NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM

DID SCOTT DYLESKI MORE OR LESS CONFESS? FIVE LITTLE PIECES OF PAPER RAISE THE QUESTION: IS WITNESS DAVID CURIEL
A FLIPPER OR A FIBBER?

by Kathryn Dixon

On August 7, 2006 at 3:47 p.m. David Curiel was sworn and testified on behalf of the People in the Dyleski murder trial.  Dyleski is on trial for the first degree murder of Pamela Vitale in Lafayette California on October 15, 2005.  After days of murky testimony about DNA and time-lines, David Curiel was coming to the rescue of the prosecutor’s case.

He would present two devastating pieces of evidence.  First he would testify that he overheard Dyleski, make an admission, or possibly what would be considered a “confession,” to killing Vitale.  This admission was Dyleski's alleged statement, “Once they find my DNA on the body, they’re going to come after me.”   Additionally, David Curiel would testify that he found a paper in handwriting resembling Dyleski's showing his intent to murder, thus providing the modus operandi for a possible first degree murder conviction.  One of the pieces of paper stated: "Knock out/kidnap, question, keep captive to confirm PINS, dirty work, dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)."

David Curiel is a white male, age 39, 5’10”, medium build, brown hair and blue eyes. He is the brother of Fred Curiel who, with his wife Kim , owns the house and four acres located at 1050 Hunsacker Canyon Road.  Scott Dyleski and his mother lived with the Curiels, their two children, David Curiel and another couple.  David Curiel testified he works as a personal trainer and was working at the time of the murder as an “independent contractor" in Lafayette. the Curiels, their two children, David Curiel and another couple

David Curiel testified he was not present at the home on Saturday, October 15, 2005, the day Pamela Vitale was murdered.  He was busy coaching his only child’s football team.  On Sunday afternoon, October 16 he returned to his brother’s home.  He had been sleeping there on the couch since October 3, 2005.  When he returned Sunday, he became aware of “issues” that Fred and Kim Curiel were discussing. He did not “directly speak” to Scott Dyleski on Sunday evening. He testified he did not see any injuries on Dyleski on Sunday, but that they were not in each other’s presence.  He stayed overnight on Sunday and Monday.  On Monday, he saw scratches on Dyleski’s face and said, “Get bitten by a cat?”  Dyleski did not respond.

David Curiel testified that on Tuesday he was upstairs at 1050 Hunsacker and overheard Dyleski speaking to his girlfriend Jenna Reddy downstairs.  Suddenly Dyleski 's voice got louder and he adamantly made the point, “Once they find my DNA on the body, they’re going to come after me.”  He believed Dyleski and Reddy weren't aware that he overheard Dyleski.

David Curiel got up and went to look at Dyleski to see if he was joking.  David Curie testified, “He was not joking.  I tried to compose myself."  He testified sarcastically, “I was a little shocked.”  He spent Tuesday night in Berkeley and returned to his brother's home on Wednesday. He did not see Scott Dyleski again until the time he was arrested.

If David Curiel’s testimony is to be believed, Dyleski admitted or confessed by implication that his DNA was on the body of Pamela Vitale. Both Kim and Fred Curiel's roommate Michael Sekkema and Scott Dyleski's girlfriend Jena Reddy have testified that Dyleski said he met a woman in a car while he was on a walk early Saturday morning.  This woman reached out the window and scratched his arm, Scott told them that he feared his DNA was under her fingernails.  However, these witnesses said that Dyleski did not say anything about his “DNA on the body”, rather" only under her fingernails."

Next Jewett addressed a piece of paper, allegedly written by Dyleski.  It expresses his modus operandi and mental state if, in fact, Dyleski wrote the words: "knock out/kidnap, question, and keep captive to confirm PINS, dirty work, dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)."

David Curiel testified he was present when the Sheriff’s department searched 1050 Hunsacker on Wednesday evening, October 19, 2005. According to him, deputy sheriffs searched several times on Wednesday evening and David Curiel was interviewed.

After this search, David Curiel decided to move into Scott Dyleski’s room.  He cleaned out the room in preparation for an upcoming party.. Dyleski’s clothes were all over the place.  He dumped them into bags.  He testified after he got Dyleski’s stuff out of the room, he came back several times to more thoroughly clean it.  When all the cleaning was done, only a bed and a dresser drawer remained. According to his testimony, Kim Curiel cleaned the dresser drawer before David Curiel repeated the cleaning.

David Curiel testified that in January 2006, the entire home at 1050 Hunsacker Road was cleaned for a party.

David Curiel had his own clothes and wanted to place them in the dresser drawer.

At this point DDA Hal Jewett left the subject of Dyleski’s bedroom and showed Curiel Exhibit 18-B, a black glove, resembling a lady’s long evening gown glove. David Curiel testified that Dyleski wore a number of gloves.  He wore a glove like that to a party. Dyleski also wore another type of black glove.  He dressed in a black coat, black clothes, with safety pins on his clothes.

Jewett then showed David Curiel Exhibit 18-D. He identified the exhibit as a black long coat, having a right sleeve with a safety pin in it.

Jewett presented Ex. 20, which David Curiel identified. This exhibit was out of the view of the courtroom audience. He also showed him Ex. 31, Item 13, a drawing. David Curiel testified he had seen something like it.

Prosecutor Jewett then returned to questions about what items David Curiel had discovered in the dresser,

David Curiel stated that on Saturday, January 28, 2006, he put his own clothes in the dresser.  According to David Curiel, no one lived in the room with him.  All the clothes in the dresser were his.  He testified he shut the door to the room when he was gone. He did not mention any lock.  On that Saturday night, he went on a blind date, and then came home and slept in the bedroom.

The next morning, January 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., he looked for scratch paper.  At trial Fred Curiel has testified that his brother was looking for scratch paper because they were speculating about sports scores and he implied his brother needed scratch paper to figure out the scores.  David Curiel testified he was looking for scratch paper, 2 inches by 4 inches which was kept around the house.  Fred Curiel had testified that he purchased recycled scratch paper from a friend, which came in irregular small sizes.  David Curiel looked into the dresser drawer for scratch papers and pulled out some papers, approximately the same size he expected to find.  There was writing on the papers and he recognized it as Scott Dyleski’s handwriting.

The prosecutor showed David Curiel, Exhibit 35 -- a piece of plastic, resembling a clip board with scratch paper clipped on it. David Curiel said he may have seen this in the house.  He added the paper in the drawer was different and the pieces of paper were not attached together.

Prosecutor Jewett showed the witness Exhibit 32-A – a plastic bag with pieces of paper in it.  The witness described it as the five pieces of paper he found in the dresser drawer on Sunday, January 29, 2006.  One of the papers had names and addresses, dates of birth and names of websites on it.  The name John Halpin and his Citibank account number topped the list of names. Three more papers had numbers, names and addresses.  The fifth piece of paper had bullet points. David Curiel read from it aloud: "Knock out/kidnap, question, keep captive to confirm PINS, dirty work, dispose of evidence (cut up and bury)."

Prosecutor Jewett made it clear before the court on another occasion that these five papers were not numbered consecutively or in any other manner.

David Curiel testified after he read the last or fifth piece of paper he discovered, he started screaming. “I ran to my brother downstairs and handed it to him. He read it and almost passed out.”

”What did you do next?” Jewett asked.

“I called the Sheriff’s office, and put the pieces of paper in a plastic bag. In twenty minutes the sheriffs came by. “

Jewett showed David Curiel, Exhibit 17,a series of photographs.  The witness identified them as accurate depictions of scenes around 1050 Hunsacker Canyon Road and identified Scott Dyleski’s room depicted in Exhibits H, I, J, K, L, M, N.  David Curiel stated there were more posters in his room before his arrest, than those shown on the photographs.

The court adjourned at about 4:30 p.m.

The next day, August 8, 2005, defense counsel Ellen Leonida cross-examined David Curiel.

She asked, “Where did you find the papers in the drawer”

“Laying one-half way back of the drawer.”

“You testified at the preliminary hearing in February that the papers were in the middle of the drawer?”

“The center. Perfectly flat.” David Curiel admitted the papers were not wrinkled and shoved to the back of the drawer.

Leonida inquired about how many people had searched or cleaned the bedroom before David Curiel found the five pieces of paper.

David Curiel testified the police had searched the bedroom and that that his sister-in-law Kim Curiel and Scott's mother, Esther Fielding had both been in the room and cleaned it out.  David Curiel stated the day before he found the five pieces of five paper, he thoroughly cleaned the room, and had vacuumed each dresser drawer by taking it out, vacuuming it and replacing it.

Leonida asked, “After all this cleaning, searching and vacuuming, the five pieces of paper appeared in the middle of the drawer on top of clothes?”

David Curiel admitted this was so.

David Curiel testified that Scott Dyleski did not write letters to him and he is not a handwriting analyst.

Leonida pointed out that on direct examination, David Curiel had testified he was living with his brother Fred since October 3, 2005.  She asked, "Did you tell Detective Goldenberg you were living there for three months (prior to Dyleski’s arrest)?

“I don’t recall Goldenberg. I recall Barnes." David Curiel replied.

Leonida quoted from the preliminary hearing.

“Question: How long were you sleeping on the couch at the Curiel residence before the arrest?

Answer: 2 months.”

Leonida continued. “You said you spent October 16, 2005, Sunday night at the Curiel’s home. Isn’t it true in January you told a detective you felt uncomfortable because the murder and spent Sunday night at friend’s house?

David Curiel denied it.

“Yesterday, you said you spent Monday at the Curiels' house. Yet you told Barnes you stayed with a friend on Tuesday?”

David Curiel affirmed this, stating that he left the house on Tuesday night because he heard Scott Dyleski’s “confession”.

Leonida probed, “Yesterday, you said Scott Dyleski didn’t respond to your comments regarding a scratch on his face. You told detectives you saw scratch marks on his face but didn’t ask Scott Dyleski about it?”

David Curiel said he wasn’t asked about Dyleski’s response.

"Yesterday, after the arrest, the bed and dresser were left behind after Scott Dyleski’s arrest. At the preliminary hearing you said only the dresser was left?"  Leonida quoted the transcript to confirm this.

“Question: (by Hal Jewett): The Dresser was only thing left in?

Answer: "I dumped out drawers, put them back. I still felt uncomfortable using the dresser because it was “their stuff” I saw skeletons when I looked at the dresser."

On cross-examination, David Curiel testified he first told the police about Dyleski's statement to his girlfriend, Jenna, on January 10, 2006.

Leonida asked him why he had not told the police before that date?

David Curiel testified that when he overheard Dyleski's remark on October 18, 2005 “I was stunned, taken aback, did not tell police, Fred,, Kim or anyone.”

Leonida asked, “So taken aback you left the house that night? You left your brother, wife and his 3 daughters behind?”

David Curiel admitted he left and slept elsewhere on Tuesday night without telling them about Dyleski's "confession". He testified that when Dyleski made the statement, Kim Curiel was in the bathroom. Then Kim and Dyleski left the house at about the same time. He did not tell Kim about Dyleski’s statement.

David Curiel allowed the police to go into the house at 1050 Hunsacker Canyon Road on November 2, 2005 to retrieve a backpack.  He talked to police on the phone on Jan. 10 and Jan. 29, 2006.

He kept that information to himself until January 10, 2006.

"You didn't call the police before January 10, 2006?" Leonida asked.

"No," Curiel responded." 

David Curiel tried to explain that he didn’t tell police because they didn’t seem interested.

Leonida asked if he resented the police because they did not interview him like they interviewed other members of the family.

David Curiel said, “I thought they (the police) were not interested.

“Did Mr. Jewett tell the police to interview you?”

“Yes.”

The testimony of David Curiel concluded.

The question is will the jury believe the testimony of David Curiel?

First, will they believe Scott Dyleski wrote the crucial piece of paper?

Is the handwriting on the pieces of paper that of Scott Dyleski.  David Curiel said it was.  However, Esther Fielding in her testimony on Thursday, looked at the five pieces of paper and testified, "This looks somewhat different. You'd have to talk to a handwriting expert. I'm not an expert."

Prosecutor Jewett has not called a handwriting expert to testify.  One anticipates he will and that Leonida will respond with her own expert. 

On Thursday, Contra Costa County criminalist Kathryn Novaes testified that Dyleski’s fingerprints were not on the piece of paper which contained the damaging modus operandi, but were on piece one, which contained personal data and account numbers of John Halpin and on piece three which contained numbers and data.

On Thursday,  Contra Costa County criminalist Donald Finley testified about taking items of evidence from the van where the duffel bag was found near the Curiel home and about his taking presumptive (that is not conclusively) blood samples from the van by using at Q-tip to swab any possible stains observed, and then applying two chemicals to obtain a change in color.  A change in color indicates possible blood, and no change in color, indicates no blood.  Prosecutor Jewett asked the criminalist if a paper taken from a plastic clipboard in the van was the same size as the five pieces of paper found in the dresser drawer. Leonida objected and Judge Barbara Zuniga sustained the objecting, stating “This man is not an expert in paper. An expert must provide more than a lay person can provide.”

Later, however, Finley measured the piece of paper found in the van and one of the pieces of paper allegedly found in the Dyleski's dresser with a ruler.  Both pieces were 2 15/16 inches and the paper from the van was 4 15/16 inches long and the piece of paper allegedly from Dyleski's' dresser drawer was 4 7/8 inches long.  Therefore, the jury could conclude that paper from Esther Dyleski’s van, where the duffel bag was also found wasn't the exact same size as the five papers containing the list of plans David Curiel allegedly found in the dresser drawer, thus the jury could choose to not infer that it was paper taken from the van.

The credibility of David Curiel regarding finding the five pieces of paper has been seriously damaged.  At the preliminary hearing in February 2006, he said the papers must have been lodged above the drawer somehow and fallen into it, thus landing on top of his belongings.  He also said there was a space above the drawer where the papers could have been caught until falling into view.  Or were they placed there on top of his clothes by a human hand that was not Dyleski’s?

The prosecutor has not produced the dresser and drawer for examination or produced photographs.  There is no explanation of how the papers could have dropped into the drawer from any area above the drawer because this area, if it exists, has not been shown or described. No expert has testified about this.  If the papers were jammed above the dresser, how did this happen?  David Curiel testified the papers were not wrinkled or jammed together.  They were loose.  It is open to speculation as to how they suddenly fell upon David Curiel’s clothes in the dresser drawer.

Finally, how could the police have missed the items in the dresser drawer when they conducted at least three searches?  The first search was on Wednesday night October 19, 2005, staring about 10:00 p.m. It was a search without a warrant to “freeze” the premises to look for the suspect.  The second search was on October 19, 2005, Search Warrant No. M05-342.  The return search warrant listed the following were found: duffle bag, computers, knives, bedding, indicia, paperwork.  The third search was on October 26, 2005, Search Warrant Number M05-361.  Law enforcement was searching for indicia, paperwork and receipts contained in a backpack and items regarding credit card fraud. The return on the warrant indicated “indicia” were found.

“Indicia” is a term often used in search warrants and refers to “indicia” for probable cause, that is discriminating marks, signs, tokens, indications and appearances including those found in paperwork.  Thus the police, per their warrants, wanted papers with markings, and that would have been a top priority when searching the dresser drawer.  It can be assumed that the law enforcement officers were experienced in searching dresser drawers with slats above a drawer where paper may be stuffed.

Finally, David Curiel shut his room when he left, but he did not testify he locked it.  Did someone place these referenced pieces of paper in the room?  Could papers numbers one and three be those written by Dyleski – there is other testimony he wrote names, addresses, and other data about credit information?  Could the last piece of paper he found, the potentially damning piece of evidence about Dyleski's modus operandi, have been written by someone else?  Did that person leave a print?  Whose handwriting is on that piece of paper?

As of August 10, 2006 no evidence has been introduced indicating that handwriting samples were taken from Fred, Kim or David Curiel or any other household members.

The testimony of the criminalist, did not clarify the issue of who wrote on the pieces of paper found by David Curiel.

On August 10, 2006 at 3:30 p.m., Kathryn Novaes, testified.  She is employed by Contra Costa County Sheriff’s department as a criminalist in the lab. She testified she was qualified to examine latent fingerprints.  She has a B.S. in criminal justice, 300 hours of fingerprint training with the Alameda County Sheriff Department and worked four years as a fingerprint technician in Alameda County.  She has also had training in fingerprint analysis with the FBI, and DOJ, and was qualified to testify as a witness in fingerprint analysis approximately 15 times in Contra Costa and Solano Counties.

Judge Barbara Zuniga ruled Novaes qualified to testify as a criminalist.

Prosecutor Jewett led Novaes through a brief description of what latent fingerprints are and how they can be collected from various surfaces. She testified that collecting prints from shiny, smooth, glossy surfaces was easy.  She also stated that it was usually possible to collect prints from paper because amino acids from the fingertips go into the fibers of the papers.  She testified it was, however, harder to take fingerprints from fabrics and rusty or bumpy surfaces.

Jewett asked her, “How long do fingerprints last on surfaces?”

“I don’t know,” she replied. She explained that that many factors apply to this issue such as the environment, and the fact that dry skin does not leave a good latent print. She testified the fingers regenerate amino acids constantly.

Novaes testified she uses the solvent Ninhydrin to take prints from porous objects. She uses powder, or dye, or super glue if the surfaces were smooth.

She placed the five pieces of paper discovered in the dresser drawer into a bath of Ninhydrin for three days, then looked at them and observed that purplish prints had occurred. She then photographed the purplish prints.

For comparison, she obtained known prints from Dyleski and using a magnifying glass compared them to the photographs of the purplish prints, side by side.  The prints could be run through the Automated Fingerprint identification system, AFIS which contained prints from arrests and bookings obtained from scanning.  However, she testified she had the known print of Dyleski. She did not indicate that she ran any of the prints through the AFIS.

Novaes was provided three pages of prints from a major case, that of Scott Dyleski and she certified this. She explained that major case prints contain as much of the hand as possible.  A sticky wrapping paper is wrapped around the hand so that the entire finger is fingerprinted.

Prosecutor Jewett showed Exhibit 28 to the witness. “Do you recognize this?”

“I processed this. It is five note cards or pieces of paper. I found on these five note cards sixteen fingerprints or palm prints of value for comparison."

Of the sixteen fingerprints, seven were identified and were those of Scott Dyleski.

On card number one were five prints from Dyleski.  And on card number three were two of Dyleski’s prints.

Next Novaes testified she processed the scene of the murder and assisted in processing most of the items.

At the scene of the murder there were no prints of Scott Dyleski’s were found.

"There was blood on cardboard boxes, but no fingerprints on the boxes.  A “fabric made the prints” on the boxes. In my opinion because of the shape and impression, it was the print of a fabric type glove.  I then tried to located gloves that might make an impression similar to the prints on the boxes," Novaes stated.  Court watchers and perhaps even the jury members were kept in the dark about the so-called "glove prints", that allegedly were found on a box in the trailer where Pamela Vitale was murdered.  How many glove prints and on how many boxes was unclear.  No photographs of the prints or boxes were provided.  No questions were asked to determine the fabric comprising the black glove. Jewett showed Exhibit 18(b), the long black glove, which extends approximately four to six inches above the wrists but this meticulous prosecutor failed to ascertain the glove's material.

She testified she saw that glove. When she first saw it, it was not packaged. It was in a fume hood and Eric Collins, the Contra Costa County criminalist, was processing it.

She testified she was given the glove and looked at its fabric pattern.

“It looks similar in my opinion to the fabric, is consistent with the fabric pattern prints on the boxes.”

Jewett concluded his direct examination.

On cross-examination, Leonida questioned Novaes about the prints which were not Dyleski’s.

Novaes stated that there were a total of sixteen prints. seven of them, on cards one and three were Dyleski's. She found prints on four of five cards, specifically on cards, one, two, three and four.

She testified that the writing on card one stated, “John Halpin, his address and date of birth.  On Card number three she testified there were numbers and letters.  These were the cards containing Dyleski’s prints.

There were no prints of Dyleski on cards two, four and five.

Leonida questioned about how long fingerprints remain on paper. This was the same question Jewett posed.  The unstated issue was that there may have been Dyleski’s prints on card number five and that they may have washed off somehow.  Novaes testified she did not know how long fingerprints last on paper.  She explained that environmental issues are important to obtaining fingerprints. Some items were not conducive to latent prints.  She testified there were no studies she knew of regarding the length of survival of latent prints.

Novaes stated that in November 2005, she determined there were not matches of Dyleski prints to any latent prints in the trailer, the scene of the murder.  The trailer was dusted with black powders and prints were tape lifted. There were no prints on a pair of eye glasses, paperwork, molding, keys, or broken pottery pieces.  Novaes testified she saw no latent prints on the boxes in the trailer home of Horowitz and Vitale.. There were no fingerprints in the blood on the boxes.  However, she found non-blood latent prints on the boxes, but they were not Dyleski’s prints.

A Mercedes was parked on the Vitale/Horowitz property.  In it, there were no Dyleski prints.  Dyleski’s prints were not on a baggage tag, or strap of a duffel bag, or on plastic trash bags from this duffle bag.  (This duffel bag was found by Police in the van parked on the 1050 Hunsacker Canyon Road property).

Leonida questioned whether more advanced techniques could have been used to lift latent prints from the duffel bag or the tag on it.

Novaes said such techniques could be used. One technique was to use a physical developer that reacts with fatty oils. She saw what appeared to be blood on the tag associated with the duffel bag. She used an amino blood test on the tag. The test was negative. There was no blood.

Hal Jewett then conducted his re-direct examination.

He asked if the tab was removed from the duffel bag when Novaes saw it.  She replied affirmatively.

Trying to show there may have been at least some part of a latent print on some of the papers found in the dresser drawer, Jewett asked whether some prints are present, but unusable.  Novaes testified some latent prints are not usable because you lack enough print – only a ridge or two.  However, Novaes did not testify that she found even one ridge on the crucial card number five.

Novaes reiterated that prints may not exist because a person may not touch enough of the item with the hand or prints may get wiped off. She also indicated smudges can occur and defined a smudge as a blob occurring when a certain amount of pressure is applied.  She also indicated that a hand in motion with the right amount of pressure can cause a smear.  A smudge and a smear are not usable to obtain a fingerprint.  However, again Novaes did not testify that she found any smudge or smear on the fifth piece of paper.

On re-cross examination, Leonida asked Novaes if it was true that she had obtained nine fingerprints from the total of five pieces of paper and that they were not Scott Dyleski’s fingerprints.  The fingerprint expert testified that none of the nine fingerprints were those of Scott Dyleski.

By 4:25 p.m. Novaes had concluded her testimony.

At the end of the long day, glaring questions remain. There are still nine fingerprints on the five pieces of paper found in the dresser which have not been identified.  Who do they belong to and why have they not been identified by the prosecution's expert witnesses?  Could they be David and Fred Curiel’s prints? That would be natural, given that the brothers handled the papers briefly?  Or do the unidentified prints on the papers belong to an unidentified co-conspirator in some other adventure?  Why are the prosecutor and the defense counsel being so coy about this very important issue?

It is also very apparent that neither prosecutor nor defense counsel wanted to probe the issue of the credibility of the glove prints.

This may be because Dyleski’s lawyer Ellen Leonida says that there is no DNA belonging to Scott Dyleski on the glove at all.  In fact, the DNA of a third person is inside the glove. There is no DNA of Dyleski inside the glove. Therefore, placing the glove of a third party perpetrator at the scene is in Dyleski’s best interest.  The prosecutor however, contends the black glove was found in the duffel bag and that it is Scott’s glove.  Hal Jewett frequently shows the one black glove to witnesses, raising it high into the air.  Most of the members of the household at 1050 Hunsacker have testified that Scott Dyleski wore a similar glove. But is that enough evidence to prove that this glove is Dyleski’s? There is no scientific evidence to link it to him.

Author Laureen Botticelli, in her May 19, 2005 article Introduction to Forensics wrote:

“Gloves don't necessarily help you from leaving fingerprints. Surgical gloves were made to keep surgeons from infecting their patients. You can actually leave prints through surgical gloves. Surgical gloves were made to keep sterile conditions during operations. They have to fit like a second skin for surgeons to be able to pick up their instruments. They fit so tightly that fingerprints 'pass through' the latex membrane. They can also be turned inside out to yield fingerprints from the inside surfaces. Leather gloves can be treated in the same manner. Also, leather gloves can leave a print that is unique to that glove and no other (leather comes from cow skin, which is just as random as human skin). Even cloth gloves, such as mittens, can leave a distinctive print that can be traced back to the mitten that made it.”

Leonida did not confront Novaes with any scientific studies that fingerprints are lasting and unlikely to have just worn off the dresser papers.

Ed German, in his article “Freequently asked questions about fingerprints,” states: URL:

“Fingerprints on paper, cardboard and unfinished wood can last for up to forty years (per actual casework histories) unless exposed to water (and contaminate transfer prints can even then sometimes persist). Fingerprints on non-porous surfaces such as plastic, metal and glass can last for many years if not exposed to water and if left undisturbed."
(URL: http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html#h...ngerprints_last)

So far, there are more questions than answers, regarding the testimony of David Curiel and how much of it is explained or not explained by scientific evidence.  But most of all, the credibility and character of David Curiel is at issue and has not been fully explored by either side.  This could can taint his testimony before the jury.

Kathryn Dixon © 8/13/06