fingerprints and pubic hairs

[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

 

[j2mirish]

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---

 

[Goody]

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.

 

[Dani_T]

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.

 

[Goody]

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.

 

[Goody]

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.?

 

[StareGirl]

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

 

[Dani_T]

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/message.asp?webtag=guiltyascharged&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 Janz’s 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

 

[j2mirish]

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-

 

[Goody]

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/message.asp?webtag=guiltyascharged&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?

 

[Goody]

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.

 

[Dani_T]

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?

 

[Goody]

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?

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.

 

[Dani_T]

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.

 

[Goody]

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!

 

[Goody]

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?

:clap: How sharp of you to pick up that. I hadn't noticed that, but then I didn't expect they would let him opine on Darlie. After all, it is pretty darned obvious what the findings would be.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I've been looking on here to see what happened to Darlie's attorney's request to have the DNA retested. There was a video on her site but for some reason video's take forever on my puter....they start and stop....wait.....start..stop.
I lose patience and just leave the site when that happens.

I saw where her attorney was requesting jeans, the sock, some other stuff to have retested. Just wondering if he was able to do it. I think anytime an attorney requests DNA re-tested it should be done. If it is retested it eliminates any question about it. I don't see what either side has to lose by retesting it.

I have been reading a book about Bakersfield CA and the crooked Pros and cops....the WitchHunt and Kern County vs Patrick Dunn are the stories that are covered. It is really scary the way that words can be twisted...evidence disappear...info not turned over to the defense, etc. The book is called "Mean Justice" by Edward Humes. I doubt that Bakersfield CA is the only place that things like this take place and it is all over looked. Scary to say the least.

 

[Dani_T]

I've been looking on here to see what happened to Darlie's attorney's request to have the DNA retested. There was a video on her site but for some reason video's take forever on my puter....they start and stop....wait.....start..stop.
I lose patience and just leave the site when that happens.

I saw where her attorney was requesting jeans, the sock, some other stuff to have retested. Just wondering if he was able to do it. I think anytime an attorney requests DNA re-tested it should be done. If it is retested it eliminates any question about it. I don't see what either side has to lose by retesting it.

I think the defense are still waiting for the evidence to be turned over for retesting. If you look at www.justicefordarlie.net at the news box on the right hand side there is a document relating to the issue.

I'm not sure though that the court has actually ruled that the defense should be allowed to retest...

 

[beesy]

Unidentifiable means they can't identify it

Very insightful....hee hee

here 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.

Ok, so that's a print they can analyze, but can't find it's owner. Meaning they ruled out people in the house and current people in the data base. Phantom print, which someday may end up in the data base.

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.

Ok, so there wasn't even enough to fully analyze. The Darlies love this because they can hang on to the fact that the print could not be run thru the computer for a match. Now suppose a print on the doorknob or door, not a bloody one, just a print was clear enough to analyze, but still there was no match, would that matter? Would that confirm an intruder had been in the house even though the print wasn't bloody?

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.

Ok, I sort of understand this.

Thanks

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think the defense are still waiting for the evidence to be turned over for retesting. If you look at www.justicefordarlie.net at the news box on the right hand side there is a document relating to the issue.

I'm not sure though that the court has actually ruled that the defense should be allowed to retest...

I don't have time to look it up now, but I believe the prosecutor's office spoke to this issue when the motion was denied. I just don't have the time to look it up today.