“They had already been processed for prints.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“Fingerprint powder had already been dusted on the computer and keyboard in order to bring out any latent prints.”
“Do you know who did that and when?”
“Yes. I did it myself on June twenty-ninth when I originally processed the apartment.”
“The powder was still there?”
“Yes, it was.”
“Did it show any latent prints?”
“No, it did not. There were several smudges on the keyboard, but not even remotely clear enough to classify.”
“But you photographed them anyway?”
“Yes, I did.”
“Do you have those photographs with you?”
“Yes, I do.”
When the photographs had been produced and marked for identification, Dirkson said, “That’s all.”
“No questions,” Steve said.
Dirkson then recalled Phillip Riker of the crime lab.
“Mr. Riker, I hand you these photographs marked People’s Exhibits Seven A-F and ask you if you have ever seen them before.”
“Yes, I have.”
“And just when and where was that?”
“They were delivered to me at eleven o’clock last night at the crime lab.”
“And what do these photographs show?”
“They are photographs of a computer and keyboard that have been processed for fingerprints.”
“Do they show any legible fingerprints?”
“No, they do not. There are smudges, but none of them clear enough to classify.”
“That is your expert opinion?”
“It is.”
“I see,” Dirkson said. “Now, despite the fact you say none of these smudges are clear enough to classify, let me ask you this. Did you make any attempt to compare the smudges in these photographs with the known prints of the defendant, Kelly Wilder?”
“Yes, I did. I was up all last night attempting to do so.”
“And could you tell us your results?”
“Certainly. I found a total of seven points of similarity.”
Dirkson narrowed his eyes. “Seven points of similarity?”
“That is correct.”
“Tell me, in comparing a fingerprint, how many points of similarity are necessary to make a positive identification?”
“There is no set number that is universally demanded. But it is generally held to be ten to twelve.”
“Ten to twelve?”
“That is the accepted standard. I consider it low, and always make an effort to find more points of similarity than that.”
“But it is an accepted standard?”
“Yes, it is.”
“Ten to twelve points of similarity are sufficient to make a positive identification? To say that one fingerprint compares exactly with the known fingerprint of another person?”
“That is correct.”
“Now, in this instance you say you found seven points of similarity?”
“That is correct.”
“Now, according to your testimony, that is not sufficient to make a positive identification.”
“No, it isn’t.”
“Fine. But let me ask you this. Is it enough to indicate a likelihood? Can you say, well, seven is more than half the points required, if the fingerprint hadn’t been smudged there’s a good chance I could have found the other three to five points?”
“Not at all.”
“And why is that?”
Riker smiled. “Because ten to twelve points of similarity is the number required for identification in matching a single fingerprint.”
Dirkson raised his eyebrows. “You’re saying that is not the case here?”
Riker shook his head. “Not at all. When I say I found seven points of similarity, I mean I found a total of seven points of similarity among all the smudged fingerprints and the fingerprints of the defendant, Kelly Clay Wilder.”
“A total of seven?”
“That’s right. And no two were within the same smudge. I found seven in seven separate smudges. Moreover, these seven points of similarity did not match up with one of the defendant’s fingerprints, they actually matched up with five.” Riker took a notebook from his jacket pocket and flipped it open. “To be precise, two of the points of similarity matched up with the defendant’s right index finger. Two other points of similarity matched up with her left middle finger. One matched up with her right middle finger. One matched up with her right ring finger. One matched up with her left ring finger. And one matched up with her left thumb.”
“I see,” Dirkson said. “Now let me clarify this. When you say matched up with her finger, you mean matched up with one point of similarity in her finger?”
“Absolutely,” Riker said. “I hope I didn’t give the wrong impression. What I mean is there was one, and only one, point of similarity between, for instance, one of the smudges and Kelly Wilder’s left ring finger.”
Dirkson nodded. “I understand, Mr. Riker. Speaking as an expert, what significance does this evidence have? Being able to match one characteristic between a single smudge and a single finger?”
Riker shook his head. “None, whatsoever. In terms of making an identification it is absolutely meaningless.”
Dirkson nodded. “Thank you. That’s all.”
“Does the defense wish to cross-examine?” Judge Wallingsford said.
Steve Winslow stood up. “Yes, Your Honor.” He crossed in to the witness. “Mr. Riker, you are rather quick to say this has no scientific significance whatsoever.”
“I say it because it’s a fact.”
“That may well be, but don’t you think it’s a fact we should judge for ourselves?”
“I’m an expert delivering an expert opinion. I doubt if the jurors have studied the science of fingerprinting.”
“Maybe not, but that’s still all it is-an opinion. It’s your opinion the similarities between the prints on the computer and the prints of the defendant are meaningless. Is that right?”
“Yes, it is.”
“But there are similarities.”
“There are seven points of similarity, as I have already stated.”
“Seven points where the prints on the computer correspond with the prints of the defendant?”
“That is correct.”
“Then let me ask you this: did you find anything to indicate those prints were not those of the defendant?”
The witness hesitated.
“Objection,” Dirkson said. “Argumentative.”
Judge Wallingsford frowned. “Overruled.”
“Can you answer that, Mr. Riker?”
Riker frowned. “The answer to that question would be totally meaningless.”
Steve smiled. “Yes, but Judge Wallingsford says I can have it.”
Riker took a breath. “No, there was nothing to indicate they weren’t the prints of the defendant.”
Steve smiled again. “Thank you. That’s all.”
“Redirect, Mr. Dirkson?”
“Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Riker, you stated you found seven points of similarity between those prints and the prints of the defendant?”
“That’s correct.”
“Let me ask you this. Did you compare those prints with the prints of any other known person?”
“Yes, I did.”
“With what results?”
“I found eight points of similarity.”
“Eight points?”
“That’s correct.”
“One more point of similarity than you found with the defendant?”
“That is correct.”
Dirkson nodded gravely. “I see,” he said. “Tell me, Mr. Riker-with whose prints did you compare the smudges on the keyboard and get eight points of similarity?”
Riker smiled. “With my own.”
There was a murmur in the courtroom. Judge Wallingsford banged the gavel.
“With your own, Mr. Riker?”
“That is correct. After I compared the smudges with the defendant’s fingerprints and found seven points of similarity, I compared them to my own fingerprints and found eight.”
“You found eight points of similarity between the smudges on the keyboard and your own fingerprints?”
“That is correct.”
“Mr. Riker, have you ever been in David Castleton’s apartment?”
“No, I have not.”
“Ever type on that keyboard?”
“No, I have not.”
“And you found eight points of similarity between your fingerprints and the smudges on that keyboard?”
“Yes, I did.”
Dirkson’s smile was rather a smirk. “Thank you. That’s all.”