f*** i dont know
Forensic scientists provide expert testimony in court based on their analysis of physical evidence related to a crime. They may present their findings on fingerprints, DNA, ballistics, toxicology, or other scientific evidence to help establish facts or link a suspect to a crime scene. Their testimony is used to assist the judge and jury in reaching a verdict.
Forensic scientists use a variety of techniques, such as DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis, ballistics, toxicology, and digital forensics, to analyze evidence from crime scenes. These techniques help them identify suspects, link evidence to a crime, and provide scientific support for criminal investigations.
They are typically referred to as "forensic evidence" or "crime scene evidence." These documents can include things like photographs, maps, diagrams, witness statements, and any other materials that could provide insight into a crime.
Because if the glass has finger prints it shows up easily and then they can easily find who the assulter or maybe it has blood on it. There are many possible reasons why forensic scientists use glass.
Laboratory technicians in a crime scene are responsible for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting physical evidence found at the scene. They may take photographs, document evidence, process samples, and perform various tests to assist in solving the crime. Their findings are crucial in providing verifiable scientific evidence for criminal investigations.
f*** i dont know
The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.The police had linked the crime to the suspect with the new evidence they had found.
By attempting to cross-index them with fingerprint files and identifysing a suspect, or by matching them with a specific suspect.
If you have enough evidence.
The evidence that the suspect was at the scene of the crime includes eyewitness accounts, surveillance footage placing them at the location, and forensic evidence such as fingerprints or DNA linking them to the scene.
An example of indirect evidence is finding footprints near a crime scene that match the suspect's shoe size and style, but without directly linking the suspect to the crime. This evidence could suggest the suspect was present at the scene, but does not definitively prove their involvement in the crime.
The attorney's evidence prooved the suspect guilty of the crime.
Detectives will find evidence of the suspect committing the crime, and then put them on trial.
DNA evidence found at the crime scene can be compared to the suspect's DNA to determine if there is a match, providing a strong link between the suspect and the crime scene. Other evidence such as fingerprints, footprints, or personal belongings left at the scene can also help link a suspect to a crime. Eyewitness testimony or surveillance footage placing the suspect at the scene can further establish their connection.
a suspect in a crime is someone police think could have possibly have the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime, in other words a suspect is some who is believed to have committed the crime but there is no evidence suggesting it.
Guilt of the suspect(s)
Not necessarily. It would depend on how much other evidence there is. By itself, DNA on a cigarette only proves that the suspect was physically present at the scene of the crime. It proves he was there at some unknown time, but it does not prove that he was there during the commission of the crime or that he committed the crime. It is a compelling piece of evidence, but it would need to be accompanied by other evidence, in order to ensure a conviction. For example, if eyewitnesses saw the suspect's car fleeing the scene, and if bullets matching those used in the crime were found at the suspect's home, THAT, combined with the DNA on the cigarette, would probably be enough to convict.