seamusTX wrote:I would think the police would dust the rifle for fingerprints and test the boy for powder residue. That would prove that the boy had fired the weapon.
- Jim
Fingerprinting on guns isn't what TV makes it out to be. I've heard from forensics folks that pulling a good print off a gun is actually pretty rare, especially if it is maintained, making it inherently oily.
I had my van dusted after it was broken into. They had been all over the van, going as far as drinking a gatorade and a beer that I had left in the cooler in back from New Year's. They dusted the beer bottle and lots of other surfaces and got nothing, and only found one in the end... on the inside of the plexiglass vent window they busted into. Even that wasn't a good print. Also unlike the movies, they can't pull prints of most things. No paper, and nothing but smooth/shiny flat surfaces. Most of the officer's time was spent dusting my windows and paneling of my van. Very few of the interior surfaces were candidates for dusting.
Even if they did find the kid's prints on the gun, that only proves that he has handled it, which means nothing as he was instructed and allowed to use it. I still have trouble believing an 8 year old who had no indications of mental issues or other telling symptoms planned a double murder like this and carried it out with a single-shot rifle. It smells very fishy to me. I'm with stroo in my suspicions that he's a scapegoat, and there's more to this story.
