- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,524
- Reaction score
- 3,115
Happy Anniversary Mrs. Hopkins.
Yeah, this guy doesn't seem professional at all.
Yeah, this guy doesn't seem professional at all.
He was a crime scene investigator that was lifting prints not a comparison print, he was certified by his boss and mentor. This guy doesn't seem like he is very professional to me atm.
I heard that - thought it was just a Southern thang. Bless his heart.He didn't even pronounce ' latent' correctly.
I heard that - thought it was just a Southern thang. Bless his heart.
I do love southern twangs. I think they are messing Ms. Waller is a more qualified to figure this out, she's had much more training and his training is outdated.
Ms. Waller did not discuss the results with him, just asked him to look. He is not coming off as a plastic/embedded latent print examiner. All he could do is not identify. He used a magnifying glass, not the correct forensic examination tool. So, how he can tell if it's a plastic print without the correct tools.
Item 22 is the office closet door. He looked at only three prints. Number 17 was 8th finger of the defendant and number 12 had no value. He used the same from a similar background.
This guy is an indigent defense expert! ROFLMAO!!!!:floorlaugh:
Give it up Tyndall, Item 22 was a plastic latent print from someone who painted. Trying to paint Rebecca Waller as not a professional latent print examiner who has had extensive training is ridiculous. She was very professional!
This is a private detective. Ms. Waller knew he was a private investigator and was there on behalf of the defense. He's worked as a defense contractor and always worked for defense for the past 20 years!!
WHAM ...eat that Defense!
Not following - what evidence are we looking at? Defense saying this is NOT the same photo, or what? Does she thing CSI Jackson lied?