than a mere 18 females (also in the case of another measurment he did with only 21 females) that the probability of the print belonging to a female would have been increased.
    In hope that makes sense?

    The fact that the number of females in the sample groups was ALWAYS less than the number of men and children is also unfortunate.
    Who compared the print to 500 females? Was that Jantz also?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T
    And I'll repeat something else I wrote on that thread (I had fun rereading it and laughing at Teary's responses!)- what I want to know is why Jantz didn't compare the measurements of Darlie's print to the bloody print. They had to go to a fair amount of trouble to get the boys prints but hers were right there on file and they could have had Jantz measure the prints to show it was inconsistent with Darlie's. Perhaps they did do that but he didn't publish it in his findings at their request?
    No, He specifically said his task was NOT to ID who the print might have belonged to. I think they knew early on that he would not be able to rule her out and they didn't want him to be put in a position where he would have to admit that she was probably the donor. So they specifically requested that he NOT try to opine to whom the print belonged.

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Goody
    Who compared the print to 500 females? Was that Jantz also?
    Jantz did the measurement comparison and developed the results but it was based on data collected for a different study.



    No, He specifically said his task was NOT to ID who the print might have belonged to. I think they knew early on that he would not be able to rule her out and they didn't want him to be put in a position where he would have to admit that she was probably the donor. So they specifically requested that he NOT try to opine to whom the print belonged.
    Ahhh but you see that he did do EXACTLY that with Damon and Devon- in the negative. He didn't simply compare the measurements of the print to unknown sample groups of children, men and women but he went detailed with Damon and Devon's prints to give the probability that one of the boys could have left them. He compared the measurements of the various points on the print with the same measurements from Damon and Devon. All I am saying is that if the defense is so confident that Darlie did not leave that print then why didn't they have him include her along with Damon and Devon to show us that?

    Of course I know very well why they didn't- because it was too darn risky. Which only undermines the whole endeavour and the prosecution could have a field day with it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Dani_T

    Of course I know very well why they didn't- because it was too darn risky. Which only undermines the whole endeavour and the prosecution could have a field day with it.
    And that they will if the occasion ever arises!

    "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy
    __________________
    This is the humble opinion of Goody Trugritt.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The 17 *New* Hairs
    By concentric in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 10:21 AM
  2. Two (2) Hairs
    By suepitzl in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-26-2010, 05:52 PM
  3. Japan's success down to pubic hair...
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-04-2004, 03:55 PM

Tags for this Thread