Suspects Eliminated By
Fingerprints
Today fingerprints are fed
into a computer and finding a match or not isn't a laborious or time-consuming
process like it was in 1969 when the Tate and LaBianca murders were
investigated.
So, just how did they narrow
down fingerprints to streamline the process in the TLB cases?
The Henry Classification
System was used categorize the different types of fingerprint characteristics
that are made by friction ridges and furrows.
There are three main types
of fingerprints, loops, whorls and arches. Within those three groups loops,
which recurve back onto themselves to form the loops, are divided into radial
loops that point towards the radial bone (thumb) or the ulna bone (pinky finger).
Whorls form circular or
spiral patterns and are divided into four groups. Plain whorls are concentric
circles, central pocket loops are loops with a whorl at the end, double loops
that create an S-like pattern and accidental loops are irregularly shaped.
Arches make a wave like
pattern that are either plain or tented. Tented arches rise to a sharper point
than plain arches.
The palms of the hand also
have distinct ridges and furrows. Another type of print is the chop. The chop
is the side of the hand from the tip of the pinky finger to the wrist. The best
example of where you might find the chop is if you were to place the sides of
your hand on a window to block out glare while peeping.
No two people have the same
fingerprints, even identical twins and no one person has the same fingerprint
on more than one finger or thumb.
Here are the lists of the suspects eliminated by fingerprints courtesy of Cielo Drive. The second page is a list of law enforcement personnel who were at the crime scene.
Thanks Bo and Deb!
ReplyDeleteThere are the names of about 30 Sheriff's Deputies and about 15 FBI Special Agents who are on this list. Even an officer from the "SFPD." Did they all traipse through the Cielo house? I was under the impression the crime scene was a wholly LAPD show, so no reason for those other agencies to be there. Does anybody have an explanation?
Those are the agencies they got the prints from. Priors
ReplyDeleteBut why would the agencies provide the prints just for the officers and agents named?
ReplyDeleteStar, I think you're a little crossed up here. The second page contains officers or personel at the crime scene. SID eliminates their prints. Pages 1,3,4 are suspects. SID took their prints from prior arrests and eliminate them based off of those prints. The list tells where they got the prints. So far example, James J. Marshall was eliminated based on prints from an arrest in San Francisco.
ReplyDeleteWhoops! My bad. Thanks for clearing that up.
ReplyDeleteI am aware I'm coming from the left field here. Years ago, when I had a profession, I kitted out some temporary housing in north London. It was blinking marvellous for the homeless families who were due to move in. Overnight it was ripped off. I was heartbroken and phoned the Police. A chap turned up to take fingerprints etc. We got chatting and it turned out he was a top forensic bloke who'd worked on the Dennis Nilsen case. He explained to me how, from a tiny unburned patch of a rucksack, he'd identified a New Zealander, previously reported as missing. I asked why the hell, with his expertise, he'd attended a robbery in Edgware. He said "Luck of the draw Ms James, we're all on call". Incidentally, when I worked in Islington I used to drive past the Nilsen flat in Muswell Hill every night. I think that was the time Banksy's Manson 'Anywhere' was still about. Christ, I'm getting so old...
ReplyDeleteI enjoy documents much more than discussions. I don’t really know what to say about these lists in that they seem to generate more questions than provide answers; one step up and two steps down. I’m still glad to see them. Thanks Cielo and DebS for sharing.
ReplyDeleteThe second page contains officers or personel at the crime scene and SID eliminates their prints.
Looking at the list you can see normal inconsistencies such as how a name is spelled different between this document and the “First Progress Report”.
Two names are repeated.
There are 8-9 names on the list that are not reported in the Progress Report as being at the scene. Were they curriers or is the Progress Report lacking?
There are 12-13 reported in the Progress report that are not included in the elimination list. Maybe they got there after all the fingerprints were lifted?
The list does corroborate that Clements (and Hale) is a civilian and not LE, when compared to the Progress Report. The version of the “Fingerprint Analysis Report”, that I am familiar with implies that Clements is and officer:
“August 9, 1969/ 1615 to 1830 hrs/ Fingerprint Officers Dorman and Clements”.
I’m curious as to why Barrett(e) is not listed as civilian and why his employee ID is prefixed with “L-“ (as Clements and Hale’s are prefixed with “J-“)?
As far as the suspect lists go, why is Harrigan not on the list and why is Chapman on the list?
If Chapman is not a suspect but just someone who’s prints need to be eliminated, then the list is short for its missing others known to be at the scene recently. Such as the two lunch guests, the two gardeners, the painter, the trunk delivery man, the bike delivery man, Garretson, Tennant, Paul Tate.
Was there an LAPD investigator named "Barrett?" The only Barrett I know is the PO for Charlie, but there would be no reason for him to be at the crime scene.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Barett(e)'s name prefixed with "L-?" I don't see that on page2 where his name shows up.
The “FIRST HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION PROGRESS REPORT”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cielodrive.com/first-tate-homicide-report.php
under the heading
“Scientific Investigation Division”
lists
“S. Barrette, L-8631, Photo Section”
The document is inconsistent in that is some cases rank or title are prepended and others not.
Thanks for the info, Tab.
ReplyDelete--------------------
There is a 'De Leo, John Donald' listed as a suspect on the first page. I wonder if he is same person mentioned in Squeaky's book:
Reflexion, pg170 Late fall of 1967: Lynette describes how she, Patty, and Mary played prostitute for a day, via a pimp Charlie knew named Peter DeLeo in Sacramento.
The "prostitute for a day" incident was mentioned somewhere long before Squeaky wrote her book. I can't remember where I read it.
ReplyDeleteI read the "prostitute for a day" story a long time before Squeaky published her book and can't remember the source. Does anyone know where it was told before?
ReplyDeleteThis is a test. I'm trying for the third time to comment to the post titled "Tate Suspect List" there should be 10 Comments ahead of this one. I've looked under the previous post and couldn't find the one that once was listed with all the others or the one that I never saw there.
ReplyDeleteOrwhut,
ReplyDeleteI received mail notifications two times when you previously posted on this subject but they didn’t show up in the blog.
orwhut has left a new comment on the post "Tate Suspect List":
The "prostitute for a day" incident was mentioned somewhere long before Squeaky wrote her book. I can't remember where I read it.
orwhut has left a new comment on the post "Tate Suspect List":
I read the "prostitute for a day" story a long time before Squeaky published her book and can't remember the source. Does anyone know where it was told before?
I see your comment Whut.
ReplyDelete