So, clearly my last poll was a bit silly. You don't get to pick and choose what evidence you get when you're investigating a crime.
The person who chooses that, you could say, is the criminal. So perhaps the question should have been 'which of these would you rather leave behind at the scene of a crime, if you were a criminal...'
I'm happy to report that 53% of you would make rubbish criminals. Actually, to be fair, most criminals make rubbish criminals, so perhaps that's not so good!
Anyway, from my perspective, as a copper... Fingerprints, brilliant. Mainly because we have a LOT of them on record, we can take them easily, even out on the street, these days, get a match, make an arrest, fantastic.
Footprints...well, excellent if you leave them. And lots of people do. Because none of us can levitate yet, and very few criminals carry a mop and bucket with them... however, a bit prone to being ruined by others. And we have to catch you to get a match.
DNA...if you're a convicted criminal, we'll have it on record, otherwise, again, we need to get you and take it, and it does take time. But still, a good find at any scene.
However, in the eyes of the law, one of these results is less reliable than the others...
DNA. Yup, it makes it onto every telly programme, and it's all the rage. However, a fingerprint is considered unique. A footprint is considered unique. (And yes, I am talking the sole of a shoe, here, not bare feet!) DNA...it's considered there is a 1 in 1 billion chance that the DNA belong to individual we match it to.
Obviously, we would hardly ever have to go to court with a DNA match alone. Once we have a suspect, there are always more ways to link to them. But out of those three forensic options, DNA is the weakest. Fingerprints and footwear are considered 'conclusive evidence'.
So there you go. Don't tell any criminals.
And give yourself a pat on the back if you picked fingerprints.
And which one of you picked footprints?? Well done!