Direct Exam: Travis Vieux

He has been a latent fingerprint examiner for 11 years at the Miami Valley Crime lab and identifies unknown prints against a known source. The crime lab services most of southwest Ohio and has 178 agencies.  

He explained that a hidden or invisible print was called a latent print and it's made when a person touched something and the oil or perspiration on the skin left a print.   He primarily analyzes palm prints and fingerprints, but said prints can come from other parts of the body too. He often collects prints using sticky tape.

He doesn't typically respond to crime scenes and can't give opinions about crime scene analysis, but on Aug. 13th he was asked to come to the Widmer house and examine a bathtub.   He had been told it was the scene of a homicide. The tub had preliminary dust on it, but they wanted him to come and further evaluate it.   When he observed the tub in the bathroom he observed smear marks on the tub.

The tub was moved to the center of the courtroom for the jury to see and Harness went to the tub and pointed out 3 or 4 trailing finger marks as if fingers had been pulled downward along the back side of the tub. He made everyone at the scene wear gloves so they wouldn't contaminate it.

Besides fingerprint powder, there are other pieces of equipment that can be used to view fingerprints. In this case, he used the "super glue fuming process" on the tub and then used a camera and ultra violet, reflective imaging system which allows him to visualize fingerprints in daylight.

The camera has been in use for 5 or 6 years but it was new to the Miami Valley Crime Lab. They used it in the lab, but it had not been used in the field. He had to be trained to work with the camera which uses nightscope technology.

He explained to the jury about superglue fuming prints.   The fumes from the superglue, when heated, attaches to the residue in the print to make it visible, a white print.   But he said it was difficult to see on the white background of the tub.

He wasn't present when the decision was made to remove the bathtub from the home but he thought it arrived at the crime lab on Aug. 14, 2008. He used the Rubis camera again but couldn't see anything so he used fingerprint powder.   He then found a fragment print in the corner, a fragment print on the front right of the tub and on the bottom.

When he has a print, he has to determine class characteristics, and individual characteristics to warrant further observation but these latent prints were of no value. He wasn't able to tell who they belonged to or when they were put there.   Nothing further.

Cross Exam: Jay Clark

Clark handed the witness a pen and asked him to go to the tub and point out the prints for the jury while he described them.   When he got to the one that was documented on the front of the tub,

he knelt on the floor and said he couldn't recall where it was. "Can't you see it now?" asked Clark. "Not without magnification", he replied.

Clark placed a document on the overhead showing handwritten notes and a diagram and asked the witness if these were his notes to refer to later, and Harness replied "Yes".   He agreed that when he took notes, he documented everything when he was lifting and evaluating fingerprints.   He refers to these notes if or when he has to testify.

Clark asked Harness if, before he got to the Widmer home, did he know if the tub was secure? Harness said he didn't know what went on before he got there but the tub was in a clean condition and there were no items sitting along the edge of the tub. He remembered meeting someone when he went upstairs but wasn't sure who.

Clark asked if, when doing DNA testing he uses exclusion samples to determine whose DNA

it is or whose it isn't. Harness agreed and said that's how they also match fingerprints. Clark placed a portion of the witness's notes on the screen showing a diagram of the tub.  He then showed Harness a photo of the bathtub and asked if that was the condition of the bathtub when Harness got to the Widmer home--nothing sitting on the edge of the tub. The photo showed a few items on the back corner of the tub and the tub itself had very little fingerprint powder in it, but Harness couldn't remember if the items were there when he arrived. Asked about the marks on the back inside wall of the tub, Harness said they appeared to be finger outlines but admitted he couldn’t tell which direction the prints might have been made.

Clark showed Harness his handwritten diagram of the tub and where he found prints. Harness agreed it's not to scale, but is used to give a frame of reference later. Clark pointed out an "X" in a circle on the witness's diagram of the tub, next to the faucet which said: "LP of N/V frag N/L".   Harness replied that meant, latent print of no value, fragment not lifted. Clark then pointed out that on the notes at that spot, an arrow is pointing to an explanation written by the witness: "Print in a downward position, possibly left by an officer."

Clark then asked if he remembered Vieux asking him if other officers wore gloves when handling the tub.   Harness speculated it may have been left when officers were removing items from the tub but, "I can't say that for certain, though."

On the diagram from the other side of the tub, he noted that he couldn't tell if the marks were fingerprints or pads.  Notes on the diagram read, "Possible palm outline (no R.D.) frag N/L", which meant, No ridge detail, general shape and not lifted, he said.

As a result of what he found from his examination of the tub, he generated a lab report and Clark handed the witness a document to look over. Harness said in his report, that he found no latent prints

of value and there was nothing he could have done to enhance the prints. The report was sent to Det. Braley. He doesn't remember ever speaking to Braley.  When asked if Braley helped him with his examination, he replied, "No".

Harness said water may cause a partial print, but sometimes water will rinse the oils from our skin that make up a print. He said that the superglue process holds the print in place making it more difficult to destroy, but each circumstance is different.

Harness explained that there are three classes of fingerprints that need to be determined before examining the individual characteristics of the print. He said everyone has "arch-type" patterns in their fingerprints, but they all have different individual characteristics. Before he can compare an unknown print to a known print, he needs to have the same portion of the print, characteristics, and arch. It's not

always his practice to photograph the print before trying to lift it. If it doesn't have any value, he wouldn't photograph it because there's nothing he can do to make it valuable.

Clark put up the photo of the tub with the light dusting of fingerprint powder on it and Harness agreed it already had some powder on it when he arrived. He agreed that the latent prints would not be visible to the naked eye and that's why powder is used.  He said he sometimes finds footprints where he expected to find finger or hand prints and would then call in an expert on footprints/shoeprints.   Nothing further.

Re-Direct: Travis Vieux

Vieux handed him a photo and referred to it regarding the items in the corner of the tub. Harness said he wasn't sure if the items were removed before the superglue procedure but he would not have touched them or removed them.

The officers that were involved with the evidence all had gloves on; he didn't see anyone without gloves. Nothing further.