Investigators probing the recent shooting incident involving conservative commentator Charlie Kirk have uncovered an unusual piece of evidence: a forearm print collected from the sniper’s position at the crime scene. This troubling finding offers an opportunity as law enforcement calls a game, trying to put together the sequence of events leading up to the shooting.
Investigators managed to grab a forearm print from a ledge on which the shooter’s forearm probably rested during the crime. The problem is this kind of evidence is seldom collected in forensic investigations. Jeff Wenninger, founder and CEO of Law Enforcement Consultants, noted that this imprint is “merely a mold from an imprint left from remaining in a prone shooting position with forearms on the deck for a period of time.” Wenninger further likened the print to a shoe or boot print that can be collected using a cast.
Gathering such unorthodox evidence opens up a can of worms regarding its reliability and her legal ability to use it in court. Texas-based criminal defense attorney Patrick McClain noted that forearm prints are “very rare” in legal cases. While he had never seen a case that used forearm prints as evidence, he recognized their potential importance. “There are not going to have been too many people on the roof of the building,” he stated, suggesting the limited number of possible suspects could enhance the print’s value.
As forensic evidence goes, forearm prints are more unconventional than fingerprints and palm prints. They are not considered 100% unique. According to Toby Braun, CEO and Founder of American Special Investigative Group, “a forearm print is not considered a primary form of forensic evidence in the same way that a fingerprint is.” This uncertainty gives forearm prints the status of adjunct evidence, not absolute proof.
They went on to obtain other key evidence including a footwear impression and palm print. Normally, from an investigative perspective, officials would swab the surface that was pressed to obtain DNA or another skin residue from the forearm. In order for a forearm print to be useful in an investigation, the subject has to exert sufficient force. This resulting pressure needs to act on a responsive target area.
Bryanna Fox, a former special agent with the FBI, noted the dramatic leaps in crime technology. Through those efforts, we have made tremendous strides in our ability to objectively analyze forearm prints. She remarked, “Like fingerprints, a forearm print can be unique enough for identification if it’s of sufficient quality.” She acknowledged that people are well aware that what they leave behind can be important and impactful. “He may have thought, ‘Oh, I can leave my forearm prints and it won’t amount to anything,’” she explained.
This method of forearm print collection can be instrumental in securing search warrants, too. Dan Gerl, founder and managing attorney at Next Law, mentioned that “under certain circumstances, forearm prints can be admissible in court.” He said that, as with all scientific evidence, these prints require endorsement from qualified experts. They need to pass a series of reliability tests before they can be accepted.
For investigators, the greater challenge is knowing how to fit this unique corroborative evidence into their general case-building strategy. Fingerprints, particularly forearm prints, are not usually collected as primary evidence. Yet their unclear nature frequently makes them hard to use in court cases. They can still lead to important clues that winnow down and enable additional investigative steps.