On Apr 20, 2018, David_B wrote
(in article ):

On 20-Apr-18 10:43 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 20, 2018, David_B wrote
(in article ):

On 20-Apr-18 9:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Superfluous stuff snipped


Things have moved on since then with current advanced technology, so no,
what was used in that case was not ‘cutting edge’, just an opportunistic
windfall of evidence.

I appreciate your response and for the historical insights.

I personally believe that few criminals would have imagined that the
police could have identified someone from an online photograph of a hand!

The police already knew who their target subject was, the photograph of his
hand with the partial print was just another piece of evidence leading to
the conviction.

Agreed.

As for the stupidity of providing the gift of that photograph to the police,
the dealer was complacent, arrogant, and stupid. Think Dunning-Kruger
Effect.

Rather like Dus...

....and you just couldn’t resist degrading this thread into a TROLL for your
personal vendetta. I believe we have said all there is to say in this thread,
and there is no need to take it further.

--

Regards,
Savageduck