Which one of the following is NOT a method for developing invisible fingerprints during a crime scene search for evidence?

A. Powders
B. Rolling
C. Chemicals
D. Fuming

is it B

2. Information obtained during an interview and recorded in an investigator's field notes is admissible in court if it meets certain tests. All of the following are tests for admissibility EXCEPT:
A. competency.
B. materiality.
C. objectivity.
D. relevancy.

im confused between B and C

To determine which option is correct in the first question, we need to understand the different methods for developing invisible fingerprints during a crime scene search for evidence.

A. Powders: This method involves using fine particles of powder (such as fingerprint powder) to adhere to the oils and sweat left behind on surfaces when a person touches them. By dusting the powder onto the surface, the powder will stick to the fingerprint ridges, making them visible.

B. Rolling: Rolling fingerprints is a technique used to capture a person's fingerprints in a standardized manner. This is typically done by rolling the finger across an ink pad and then onto a fingerprint card. However, it is not a method for developing invisible fingerprints; it is a method for capturing visible fingerprints.

C. Chemicals: Chemicals, such as ninhydrin or cyanoacrylate (Super Glue), can be used to develop invisible fingerprints. These chemicals react with the amino acids present in fingerprint residues, causing them to become visible.

D. Fuming: Fuming involves exposing the evidence to certain chemicals, such as cyanoacrylate, which release fumes that adhere to the fingerprint residues. This method can reveal latent fingerprints that are not readily visible.

Considering these explanations, the correct answer is B. Rolling, as it is not a method for developing invisible fingerprints during a crime scene search for evidence but rather a method for capturing visible fingerprints.

Regarding the second question, we need to understand the tests for admissibility of information obtained during an interview recorded in an investigator's field notes.

A. Competency: This test assesses the mental and legal capacity of the person being interviewed. If the person is deemed competent, their statements may be admissible.

B. Materiality: Materiality refers to the relevance and significance of the information obtained during the interview. If the information is directly related to the case and has material bearing on the issue at hand, it may be admissible.

C. Objectivity: Objectivity refers to the impartiality and neutrality of the investigator's approach and the recording of field notes. It ensures that the information gathered is based on facts and observations rather than personal biases. Objective information is more likely to be admissible.

D. Relevancy: Relevancy assesses the connection between the information obtained in the interview and the issues in the case. If the information is relevant and tends to prove or disprove a fact in question, it may be admissible.

Considering these explanations, the correct answer is C. Objectivity, as it is not a test for admissibility of information obtained during an interview recorded in an investigator's field notes.