Brush used to test the fingerprints on the bread knife questioned????

Hello all-

I have followed Darlies case for several years and in all of these years I have never heard anything about the brush that was used in dusting the bread knife for fingerprints. I found this video last night and was wondering everyone's opinion on what is said at the 26:45 minute mark. https://youtu.be/wPwHawRkilI

JenniferTx said:

Hello all-

I have followed Darlies case for several years and in all of these years I have never heard anything about the brush that was used in dusting the bread knife for fingerprints. I found this video last night and was wondering everyone's opinion on what is said at the 26:45 minute mark. https://youtu.be/wPwHawRkilI

Click to expand...

Both the prosecution and the defense questioned Linch regarding the possibility that the fibers on the bread knife were actually from Charles Hamilton’s fingerprint brush.
Davis: Fingerprint brushes, are they also made of fiberglass?
Linch: Yes, they are.
Davis: Did you obtain a fiberglass brush from Rowlett?
Linch: Yes, from Officer Hamilton.
Davis: Alright, did you compare the fiberglass that made up his fingerprint brush with the fiberglass that you found on the knife blade and screen also?
Linch: Yes, I did. The fiberglass rods that make up these fingerprint brushes are much bigger than the rods that make up the screen. So they are very, very different.
(Charles Linch, Sec. 3038-3039)

JenniferTx, I've been following this case since it began. As I understood this issue - which was brought up on the most recent show about Darlie's case, the same fingerprint brush was used first on the window sill where the cut screen was and then later on the knife block where the bread knife was located, so there is apparently some question of cross-contamination where the brush may have picked up a bit of the cut window screen from the sill and then transferred that bit of the screen to the bread knife. IF this is what happened, that means the bread knife may not have been used to cut the screen. In and of itself, this proves nothing either way except that the crime scene investigator inadvertently contaminated the evidence but then, there are crime scene photographs that prove that happened - such as the bloody knife being moved during the police crime scene photo shoot.

There were many items dusted prior to the knives after the screen was dusted--the furniture outside, the stuff in the garage, the doors. How likely is it that fibre stayed in the brush until it got to the knives? And why did it stick to only the serrated knife? A serrated knife was used to cut the screen. The fibre from the screen and the fibres from the knife were microscopically consistent and that screen was the only source of those particular fibres found in the home. There was no contamination, that serrated bread knife cut the screen. They don't dust the serrations of the knife.

As for the knife being moved, yes, evidence is always moved when processing a crime scene. They photograph, move, and then photograph again. That's how they found Damon's bloody print in the carpet hidden under a blanket.

I agree about the fibers. I would ask if the screen fibers were found on everything dusted after the screen. That would give you the answer and give it rather quickly. How did only the bread knife come up with the fibers and not every knife dusted in the block?

Also, how does any grown man get in and out through that screen without tearing it more?