von Gastleser » Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2026, 00:42:44
Heckengäu hat geschrieben: ↑Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2026, 23:52:35[…..]
Mit Sicherheit wurde der verbrannte, verstümmelte nicht auf Fingerabdrücke untersucht. Das ist für mich nicht vorstellbar.
[…..]
mutmasslich ermitteln können.[…..]
Stimmt, es soll keine Ermittlungsfehler gegeben haben.
Auf poröser Oberfläche, nach dem möglicherweise zweiten Treffen Brand noch einfacher nachweisbar, aufgrund der Russablagerungen.
Mutmaßlich:
„….. There are many indicators of arson;
multiple seats of fire,
use of accelerant,
forced entry, fraudulent documents, unusual fire development, unusual positioning of fire and the removal of sentimental items. Often DNA and fingerprints are most likely to be destroyed at the origin of a fire where the temperature is greatest. However, studies have shown that saliva and fingerprints can be recovered from gasoline-petrol bombs after explosion. Emphasising, that every scene will be exposed to different media and environments and therefore all areas of a scene should be considered for evidence recovery. In particular items likely to be in contact with the perpetrator and points of entry and exit. …..
[…..]
For both porous and non-porous surfaces light brushing is primarily used as a quick and easy method to remove excess soot.On non-porous surfaces that are smooth, lifting tape would then be used, followed by either the eraser for fingerprints baked on or sodium hydroxide (detrimental to DNA) if the soot deposition is heavy. If the surface is textured then the Mikrosil technique would be used. If a large area was to be covered, liquid latex would also be used.18 …..“
DNA and fingerprint recovery from an arson scene
Andrew O’Hagan, Rebecca Calder, 2020
Nottingham Trent University United Kingdom
https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/dna-an ... scene.html
Ein 2. Brandgeschehen hätte man mutmaßlich ermitteln können? Worauf basiert diese Mutmaßung?
https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400 ... 195055.pdf
[quote=Heckengäu post_id=355005 time=1784152355 user_id=9149][…..]
Mit Sicherheit wurde der verbrannte, verstümmelte nicht auf Fingerabdrücke untersucht. Das ist für mich nicht vorstellbar.
[…..]
mutmasslich ermitteln können.[…..]
[/quote]
Stimmt, es soll keine Ermittlungsfehler gegeben haben.
Auf poröser Oberfläche, nach dem möglicherweise zweiten Treffen Brand noch einfacher nachweisbar, aufgrund der Russablagerungen.
Mutmaßlich:
„….. There are many indicators of arson;
multiple seats of fire,
use of accelerant,
forced entry, fraudulent documents, unusual fire development, unusual positioning of fire and the removal of sentimental items. Often DNA and fingerprints are most likely to be destroyed at the origin of a fire where the temperature is greatest. However, studies have shown that saliva and fingerprints can be recovered from gasoline-petrol bombs after explosion. Emphasising, that every scene will be exposed to different media and environments and therefore all areas of a scene should be considered for evidence recovery. In particular items likely to be in contact with the perpetrator and points of entry and exit. …..
[…..]
For both porous and non-porous surfaces light brushing is primarily used as a quick and easy method to remove excess soot.On non-porous surfaces that are smooth, lifting tape would then be used, followed by either the eraser for fingerprints baked on or sodium hydroxide (detrimental to DNA) if the soot deposition is heavy. If the surface is textured then the Mikrosil technique would be used. If a large area was to be covered, liquid latex would also be used.18 …..“
[size=85]
DNA and fingerprint recovery from an arson scene
Andrew O’Hagan, Rebecca Calder, 2020
Nottingham Trent University United Kingdom[/size]
[size=50]https://medcraveonline.com/FRCIJ/dna-and-fingerprint-recovery-from-an-arson-scene.html[/size]
Ein 2. Brandgeschehen hätte man mutmaßlich ermitteln können? Worauf basiert diese Mutmaßung?
[size=50]https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9783415058873_A29195055/preview-9783415058873_A29195055.pdf[/size]