Results indicated that on its own, ORO provided excellent recovery of latent fingerprints on both wet and dry paper and in most cases, further development with additional methods was unnecessary. However, the addition of physical developer as a final procedure in the recovery sequence can be added without being influenced by the insertion of ORO. On its own, ORO has proven to be one of the best physical developers for the recovery of latent fingerprints on white, kraft, and thermal papers that have been wet. The ability to apply other methods to enhance the recovery of latent fingerprints while still using ORO will help forensic examiners who need further development beyond ORO. The research involved wiping the fingers of six subjects on their foreheads and then rolling their fingers on each of three paper types: white, kraft, and thermal. Each paper was cut down the center so that half of each fingerprint was subjected to one sequence excluding ORO, and the other half was subjected to the sequence including ORO. The two sequences tested for the dry white and kraft paper were DFO, ninhydrin, and PD on one half and DFO, ninhydrin, ORO, and PD on the other half. The wet papers used the same two sequences except that on the day of testing, each paper was submerged in a water basin for 1 hour prior to testing. Latent fingerprints on thermal were gathered from nine point-of-sale receipts from each of seven companies. Each paper was divided into three sections and all testing was performed on dry paper. Thermal paper fingerprints were developed using ninhydrin and ORO. At the end of the 30-day testing period, all fingerprints were analyzed and compared. Tables, figures, references, appendix