MovieChat Forums > Taps (1981) Discussion > Why didn't a fingerprint examination of ...

Why didn't a fingerprint examination of the handgun incriminate the boy?

posted 16 years ago by micaofboca-1
2 replies | jump to latest

The police investigation should have clearly shown the fingerprint on the trigger was not the General's, but rather the boy who grabbed the pistol. Gunpowder residue might have passed from the weapon to both of their hands, but the general never had his finger on the trigger. Of course the fingerprint might have been obfuscated after the incident, but the pressure necessary to discharge the gun should have retained a clear fingerprint on the trigger and of course the investigation would necessitate answering the question of whose fingerprint left the oily imprint on the metal trigger.

[–] Phillycop19046 16 years ago

Its very difficult to lift prints off of a firearm let alone one that was struggled over.
Unlike Hollywood and TV latent prints are very rarely developed. The swing in technology now would be to swab the firearm for DNA which back when this movie was made wasn't even a practiced technique.
In a study done by the ATF in San Fran-
"In the examination of 1,000 firearms from February, 1992, through August, 1995, 114 identifiable latent prints were developed on 93 firearms. Although successful recovery occurred in approximately one of ten firearms, it should be understood that not all identifiable latent prints may have been left by an offender. Some developed latent prints, for example, are subsequently identified as belonging to a person involved in the collection of the evidence2."
93 out of 1000 is better then my experience processing firearms.

[–] Stevicus-2 16 years ago

What's weird about this scene is that you can see the townie jump on the General's back, where he grabs the gun and shoots the other townie (who was the main guy who caused all the trouble in the first place). But then, immediately afterward, General Bache is seen holding the pistol. How did he get it back? If the other kid handed it back to him, then someone had to have seen it.