why would a murder weapon not be tested for prints
during a recent murder case it came to light that the knife used was not tested for prints, the male was convicted of manslaughter, the police say it wouldnt have made much difference, but when deceased's family as well as convicts family thing the police have the wrong man, why did they not check for fingerprints?
tracyh Fri 10/10/08 21:07
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
If he had said he handled the knife in the ordinary events of the day, it would be totally pointless testing.
That is one explanation. Or he may have said he found the body and pulled the knife out.
|
|
|
Question Author
the male has a mental disorder and doesnt remember doing this, is it possible to ask for the knife to be tested even if to ease our minds, his prints may not be on this knife!!
|
|
|
To answer your question properly, you need to understand the differences between the English legal system and that of, say, France.
In France, the system is primarily 'investigative'. That means that the police and courts have to investigate all of the relevant information and arrive at a conclusion as to guilt or innocence. If the murder had occurred in France, it's extremely likely that the murder weapon would have been tested for fingerprints (and for DNA).
However, the English system is 'adversarial'. The role of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is to seek a successful prosecution against a person they believe to be guilty of a crime. (Obviously, it's the job of the defendant's defence team to try to show that there's insufficient evidence for a conviction). While the police and the CPS are not permitted to withhold evidence from the defence, there's no direct obligation upon them to carry out any investigations which might help the defence. (Indeed, one of the primary reasons that a very senior Metropolitan police officer has recently been suspended is because he aided the defence of an accused person).
The adversarial nature of the English legal system means that it was the duty of the accused person's defence team to insist upon fingerprint and DNA testing to be carried out (if they believed that it might help their case). There was no obligation upon the police or CPS to seek such tests. (They obviously believed that there was sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction without the need for fingerprint or DNA testing. The court clearly agreed).
Chris
|
|
|
Or it may simply be that the Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO)attending thought that the knife would not yield any print of value.That could be because every mark was smeared beyond being usable for identifying anyone or that no mark was discernible..A print has to have a minimum number of identifiable characteristics before it can be used.If the SOCO can't find anything remotely clear enough he or she won't go on to test the exhibit..
|
Credit Card Consolidation | Payday Loan | Advertising | MPAA | Myspace Generators
