<CHAP NUM="14" ID="CH.00.0014">chapter 14
<CHAP NUM="14" ID="CH.00.014"><FM><TTL>Fingerprints</TTL>
<KTSET><TTL>Key Terms</TTL>
<KT>anthropometry</KT>
<KT>arch</KT>
<KT>digital imaging</KT>
<KT>fluoresce</KT>
<KT>iodine fuming</KT>
<KT>latent fingerprint</KT>
<KT>livescan</KT>
<KT>loop</KT>
<KT>ninhydrin</KT>
<KT>Physical Developer</KT>
<KT>pixel</KT>
<KT>plastic print</KT>
<KT>portrait parlé</KT>
<KT>ridge characteristics (minutiae)</KT>
<KT>sublimation</KT>
<KT>Super Glue fuming</KT>
<KT>visible print</KT>
<KT>whorl</KT></KTSET>
<OBJSET><TTL>Learning Objectives</TTL>
<P>After studying this chapter you should be able to:
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Know the common ridge characteristics of a fingerprint</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>List the three major fingerprint patterns and their respective subclasses</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Distinguish visible, plastic, and latent fingerprints</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Describe the concept of an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS)</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>List the techniques for developing latent fingerprints on porous and nonporous objects</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Describe the proper procedures for preserving a developed latent fingerprint</P></OBJ></P></OBJSET></FM>
<CASE NUM="1" TY="CS"><TTL>James Earl Ray: Conspirator or Lone Gunman?</TTL>
<P>Since his arrest in 1968 for the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., endless speculation has swirled around the motives and connections of James Earl Ray. Ray was a career criminal who was serving time for armed robbery when he escaped from the Missouri State Prison almost one year prior to the assassination. On April 3, 1968, Ray arrived in Memphis, Tennessee. The next day he rented a room at Bessie Brewer’s Rooming House, which was situated across the street from the Lorraine Motel where Dr. King was staying.</P>
<P>At 6:00 <SCAP>p.m.</SCAP>, Dr. King left his second-story motel room and stepped onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. As King turned toward his room, a shot rang out, striking the civil rights activist. Nothing could be done to revive him and Dr. King was pronounced dead at 7:05 <SCAP>p.m.</SCAP> As the assailant ran on foot from Bessie Brewer’s, he left a blanket-covered package in front of a nearby building and then drove off in a white Mustang. The package was later shown to contain a high-powered rifle equipped with a scope, a radio, some clothes, a pair of binoculars, a couple of beer cans, and a receipt for the binoculars. Almost a week after the shooting, the white Mustang was found abandoned in Atlanta, Georgia.</P>
<P>Fingerprints later identified as James Earl Ray’s were found in the Mustang, on the rifle, on the binoculars, and on a beer can. In 1969, Ray entered a guilty plea in return for a sentence of ninety-nine years. While a variety of conspiracy theories surround this crime, the indisputable fact is that a fingerprint put the rifle that killed Martin Luther King, Jr., in the hands of James Earl Ray.</P></CASE>
<BM><H1>History of Fingerprinting</H1>
<P>Since the beginnings of criminal investigation, police have sought an infallible means of human identification. The first systematic attempt at personal identification was devised and introduced by a French police expert, Alphonse Bertillon, in 1883. The Bertillon system relied on a detailed description (<KT>portrait parlé</KT><SIDEIND NUM="1" ID="MN2.14.001"/>) of the subject, combined with full-length and profile photographs and a system of precise body measurements known as <KT>anthropometry</KT><SIDEIND NUM="2" ID="MN2.14.002"/>.</P>
<P>The use of anthropometry as a method of identification rested on the premise that the dimensions of the human bone system remained fixed from age 20 until death. Skeleton sizes were thought to be so extremely diverse that no two individuals could have exactly the same measurements. Bertillon recommended routine taking of eleven measurements of the human anatomy. These included height, reach, width of head, and length of the left foot (see <OLINK LOCALINFO="FG.01.001">Figure 1–1</OLINK>).</P>
<P>For two decades, this system was considered the most accurate method of identification. But in the first years of the new century, police began to appreciate and accept a system of identification based on the classification of finger ridge patterns known as <ITAL>fingerprints</ITAL>. Today, the fingerprint is the pillar of modern criminal identification.</P>
<P>Evidence exists that the Chinese used the fingerprint to sign legal documents as far back as three thousand years ago. However, whether this practice was performed for ceremonial custom or as a means of personal identity remains a point of conjecture lost to history. In any case, the examples of fingerprinting in ancient history are ambiguous, and the few that exist did not contribute to the development of fingerprinting techniques as we know them today.</P>
<P>Several years before Bertillon began work on his system, William Herschel, an English civil servant stationed in India, started the practice of requiring natives to sign contracts with the imprint of their right hand, which was pressed against a stamp pad for the purpose. The motives for Herschel’s requirement remain unclear; he may have envisioned fingerprinting as a means of personal identification or just as a form of the Hindu custom that a trace of bodily contact was more binding than a signature on a contract. In any case, he did not publish anything about his activities until after a Scottish physician, Henry Fauld, working in a hospital in Japan, published his views on the potential application of fingerprinting to personal identification.</P>
<P>In 1880, Fauld suggested that skin ridge patterns could be important for the identification of criminals. He told about a thief who left his fingerprint on a whitewashed wall, and how in comparing these prints with those of a suspect, he found that they were quite different. A few days later another suspect was found whose fingerprints compared with those on the wall. When confronted with this evidence, the individual confessed to the crime.</P>
<P>Fauld was convinced that fingerprints furnished infallible proof of identification. He even offered to set up at his own expense a fingerprint bureau at Scotland Yard to test the practicality of the method. But his offer was rejected in favor of the Bertillon system. This decision was reversed less than two decades later.</P>
<P>The extensive research into fingerprinting conducted by another Englishman, Francis Galton, provided the needed impetus that made police agencies aware of its potential application. In 1892, Galton published his classic textbook <ITAL>Finger Prints,</ITAL> the first book of its kind on the subject. In his book, he discussed the anatomy of fingerprints and suggested methods for recording them. Galton also proposed assigning fingerprints to three pattern types—loops, arches, and whorls. Most important, the book demonstrated that no two prints were identical and that an individual’s prints remained unchanged from year to year. At Galton’s insistence, the British government adopted fingerprinting as a supplement to the Bertillon system.</P>
<P>The next step in the development of fingerprint technology was the creation of classification systems capable of filing thousands of prints in a logical and searchable sequence. Dr. Juan Vucetich, an Argentinian police officer fascinated by Galton’s work, devised a workable concept in 1891. His classification system has been refined over the years and is still widely used today in most Spanish-speaking countries. In 1897, another classification system was proposed by an Englishman, Sir Edward Richard Henry. Four years later, Henry’s system was adopted by Scotland Yard. Today, most English-speaking countries, including the United States, use some version of Henry’s classification system to file fingerprints.</P>
<P>Early in the twentieth century, Bertillon’s measurement system began to fall into disfavor. Its results were highly susceptible to error, particularly when the measurements were taken by people who were not thoroughly trained. The method was dealt its most severe and notable setback in 1903 when a convict, Will West, arrived at Fort Leavenworth prison. A routine check of the prison files startlingly revealed that a William West, already in the prison, could not be distinguished from the new prisoner by body measurements or even by photographs. In fact, the two men looked just like twins, and their measurements were practically the same. Subsequently, fingerprints of the prisoners clearly distinguished them.</P>
<P>In the United States, the first systematic and official use of fingerprints for personal identification was adopted by the New York City Civil Service Commission in 1901. The method was used for certifying all civil service applications. Several American police officials received instruction in fingerprint identification at the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis from representatives of Scotland Yard. After the fair and the Will West incident, fingerprinting began to be used in earnest in all major cities of the United States. In 1924, the fingerprint records of the Bureau of Investigation and Leavenworth were merged to form the nucleus of the identification records of the new Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI has the largest collection of fingerprints in the world. By the beginning of World War I, England and practically all of Europe had adopted fingerprinting as their primary method of identifying criminals.</P>
<P>In 1999, the admissibility of fingerprint evidence was challenged in the case of <ITAL>United States</ITAL> v. <ITAL>Byron C. Mitchell</ITAL> in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendant’s attorneys argued that fingerprints could not be proven unique under the guidelines cited in <ITAL>Daubert</ITAL> (see pp. 17–18). Government experts vigorously disputed this claim. After a four-and-a-half-day <ITAL>Daubert</ITAL> hearing, the judge upheld the admissibility of fingerprints as scientific evidence and ruled that (1) human friction ridges are unique and permanent and (2) human friction ridge skin arrangements are unique and permanent.</P>
<H1>Fundamental Principles of Fingerprints</H1>
<H2>First Principle: A Fingerprint Is an Individual Characteristic; No Two Fingers Have Yet Been Found to Possess Identical Ridge Characteristics</H2>
<P>The acceptance of fingerprint evidence by the courts has always been predicated on the assumption that no two individuals have identical fingerprints. Early fingerprint experts consistently referred to Galton’s calculation, showing the possible existence of 64 billion different fingerprints, to support this contention. Later, researchers questioned the validity of Galton’s figures and attempted to devise mathematical models to better approximate this value. However, no matter what mathematical model one refers to, the conclusions are always the same: The probability for the existence of two identical fingerprint patterns in the world’s population is extremely small.</P>
<P>Not only is this principle supported by theoretical calculations, but just as important, it is verified by the millions of individuals who have had their prints classified during the past 110 years—no two have ever been found to be identical. The FBI has nearly 50 million fingerprint records in its computer database and has yet to find an identical image belonging to two different people.</P>
<P>The individuality of a fingerprint is not determined by its general shape or pattern but by a careful study of its <KT>ridge characteristics</KT> (also known as <KT>minutiae</KT><SIDEIND NUM="3" ID="MN2.14.003"/>). The identity, number, and relative location of characteristics such as those illustrated in <LINK LINKEND="FG.14.001">Figure <FIGIND NUM="1" ID="FG.14.001"/>14–1</LINK> impart individuality to a fingerprint. If two prints are to match, they must reveal characteristics that not only are identical but have the same relative location to one another in a print. In a judicial proceeding, a point-by-point comparison must be demonstrated by the expert, using charts similar to the one shown in <LINK LINKEND="FG.14.002">Figure <FIGIND NUM="2" ID="FG.14.002"/>14–2</LINK>, in order to prove the identity of an individual.</P>
<P>If an expert were asked to compare the characteristics of the complete fingerprint, no difficulty would be encountered in completing such an assignment; the average fingerprint has as many as 150 individual ridge characteristics. However, most prints recovered at crime scenes are partial impressions, showing only a segment of the entire print. Under these circumstances, the expert can compare only a small number of ridge characteristics from the recovered print to a known recorded print. For years, experts have debated how many ridge comparisons are necessary to identify two fingerprints as the same. Numbers that range from eight to sixteen have been suggested as being sufficient to meet the criteria of individuality. However, the difficulty in establishing such a minimum is that no comprehensive statistical study has ever been undertaken to determine the frequency of occurrence of different ridge characteristics and their relative locations. Until such a study is undertaken and completed, no meaningful guidelines can be established for defining the uniqueness of a fingerprint.</P>
<P>In 1973, the International Association for Identification, after a three-year study of this question, concluded that “no valid basis exists for requiring a predetermined minimum number of friction ridge characters which must be present in two impressions in order to establish positive identification.” Hence, the final determination must be based on the experience and knowledge of the expert, with the understanding that others may profess honest differences of opinion on the uniqueness of a fingerprint if the question of minimal number of ridge characteristics exists. In 1995, members of the international fingerprint community at a conference in Israel issued the Ne’urim Declaration, which supported the 1973 International Association for Identification resolution.</P>
<H2>Second Principle: A Fingerprint Remains Unchanged During an Individual’s Lifetime</H2>
<P>Fingerprints are a repr...
Januszek66