I'm kinda sorry that this subject is being discussed on the thread, but because it is, I'll share my thoughts here.
I totally get the whole "latent" print language. The FBI unequivocally states that there were no latent prints found on the duct tape. I would actually be kinda surprised if there were, given the elements, time, & close proximity to decomp involved. But here's my thing. I was educated about patent prints while reading about the D Routier case. Here's a brief description from Wiki:
"Patent prints
These are friction ridge impressions of unknown origins which are obvious to the human eye and are caused by a transfer of foreign material on the finger, onto a surface. Because they are already visible they need no enhancement, and are generally photographed instead of being lifted in the same manner as latent prints.[citation needed] Finger deposits can include materials such as ink, dirt, or blood onto a surface."
IMO, it would be hard to handle duct tape without touching the sticky side. I, in fact have done my own little experiments in this regard. When I touch the sticky side, it leaves a patent print in the goo. Try it. I'm no fingerprint expert, nor am I saying how easy or difficult it would be to read this type of a print in duct tape goo, but I'd think that any prints in the goo would hold up to the elements better than any latents on the silver side.
You may well think I've lost my mind or I'm grasping at straws; and I know it's just a matter of semantics, but until and unless I see specific language from the FBI stating "no prints of any kind", I'm gonna hold out hope that they've got KC's patent prints from the sticky side! All of the language in all of the communications thus far re: fingerprints is heavily "latent" weighted. KWIM? Is it word games because the SA isn't ready to tip their hand in this regard? Because, to my eye, there is no outward evidence to justify the DP in this case, so for now anyway, this is where I'm placing all of my hopes.
