Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player


The "lip print"


On Folien 1 there is a semi-elliptical mark that has been claimed by the defence experts to be a print made by a human bottom lip print. This would support the drinking glass theory.

Although, at this stage we are not yet scrutinising the experts’ reports, it is noteworthy to state some conflicting views Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg had on the "lip print".

- Wertheim said that the "lip print" is parallel to the rim of the glass. Zeelenberg said, by way of some questionable biokinetical explanation, that lip prints will always be sloped, because when you drink from a glass and it eventually touch the nose and "cannot be emptied", you compensate for this by rotating the wrist, thereby leaving lip prints that are generally sloped.

- Wertheim said that the absence of creases (wrinkles and ridges) is because the lip was "excessively wet". Zeelenberg in turn said the lip was dry and that the glass was covered with condensation up to the rim. Only the "lip print" was affected by this condensation and not the other prints lower down on the glass. For example, the dry water drop marks, which were on the glass before the fingerprints, somehow remained intact and did not dissolve in the condensation.

- Wertheim claims that the position of the "lip print" to the left of the right thumb is quite "consistent" with normal use, while Zeelenberg claimed another print (without proving it to be a thumb print) to be on the right side of the "lip print", which would be a more likely position.

- It is also significant to note that neither Wertheim nor Zeelenberg provided any photos of examples of any other lip prints on drinking glasses. In a 208 slide visual presentation/report Zeelenberg do not once investigate/study lip prints (or index prints) on drinking glasses, only on flat glass plates.

- Supt Dixon, for example, tells us in his affidavit that after handling "similar" glasses (apparently found in Inge's flat) that the "lip print" was situated above the left fingers - implying the "similar" positions of his prints to those on Folien 1. He, however, does not tell us how he handled the glass, rendering it a utterly senseless comment.

We further ask and investigate if the semi-elliptical mark is the right shape to be a human lip print.

When you drink from a drinking glass, the glass rests on the pout and pushes down on the lip - hence making a more U-shaped print, one that is not as flat as the print on Folien 1.

It is our finding after scrutinising many lip prints on drinking glasses, and after seeking expert review, that the "lip print" on Folien 1 is simply too flat to be a lip print (on any surface). The print will be more bulb-like. It should be about half as deep as it is wide (a 0.45-0.50 aspect ratio).

Our tests have confirmed that the print was very likely made by a finger in wet latex.

Everything is wrong with the "lip print" for it to be a human lip print. It has no creases in. It is sloped. It is too flat. Too long. It just stops suddenly. The texture of the print is more consistent with wet latex. A lip print situated to the left of the corresponding thumb print is highly unusual and not consistent with normal or reasonable drinking action. Although one may get past one of these issues, can one get past all of them ...? That while we already have issues with the sizes and shapes of the fingerprints, and the nature of the top and bottom lines ... etc.

Read more about the second thumb print Zeelenberg claimed in order to get a better position for the "lip print".

Read more about Zeelenberg's condensation claim and how he contradicted Wertheim at the link in the green margin left (top button - "Expert Contradictions').

NB: Please make sure to read this page and see if the print is a lip print or perhaps rather a print made by an index finger in a latex glove.



© 2013/2014/2015 Mollett - All rights reserved