I thought DNA could give you a very high likelihood of identifying who was there, high enough that its substantial circumstantial evidence? Ie one in thousands/millions chance. But yeah, TV shows often tend to assume the government has everyones DNA on file, so from a DNA sample you can find the actual person (rather than just work out which one of several suspects that you already have DNA samples of it is most likely to be).
And yeah, the bit about using a cloth only makes sense if you are trying not to leave evidence yourself - ie you are doing something dubious you don't want confirmed. It is routine in a crime scene investigation to take fingerprints etc of all the people who should be there legitimately, and those of the police etc are generally already on file for this reason, so there is no good reason for police etc to avoid leaving prints if they are supposed to be there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 07:38 am (UTC)And yeah, the bit about using a cloth only makes sense if you are trying not to leave evidence yourself - ie you are doing something dubious you don't want confirmed. It is routine in a crime scene investigation to take fingerprints etc of all the people who should be there legitimately, and those of the police etc are generally already on file for this reason, so there is no good reason for police etc to avoid leaving prints if they are supposed to be there.