Home› A Moving Train

Court Proceedings Question

AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
I was conversing with an individual that claims to have a degree in law, he also claims that a fingerprint, including a partial print is evidence enough to convict a suspect.

I am pretty sure the prosecution will also need a motive and means. So, Suspect Name, Murder Weapon, Link to Murder Weapon (Fingerprint/DNA), Link to Crime Scene (Fingerprint/DNA) and a Motive.

A fingerprint proves a link to either the weapon or the scene, but that just raises more questions which I think is the point of dusting for fingerprints. Also to use it as evidence linking the suspect to the scene in a criminal court.

Any Criminal Investigators or Law Masters that can provide some answers?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    I'm not a "law master" by any means, but I do have a good bit of experience in the legal field, and my feeling is that you'd need an exceptionally talented prosecutor, and exceptionally bad defense attorney, an exceptionally unsympathetic defendant, and an exceptionally gullible jury in order to get a conviction based on nothing but a partial fingerprint. Having a lousy judge would be a big help too.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    hippiemom wrote:
    I'm not a "law master" by any means, but I do have a good bit of experience in the legal field, and my feeling is that you'd need an exceptionally talented prosecutor, and exceptionally bad defense attorney, an exceptionally unsympathetic defendant, and an exceptionally gullible jury in order to get a conviction based on nothing but a partial fingerprint. Having a lousy judge would be a big help too.
    I agree, mom. If I were on a jury and the only evidence was a fingerprint, that's called reasonable doubt.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    cutback wrote:
    I agree, mom. If I were on a jury and the only evidence was a fingerprint, that's call reasonable doubt.
    Exactly. It's a pretty silly hypothetical anyway, because there's no such thing as a court case with only one piece of evidence. I can't imagine any prosecutor willing to risk his or her conviction ratio on a case that flimsy, and even if he did, the defense is going to introduce it's own evidence, so it's not as though any jury is going to have to decide whether to send someone to jail based on a fingerprint and nothing else.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    I know, I'm not even sure how we got onto the topic. I think he was trying to prove that Sodom and Gomorrah was God's fingerprint.

    Well apparently the archaeologist that made these discoveries wasn't actually an archaeologist at all, he was a nurse or something. Real Archaeologists, even the Advent Archaeologists deny Ron Wyatt's claims.

    A buddy of ol' Ron's says he made it all up.

    An Archaeologist Professor from some university says it all BS.

    Oh well...

    The most common theory is that since the region is on a fault line that an earthquake opened a crack in the earth and the hot air shot stuff out of the earth, mainly sulfur and magnesium.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sign In or Register to comment.