FINGERPRINT WHORLD Quaerite et Invenietis The International Journal of Vol. 34 No.133 The Fingerprint Society October 2008 Founded 1974 © Copyright 2008 ISSN 0951/1288
© Jim Lambie
The Fingerprint Society Online www.fpsociety.org.uk Objectives and Scope
Fingerprint Whorld is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal that reflects the aims of The Fingerprint Society , which are to advance the study and application of fingerprints and to facilitate the cooperation among persons interested in this field of personal identification.
It is devoted to the theory and practice of fingerprint identification science and its associated disciplines. To assist the aims, Fingerprint Whorld recognises that its membership is international and multi-disciplinary and as such sees a need for both new and review articles across the spectrum of forensic science evidence gathering topics to assist in the continual professional development of all stages of the profession. CONTENTS FINGER PRINT WHORLD OCTOBER 2008 Vol. 34 No 133
COVER Funkadelic - Jim Lambie 2002 Courtesy of Jim Lambie and The Modern Institute, Glasgow
Past. Present, Future... EDITORIAL 165 Fiona McBride, Editor
June Devaney NEWS 166 Louise-Anne Geddes Fingerprint Society Conference 2009 167
The Identification and preservation of a ARTICLES 168 Blood impression on skin P.M. Swann Direct development of fingerprints 171 Jack Deans Forensic Hypnosis 182 Tony Rae In consideration of false negatives 184 Boyd Baumgartner
WORK EXPERIENCE Work experience in the forensic services 189 Jaqueline Townsend and Raul Sutton
Les Brown CSI ARCHIVES 194
A Texan Pioneer ARTICLES 196 John Edward Berry B.E.M, F.F.S Looking back at the great train robbery 198 G.T.C Lambourne Q.P.M
LETTERS 208
MISCELLANY 210
CONFERENCE 217 THE AIMS OF THE SOCIETY THE To advance the study and application of FINGERPRINT fingerprints and to facilitate the co-operation among persons interested SOCIETY in this field of personal identification. QUAERITE ET INVENIETIS
FOUNDER MEMBER: D.R. Brooker, Consultants N.J. Hall, S.E. Haylock, M.J. Leadbetter Prof. J. Verbov, MD, FRCP, FRCPCH, FIBiol
Patron: Legal Advisor Vacant at this time D.C. Mount (USA)
PRESIDENT: Vivienne Galloway FFS Life Members Leicester Constabulary Fingerprint Bureau, J.E. Berry, BEM, FFS M.J. Leadbetter, BA (Hons), FFS St Johns Enderby, Leicester LE5 9BX N, Hall, MFS Steve Haylock (City of London Police)
Regional Vice-Presidents Other Committee Member s F. Rodgers, FFS (USA), B. Dalrymple (Canada), Mike Armer (Independent), Ron Cook G. Farncomb, FFS (Australian Federal Police) (Independent), Steve Haylock (City of London R. Plummer, FFS (Southern Australia) Police), Kevin Kershaw (Greater Manchester Police), Dr G.S. Sodhi (India) Darrien Smith (NPIA), Dr. Raul Sutton (Academic), John Yarrow (Retired) CHAIRPERSON : Martin Leadbetter PO Box 257 , Little Wymondley, Official Publication Herts. SG4 7WW FINGERPRINT WHORLD Published quarterly: Robert Doak SECRETARY: January, April, July, October Fingerprint Bureau, Humberside Police HQ, Priory Road, Hull HU5 5SF EDITOR: Fiona McBride email: [email protected] MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY : Allison Power ARCHIVIST: Mervyn Valentine FFS Fingerprint Department, 1 Pacific Quay, GLASGOW, Greater Manchester Police, G51 1DZ. United Kingdom Scientific Support Services, Fingerprint Bureau, Bradford Park, SUBSCRIPTION SECRETARY : 3 Bank Street, Clayton, Manchester, M11 4AA Phil Swindells Lancashire Fingerprint Bureau, PO Box 77, Hutton, EDUCATION COORDINATOR : Karen Stow Preston. PR4 5SB Derbyshire Constabulary, Scientific Support Unit, Butterley Hall, Ripley, WEBMASTER : Richard Case Derbyshire. DE5 3RS Greater Manchester Police, Forensic Identification Services, Bardford Park ADVERTISING : Steve Mewett Complex, Bank Street, Clayton, Sussex Fingerprint Bureau, Sussex House, Crowhurst Manchester. M11 4AA Road, Brighton. BN1 8AF
TREASURER: Cheryl McGowan MERCHANDISE AND MARKETING : Lancashire Fingerprint Bureau, Nick Mitchell PO Box 77, Hutton, Preston, PR4 5SB Leicestershire Constabulary, Scientific Support, St Johns Hon. Members and Advisors Enderby, Leicester LE5 9BX G. Lambourne, QPM, FFS (UK), M. Carrick (USA), S.G. Durrett, FFS (USA), F. Warboys, OBE, BA, FFS, T. Kent (UK), S. Hardwick (UK), K. Creer, MBE, FBIPP, FRPS EDITORIAL
Past, Present, Future …
Fiona McBride, BA Hons, FFS, Editor
Interconnected and constantly shifting, forensic skills and technologies have been inspired by the creativity and ruthless discipline of practitioners of old standing. Legacies have shaped the modern forensic landscape and shifts continue to occur as a result of experimentation with the habitual way-of-doing; stimulating relevant, new procedures.
Among the significant cases included in this Fingerprint Whorld we remember the murder of June Anne Devaney. Her case highlights the value and nature of the Society Membership’s work. Though the event was 60 years ago, her story is still a stark reminder of the impact of, and on the human side of the job. To alleviate possible side-effects of dealing with disturbing events some readers might find the short article on relaxation in the Miscellany section useful.
The further inclusion of earliest, pioneer work; the most recent experimental work; discussion; and ongoing research will hopefully capture the imagination of the curious and inventive. The Society Conference remains, of course, a potent element in the furtherance of knowledge. It inspires ideas, encourages discussion and is a wonderful opportunity to enjoy the company of our peers. For those who would like to participate in the 2009 Manchester Conference the booking form is printed at the back of this issue.
I hope you find the journal thought-provoking. [email protected]
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 165 NEWS
JUNE DEVANEY Louise-Anne Geddes
To many experts in the field of forensic science, June Anne Devaney is just a name used in fingerprint training sessions. However, the abduction, sexual assault and brutal murder of the 3 year old girl from her cot in Queens Park Hospital, Blackburn on 15th May 1948, marks a landmark in the history of forensic science and fingerprint identification.
It was this case in which the first mass fingerprinting was undertaken, and was ultimately successful. 46,000 sets of prints were collected from all males over 16 who were in the Blackburn area during the 14th and 15th May 1948, and a match was finally made to the print found on a bottle beside the cot from which the child had been abducted. The identification was made on August 12th 1948, and Peter Griffiths, an ex-Guardsman was arrested the following day. He was subsequently found guilty, and hung at Walton Gaol.
This year (2008), marks the 60th anniversary of the milestone identification, and 3 members of the Fingerprint Society (Kevin Kershaw, Cheryl McGowan and Richard Case) visited the grave of June Anne Devaney to pay their respects and to place a floral tribute.
Richard Case spoke not only for himself, but on behalf of his fellow members, stating “that this experience was very worthwhile for us, personally as well as for the Society. It certainly gave me a very personal insight to this crime; a crime that has fascinated me since I first heard of it”. Kevin Kershaw recognized the impact of the case on forensics: “This was a significant milestone in the way we investigate crime. This is where forensics was put at the fore of the investigation”
Even 60 years on, it is hard to imagine how the horrific murder of an innocent child could result in any positive outcome. However, it must be said, that had the chain of events surrounding the abduction and murder of June Anne Devaney not occurred as they did, fingerprint identification may not have been able to develop as it has. This little girl deserves to be, and should be remembered as more than just a name in a textbook, but someone whose life was brutally taken from them, and without whom vital developments in crime prevention may have been hampered.
page 166 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 The Fingerprint Society is pleased to announce that its 34th Educational Conference will be in the vibrant city of Manchester from 20th to 22nd March 2009.
The approximate cost for the weekend, including accommodation, formal gala dinner and Saturday evening entertainment with a distinctly Northern flavour will be £200 (single room) or £190 (shared occupancy).
Discounts to £180/£165 respectively are available for all bookings confirmed before 1st January 2009.
Complete details of this conference and booking information will be advertised in the Fingerprint Whorld, on the conference section of our website (www.fpsociety.org.uk/Manc2009) and via our monthly e-newsletter.
If you wish to subscribe to this newsletter then please send a blank email to:- [email protected] or via the link on the website.
Anyone interested in speaking at the event, nominating a speaker, wishing to enquire about potential sponsorship or marketing opportunities or having any general enquiries should email [email protected]
The booking form for the conference is supplied on page 217
This promises to be a unique and very entertaining event, book early to avoid disappointment.
(N.B. Late bookings cannot be guaranteed on-site accommodation, alternative rooms will be within 10 minutes and courtesy transport will be provided).
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 167 ARTICLE
THE IDENTIFICATION AND PRESERVATION OF A BLOOD IMPRESSION ON SKIN
Detective Chief Inspector P.M. Swann Fingerprints and scenes of crime, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police (With acknowledgement to Professor Gee MB , BS, MRC.Path, DMH, and his staff at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Leeds, for their assistance )
In the early evening of 25th June 1974 with other officers I arrived at an old people’s ground floor maisonette in Bradford .
The premises consisted of a lounge with sleeping area, kitchen, bathroom and toilet and a coalhouse. In the sleeping area of the main room was a body of an elderly man. The body lay on a mattress on an iron bedstead with the arms folded across the chest and with obvious injuries to the head and chest. The body was heavily bloodstained and dressed only in socks and a pair of underpants which were partly removed. Blood spattering was present on the mattress, the wall beside the bed, the bedhead, the wardrobe behind the bed and in other areas within a radius of about seven feet around the body.
A complete examination of the premises was commenced and during that evening and the following day, numerous finger and palm impressions were found and subsequently photographed. Several of these impressions were identified as those of the accused.
Later the same evening the deceased was removed to the Public Mortuary at Bradford and the post mortem examination was commenced by Professor D. J. Gee, MB, BS, MRC Path, DMH, of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the University of Leeds.
With the superior lighting conditions, the extensive bloodstaining on the body was more apparent than had been noticeable at the scene and whilst examining the hands of the deceased I noticed on the right thigh a hand mark (fingers and palm) in blood. Closer examination revealed no ridge detail in the fingers but ridge detail was present in an area of the palm. I pointed this out to Professor Gee and the other officers present and the impression was photographed. My initial examination of this palm impression revealed a number of ridge characteristics present and it was clear that a positive identification of this mark was possible. It was not known at the time whom this impression belonged to but the following facts obviated the possibility of it having been made by the deceased himself:- a) The deceased had two amputations of fingers of the right hand. b) It would have been very difficult for the left hand of the deceased to have made the impression.
page 168 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 It followed therefore that it was quite likely that this mark had been left by the person who had caused the injuries and subsequent death of the deceased. After the impression had been photographed, Professor Gee removed the area of skin from the thigh.
During the early hours of the following day, a suspect was interviewed and his finger and palm impressions obtained for comparison purposes.
Fingerprint officers, I think, would agree that in the majority of cases it is a more lengthy procedure to check a palm mark because of the greater area of ridged skin involved. In this particular case from the position of the fingers in relation to the palm, it was obviously a right palmar impression and the area involved was probably the thenar area. Quite clearly disclosed in this bloody palm mark were numerous ‘white lines’ or ‘pathological white lines’ which formed box formations. One such box formation was very apparent. Where the four white lines met at a particular point, all were slightly off centre and formed at this particular junction a further very minute box formation. This formation was also present on the palmprint form of the suspect and commencing the checking of the palmprint at this point, the subsequent positive identification soon followed.
For two or three days following the incident the piece of skin remained in a small box and was kept in a standard household refrigerator (not in the freezer compartment). The question was how to preserve this skin permanently and to this end I sought the advice of Professor Gee and his staff at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Leeds .
The following paragraphs by Mr P. B. Gaunt, L.R.I.C. and Mr I. Newsome of that department detail their work in this respect.
Previous experience with specimens bearing blood stains and intended for museum display indicated that preservation of the specimen in a liquid was unlikely to give permanent preservation of the stain.
The first stage of preservation is usually to treat the specimen with a solution which renders the proteins insoluble, yet maintaining as near a life-like appearance as possible; this ‘fixation’ is also essential to halt the putrefactive process. Such solutions are usually based on aqueous mixtures of formaldehyde, and it was thought that there was a strong possibility that the stain might be washed from the specimen before the fixation was complete. An alternative was to use ethyl alcohol, as a 70% (v/v) solution, and it was decided to run a few tests on artificially produced stains. In the event, the tests which lasted about a week were successful, and the specimen, pinned under slight tension to a piece of thick cardboard, was immersed in 70% aqueous ethyl alcohol for about one week. One point to note is that some cardboard, e g. That from photographic plate boxes is covered with material which contains an alcohol soluble dye – hence, plain cardboard, or preferably a cork mat is desirable.
Whilst the tests were in progress, the skin was preserved in a domestic refrigerator at 4 degrees c, contained in a cardboard box so that any condensation would be absorbed and not fall onto the skin and damage the bloodstain.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 169 It was decided to use a readily available resin embedding medium to preserve the skin. This is available as ‘Plasticraft’(a product of Turner Research Ltd) and is to be had in many handicraft shops. In order to remove excess water from the specimen, which it was feared would cause clouding of the plastic, the skin was passed through a number of changes of acetone, each lasting about 30 minutes. Again, experience with dry specimens of skin showed that any residual fat adhering to the specimen was likely to soak into the skin giving it an unnatural translucency; To combat this the specimen was passed through several changes of uncatalysed resin – this both dissolved the residual fat and impregnated the skin prior to the final embedding.
The final process of embedding the specimen was carried out according to the instructions supplied with the kit. One problem which arose was movement of the specimen in the still liquid monomer – Something which only practice can help avert. Turner Research Ltd., in their kit instructions, say that they will be pleased to deal with any technical problems. Such problems should be addressed to;
Consumer Relations Department Turner Research Limited Jubilee Terrace Leeds LS6 2XH
Expert evidence of this identification was prepared and submitted and the accused, a 16 year old youth, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure.
page 170 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 ARTICLE
DIRECT DEVELOPMENT OF FINGERPRINTS USING FIRE EXTINGUISHING DRY POWDER PROJECT 3 Jack Deans FFS, MFSSoc Fingerprint Consultant, Gardiner Associates Ltd. (Retired New Scotland Yard Fingerprint Expert and Crime Scene Examiner) © Jack Deans 2006.
Introduction
I refer Society members to my article in Fingerprint Whorld Vol. 34 No. 132 of July 2008. In this article, I gave details of my second project using dry powder as a means of fingerprint development, in which the interior contents of a garden shed were sprayed with dry powder, resulting in latent sweat marks being visibly developed on a cross section of substrates. That project was the first conducted by me where no fire was involved, but was aimed simply at ascertaining if fire extinguishing dry powder was a suitable agent for the development of latent sweat marks. The results of that project (No. 2) as outlined in the July edition, clearly revealed that dry powder was a suitable fingerprint development means.
Again, following discussions with Martin Cox, Thames Valley Police Fingerprint Development Laboratory, I decided to conduct a project whereby I would emulate the conditions found by Scene Examiners on attending ‘Cannabis factories’, where criminals have produced cannabis plants in a variety of types of premises.
I am advised that currently the method likely to be adopted in the fingerprint examination of a cannabis factory by Police Forces in this country is a combination of the following:-
1. A possibility that no examinations would be carried out due to the volume of such scenes in a given police area. 2. The plastic sheeting, vertically suspended on the walls, is removed, packaged and taken to the laboratory for examination. 3. The interior of the ‘factory’ is sprayed with CNA (super glue), then the application of a dye may be required to highlight the marks.
Some comments for consideration ref. the above decisions; I can understand the volume of such scenes in relation to other more serious crime scenes and the available staff and budget may cause the decision not to examine for fingerprints. However, other factors which are likely, at present, to have a bearing are:-
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 171 1. Time and effort required in removing the sheeting and transportation to the laboratory. 2. Facilities at different laboratories for examining a large amount of plastic sheeting. 3. Danger of damage / removal of fingermarks from the sheeting in transportation. 4. After CNA fuming at the scene, the visibility of the marks. 5. Staining of the marks, adding time and expense to the mark retrieval. 6. Photography of the marks whatever the method of fingerprint development adopted.
With this in mind, it seemed to me that a direct spraying of the interior plastic sheeting with dry powder could be carried out in a matter of seconds, given the size of the ‘factory’, and any marks developed could be immediately, directly photographed. This omitted any need for transportation to the laboratory, thus avoiding possible damage to the marks, and also be easier than fuming and staining when super glue is used. Again, as stated in my previous article, selected marks, photographed at the scene, could then be processed directly into the system if required urgently. method
I sought advice from Martin Cox on the conditions existing in ‘cannabis factories’, and was advised that I had to acquire the type of plastic sheeting normally used and introduce heat and humidity to a certain average temperature. These conditions would have to prevail for several hours to make the project realistic.
Having made enquiries and visited various suppliers of plastic sheeting, the following types were used in my project:-
1. Builders Damp Proof Membrane. 1000 gauge / 250 micron – blue in colour. Obtained from B. & Q. 2. Builders Damp Proof Membrane. 1200 gauge / 300 micron – Black in colour. Obtained from B, & Q. 3. Co-ex Plastic Sheeting. 100 MU – Black on one side, white on the other. Obtained from BPI Packaging Services.
The edges were sealed using either brown masking tape or clear cellotape. Humidity was introduced using a Colorex Humidifier and heat was supplied via a Dragon De Longhi Heater, 1500 watt, 1½ kilowatt. As in my previous projects, the dry powder used consisted of a mixture of ammonium sulphate, monoammonium phosphate, attapulgite clay, potassium aluminium silicate, silicone dioxide, methyl hydrogen polysiloxane and a colour pigment.
It goes without saying that actually installing cannabis plants was considered inappropriate. I feel sure the Ministry of Defence Police would have been horrified to discover such plants at their Wethersfield Base where Gardiner Associates Training facilities are located. Yours truly could have been facing criminal charges!!
page 172 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 An internal unit measuring approximately 12 feet square and 7 feet high was used for the project. All of the internal wall surfaces, with the exception of the door, were draped from floor to ceiling with plastic sheeting as detailed previously. The sheeting was stapled to the wall panelling of the unit and the edges of each sheet were joined using cellotape or masking tape. Three different types of sheeting were used on different areas of the interior walls, and the area of wall covered by each type of plastic sheeting was approximately the same. The area of wall covered by the co-ex plastic sheeting had the black side facing outwards.
Various donors, 7 in total, handled the surfaces of the plastic sheeting when it was draped in position.
At 10.45 am, with the plastic sheeting fixed to the walls, heat and humidity was then applied using the Colorex Humidifier and the Dragon De Longhi Heater. The following stats give the record maintained of the temperature and humidity throughout the project, to try to emulate the conditions set in a Cannabis factory. It had been suggested to me the temperature should be, on average, maintained around 80ºF+ (around 27ºC). Throughout the day, it became necessary to make adjustments to the heater to try to maintain a steady room temperature.
Temperature ºC Humidity 10-45am 21 11.40am 26 11.45am 27 58.5 12.15pm 30 75 12.25pm A De-Longhi 2 kilowatt Convector Heater added to speed up temperature rise rate. 12.25pm 31 57.8 12.45pm 42.1 49 12.55pm 44 42 Both heaters switched off – temperature too high! 1.40pm 29 80 1.55pm 27.8 82.5 2.10pm Water container in Humidifier empty, removed and refilled at Essex Fire Rescue Training centre. 2.20pm Water container replaced. 27 63 2.40pm 24.7 78.9 1 Heater switched on 2.55pm 30.8 71.3 75/80ºF Heater switched off 3.05pm 28 74 26.2 80.3 3.20pm Heater switched on
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 173 Temperature Humidity 3.40pm 32 69 3.40pm Heater switched off, water container removed, fan left on to dry area and surfaces and prevent condensation on the surfaces. 3.45pm 28.5 75 3.50pm 27 77 3.55pm 27 71 Blower switched off, compartment door opened 4.00pm 26.6 47.5 Heaters etc. removed. Compartment door left open 4.15pm 19.7 68
At 16.15 hrs. the interior of the unit was sprayed with dry powder using a fire extinguisher with rubber hose extension; for 15 seconds. This spraying was conducted by Paul England, one of my fellow Gardiner Associates, who wore a face mask and goggles. The interior surfaces of the unit had been subjected to the effect of the heat and humidity for 5½ hours, prior to spraying with the dry powder, to hopefully emulate, realistically, the conditions prevailing in a ‘cannabis factory’ prior to fingerprint examination. Spraying for 15 seconds effected a good covering of all interior surfaces. Experimental
After 15 minutes to allow the airborne powder to settle, I commenced my examination of the plastic sheeting for fingerprints. It very quickly became apparent that, again, the dry powder has been very successful in revealing the latent sweat marks on each of the three types of plastic sheeting.
For the purposes of the project, that is, to ascertain if dry powder was a suitable means of developing fingermarks, I selected the best quality marks for labelling and photography. I indicated 39 finger and/or palm marks for photography. An additional bonus was the development of 3 footwear impressions.
It was, in fact, the case that a considerable number of other fingermarks were revealed which, under operational conditions, and certainly in serious cases such as murder, terrorism, I would have had photographed and retrieved. I felt that, for the purpose of the project, 39 good quality marks from such a small area, was a satisfactory retrieval.
The dispersal of the marks is of interest. When the donors were asked to handle the surfaces of the three different types of sheeting, I ensured they handled each type equally so that latent sweat marks were present, in equal numbers over the three different types. However the breakdown of marks retrieved was:- 29 marks retrieved from the black surface of the co-ex plastic sheeting. 6 marks retrieved from blue damp proof membrane.
page 174 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 3 marks retrieved from black damp proof membrane. 1 mark retrieved from brown masking tape. 3 footwear impressions retrieved from blue damp proof membrane.
I noticed, after spraying, that the outward facing (black) surface of the co-ex sheeting, showed clearly the dispersal of what substances were present on the surface, in a clear array of ‘patterns’ revealed by the dry powder. The blue and black damp proof membrane sheeting tended to ‘flood’ the area with dry powder in large patches, showing little detail of what substances were present on the surface. This, I presume, was dictated by what constituents make up the different types of sheeting. Certainly, from a fingermark point of view, the co-ex sheeting lent itself more to fingerprint retrieval. Retrieval of marks
All the labelled marks were photographed in situ. As in previous projects, if some marks appeared ‘flooded’ with dry powder, gently puffing with my trusty football inflator, successfully removed the surplus powder, leaving a clearer impression. From my experience I made no attempt to brush out any mark, knowing if I did it was likely to remove the mark completely.
I have not given an individual breakdown of the location of the marks, feeling that with the similarity of the substrates this isn’t necessary. I would say that the marks retrieved were from as low as 3” above the floor up to 5” below the ceiling and in various locations across the width of each sheeting. The dry powder was not therefore developing marks only from a specific height, etc.
After photography, I decided to lift the marks using standard fingerprint lifting tape. From my experience of lifting, in my previous project, I knew that pushing across the tape to erase air bubbles was not an option, so I ensured the tape was placed straight onto the mark, vertical pressure only was applied to the tape in the area of the mark, and the tape was then lifted straight up. I had better results in the lifting process than in my previous project. Comments on “lifts”
J1 - Some areas “bubbled” and wouldn’t flatten out J2 - Lifted OK. J3 - Lifted OK. Still tendency to “bubble” in patches. J4 - Lifted OK although slight slippage when lifting. J5 - Lifted OK although slight slippage when lifting. The edges don’t adhere well to the copex due to powder on the surface. J6 - Lifted OK. Some surface not adhering due to powder. J7 - Lifted OK. Still tendency to “bubble”. J8 - Lifted OK. Still tendency to “bubble”. J9 - Lifted OK. J10 - Lifted OK.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 175 J11 - Lifted OK J12 - Lifted OK J13 - Poor lift J14 - Lifted OK J15 - Lifted OK J16 - Lifted OK J17 - Lifted OK J18 - Part did not lift well J19 - Lifted well J20 - Left hand mark slipped on powder when pressing J21 - Slight slippage at left hand side J22 - Tape lifted up before I could push down on the marks J23 - Lifted OK J24 - Good lift – mark appears damaged since photography J25 - Slight slippage when pressing on marks J26 - Slight slippage when pressing on marks J27 - Slight slippage when pressing on marks J28 - Good lift J29 - Lifted OK J30 - Blurred, mark was feint J31 - Lifted well J32 - Blurred J33 - Excellent lift J34 - Excellent lift (shoe impression) J35 - Blurred J36 - Good lift. Part of tape not adhering to the copex due to powder J37 - Good lift J38 - Lift fragmented J39 - Lifted OK J40 - Blurred.
All lifts needed cellotape applied around the edges of the lift as they were tending not to adhere satisfactorily to the copex due to the powder preventing good adhesion of the tape.
Marks lifted on 11th June 2008 J41 - Footwear print photographed and lifted. A good lift but tape won’t adhere readily to copex. J42 - Footwear print photographed and lifted. A good lift but tape won’t adhere readily to copex.
The latter two lifts needed taped down to prevent lifting tape separating from the copex.
page 176 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 The lifts were processed into photographic state by Dr. Steven Bleay at HOSDB; this allowed a comparison of the photographic and lifting methods of retrieval of the finger/palm marks. Some examples of the comparison between photographed and then lifted marks are shown in this article. I would tend, still, to support direct photography of the marks in situ as the preferred method of recording and retrieving fingermarks developed by dry powder.
ENTIRETY PHOTOGRAPHS
Unit used as “Cannabis Factory” Fixing sheeting to walls.
Heater and Humidifier Fire Extinguisher
Spraying interior of Unit Co-ex sheeting after Sample area of black co-ex spraying sheeting with labelled marks
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 177 Sample area of blue membrane with labelled marks
SELECTION OF FINGERMARKS DEVELOPED BY DRY POWDER The following fingermarks J7 to J29 were developed on black co-ex sheeting.
Fingermarks J33 and J35 were developed on blue membrane sheeting.
Fingermark J37 was developed on masking tape.
page 178 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 SELECTION OF FINGERMARKS DEVELOPED BY DRY POWDER The following fingermarks J7 to J29 were developed on black co-ex sheeting.
Fingermarks J33 and J35 were developed on blue membrane sheeting.
Fingermark J37 was developed on masking tape.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 179 PHOTOGRAPHS OF “LIFTS” OF SOME FINGERMARKS FOR COMPARISON WITH “DIRECT PHOTOGRAPHS” OF THE SAME MARKS
Comparison would tend to show:- J10, J15 and J17 bear good comparison in quality.
J24, J28 and J29 show poor comparison in quality.
J33 one mark in the lift reveals better detail than the corresponding mark directly photographed.
page 180 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 Conclusion
As in the previous project 2, it was again established that latent, sweat fingermarks can be developed by the direct application of dry powder onto the surface using a normal fire extinguisher. The attempt was made to realistically emulate the conditions supplied to me which exist in a ‘cannabis factory’ scene. If it is accepted that the conditions of heat and humidity I had supplied and the type of sheeting used, relate to real life ‘cannabis factory’ environment, then we have a potential means of examining for fingermarks which is easy to apply, quick and inexpensive, and produces clear quality reproductions of latent sweat marks. All the processes can be done at the scene and, if necessary on a specific case, could facilitate quick search and result from the data base.
I don’t feel there is a particular health and safety problem since I stated the officer applying the powder simply wore a face mask and goggles, and in this project sprayed for only15 seconds. After the powder had settled I found no tendency for the powder to be ‘airborne’ as I walked around the ‘scene’.
An additional factor I have noticed is that the powder does not tend to ‘flood’ the pores in the marks. These tend still to be distinctive, so that third level aspect is maintained.
As you can see from the following photograph, the dry powder clearly revealed, by an impression developed on the plastic sheeting, who was responsible for the Cannabis Factory. It was obviously SPIDERMAN !!
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Mick Gardiner of Gardiner Associates Ltd. for the use of the facilities at Wethersfield, Bill Rebello (Associate) for assistance in setting up the scene, Nick Stuart (Associate) for providing the heater and humidifier and for photographic services, Paul England for spraying, Dr. Steven Bleay for processing the lifts and Martin Cox, Thames Valley Fingerprint Comparison would tend to show:- Development Laboratory for advice and interest shown in the project. J10, J15 and J17 bear good comparison in quality. Reference should also be made of bpi Packaging Services, Flint, Flintshire for supply, free of J24, J28 and J29 show poor comparison in quality. charge, of sufficient co-ex plastic sheeting for the project.
J33 one mark in the lift reveals better detail than the corresponding mark directly photographed. References 1. Deans J.J., M. Cox, Dr. S.M. Bleay “The Effects of different types of fire extinguishers on the recovery of fingerprints”. Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 33 No.128. June 2007 2. Jack Deans “Direct Development of Fingerprints using Fire Extinguishing, Dry Powder. Fingerprint Whorld, Vol. 34 No.132. July 2008
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 181 ARTICLE
FORENSIC HYPNOSIS
By TONY RAE. CHAIRMAN of the BRITISH COUNCIL OF PROFESSIONAL HYPNOTISTS
Forensic Hypnosis is sometimes referred to as Witness Enhancement or Hypnotic Regression. This technique allows the practitioner to take a witness, victim, or even a suspect back through a specific day and time to build up a picture, and collect information. The answers to the questions are usually in far more detail than can be given using just the conscious side of the brain.
Under the stress and anxiety of a criminal activity taking place the average person is often unaware of the amount of information that they have registered in the sub-conscious side of their mind. From the day that we are born everything that we see, hear, smell, taste, or touch, is locked within our sub-conscious mind. In this specialised form of hypnosis a very detailed recollection of events leading up to, during, and after the event can be recalled. If required a minute by minute time line can be recorded in most cases.
When using normal hypnosis as a therapy the Hypnotist having put the client or subject in a deep state trance will give suggestions to overcome the problem. From having a Fear of Flying to Reducing Weight or Stress Management, to Dental Phobia, all can be treated successfully by using the correct method. The most unusual phobia I have had so far has been a client with a tremendous fear of Cucumbers.
These techniques would not work for Forensic Hypnosis. A method of putting the subject in control and asking questions in such a way as to build up a picture of factual events is required to aid an investigation. Should the subject attempt to come up with a false story this would normally come from the conscious side of the mind which would be at rest. It is normally easy to spot the change in the time to reply to questions, body language, and of course the fact that the response would be less detailed.
If a witness saw a car leaving the scene of a crime they could well describe it as light in colour and medium size. Under Forensic Hypnosis the actual colour, the type of car 4 door saloon, hatchback, or estate, probably the make and model, certainly any unusual features or damage. Personal objects added like stickers in the rear window or something hanging from the rear view mirror. Providing the witness had seen the registration number this would also be locked away in the sub-conscious mind.
page 182 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 My own experience with hypnosis goes back over 33 years. Since 1995 I have been the Chairman of the British Council of Professional Hypnotists. During the last 17 years I have specialised in both Regression to events in this life and Past Life Regression. At first I was very sceptical about past lives, were they just our imagination, or perhaps influenced by something we had read in a book or seen on television. The results have been amazing with clear details of names, dates of birth, place of birth, parents names etc. The factual accounts people have related in respect of their previous lives are hard to explain. One person has gone back to 3000BC, several have been the opposite sex in the past life to their life today even the timbre of their voices changed as did the way they sat in the chair. Some even spoke in foreign languages of which they had no prior knowledge.
Apart from assisting in gathering information for criminal investigations the techniques of Forensic Hypnosis can be used in other ways. One example can be found in the programme that I did for the television company Channel 5. This featured Major James Hewitt the former lover of Princess Diana who I hypnotised and took back through his experiences in the Gulf War to when he first met the princess. I built up a timeline picture of when and where he first met Diana, and what happened next came as a startling revelation. James Hewitt stated that the princess and he had been lovers several years earlier than he had previously admitted. The media put two and two together and drew their own conclusions in respect of a royal parentage. This programme is still been shown in several countries, the latest one I am aware of is Brazil.
Another use for this method of Forensic Hypnosis is in tracing "lost" information. I had a recent case where someone had accompanied their father to a bank in Zurich when they were 11 years old. Now some 49 years later the client's father had died without leaving details of the branch of the bank, the account number or the password needed to recover the safe deposit box. Using Forensic Hypnosis I was able to take the client back to the street in Zurich, to the bank, to the counter, to the details on the forms, and the chosen password. The information all proved correct and the client was able to recover the family box.
To contact Tony Rae email him at [email protected]
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 183 ARTICLE
IN CONSIDERATION OF FALSE NEGATIVES By Boyd Baumgartner, Latent Print Examiner
There is little room for the perception of fallibility in the arena of friction ridge identification. With a public fascinated by forensics and the identification sciences under constant legal and cultural scrutiny there is always someone looking for a chink in the armor of credibility that has been afforded to the discipline of friction ridge identification. Such credibility is the result of several factors including a history of accurate application, a supporting body of scientific research underlying the practice, the inability of critics to dissuade public opinion, and the lack of an avenue through which a legal challenge could be pursued.
Along with the modern age came the accessibility of information, relentless media coverage of high profile cases involving friction ridge evidence, and evolving case law. While none of these factors have been able to undermine the scientific validity of friction ridge identification, they have been able to color the public consciousness with various degrees of truthfulness and have forced the friction ridge identification industry to articulate and justify their philosophies and methods.
Fundamental to those justifications and the ethical underpinnings that are inherent in opinions of identity, are admissions of error when they have been made. Due to the ternary nature of the opinions available to friction ridge identification practitioners and the qualitative subjectivity of the opinion, past definitions of error seem to have been limited to those opinions that are falsely itive, that is when an area of friction ridge skin has been individualized incorrectly.
The definition of error though, is more complex than just being wrong. It is a nuanced occurrence, conditional on cognitive, philosophical and experiential factors. More specifically it is dependant on how the identification methodology is viewed, the knowledge of the practitioner, the threshold of sufficiency per opinion, and the logic that leads to the opinion of identity.
ACE-V, the methodology of friction ridge identification can be thought of in one of two ways, as hypothesis testing or as ternary predicate logic. If one views ACE-V as hypothesis testing, the alternate hypothesis and null hypotheses are first formed and then tested. Based upon this view of ACE-V, there can be only two conclusions: accept or reject the null hypothesis.
Errors under this line of thinking consist of Type I errors and Type II errors which correspond to incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis when it is false or incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. These are called false positives and false negatives respectively. False positives correspond to incorrectly associating the identity of an individual to friction ridge detail
page 184 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 thus linking them to a crime. False negatives correspond to failing to correctly associate the identity of an individual to friction ridge detail and thus failing to link them to a crime.
There are two problems with viewing ACE-V as hypothesis testing; the qualitative aspect inherent in the friction ridge identification methodology and the meanings of conclusions reached in hypothesis testing. While hypothesis are formed and tested under the ACE-V process, hypothesis testing is better adapted to meet the needs of other disciplines.
Classical hypothesis testing is performed on distinct measurable quantities and is concerned with probabilities, significance levels, and distributions. This means that quantity dictates qualitative interpretations. Friction ridge identification does not have the luxury of dealing with measurable quantities in that way. The existence of what is being observed can be called into question in friction ridge identification. There is no test that can confirm or deny the existence of observable characteristics as they are the result of perception and interpretation and as such are influenced by variable distortions and physiological systems. Therefore, quantities in friction ridge identification have variable value. An increased quantity cannot be strongly correlated with increased qualitative value. The bottom line is that quality is successive of quantity in hypothesis testing whereas this is not the case for friction ridge identifications.
Further compounding the qualitative dilemma is the problem of multiple comparisons. “The multiple comparisons problem occurs when one subjects a number of independent observations to the same acceptance criterion that would be used when considering a single event.” [1] Considering that friction ridge identification concerns itself with a number of independent observations of various level 2 and level 3 characteristics, this becomes a prevalent risk when employing the philosophy of hypothesis testing. This known problem in hypothesis testing leads directly to an increase in Type I errors or false positives.
Additionally, the available conclusions in hypothesis testing are inadequate to fully represent what is happening in evaluating friction ridge skin. Conclusions in hypothesis testing are given solely in terms of the null hypothesis. By definition, the “null hypothesis” is the hypothesis of no difference. [2] Therefore, definitively speaking, you must always structure your test so that your null hypothesis is such that any two friction ridge impressions are no different. The null hypothesis is presumed to be true until evidence in the form of a hypothesis test (called the alternate hypothesis) shows otherwise.
The conclusions regarding the hypothesis test are one of two possibilities. Reject the null hypothesis or accept the null hypothesis. “To reject the null hypothesis is to conclude that it is false.” [3] The problem appears however, when you accept the null hypothesis, as accepting hypothesis in hypothesis testing only means that you do not have evidence to believe otherwise.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 185 This creates deficiency in being able to articulate that the results of your hypothesis test are inconclusive, which is a real possibility. That is to say, that the information you have available to you does not lend itself to either individualization or to exclusion. The closest available argument you would have under the dictates of hypothesis testing is that you do not have enough evidence to reject the possibility that the impressions being compared are different. This equates to an acceptance of the alternate hypothesis where the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the impressions being compared.
It is my opinion that a more accurate way is to view ACE-V as ternary predicate logic conditional on the meta-analysis of observable characteristics in friction ridge skin. Ternary predicate logic simply states that an out come of -1, 0, or +1 is possible based upon predicate variables which can be existentially quantified. The values of -1, 0, and +1 correspond to exclusion, inconclusive and individualization respectively and are conditional based upon the validity of each argument that a level 2 or 3 characteristic exists.
Framing ACE-V in this manner puts friction ridge identification into a formal logic system. As such, the premises (or characteristics identified in the analysis) can possess the qualities of consistency, soundness, and completeness and conclusions can be true, valid and sound. This makes friction ridge conclusions logical, valid deductions when ACE-V is applied correctly.
Now that an understanding of the logical model has been reached, it follows that errors should be defined. Errors can and should be considered based upon the aspects which involve them. Areas involving error include empirical, scientific, logical, industrial and ethical aspects of friction ridge identification, as each has some bearing on the existence and degree of seriousness of an error.
In the strictest sense of the definition, an error is a variance between a measured value and its true value. In this sense, as it relates to friction ridge identification, an error can occur when a Latent Examiner’s experience level is low. In the same way we would expect a novice driver to make less skillful judgments than a race car driver, a novice Latent Print Examiner would make less skillful observations than someone with more experience, assuming all else is equal. Therefore there is an empirical consideration when understanding an error.
From a scientific perspective, errors are the result of observational variances and are labeled either random or systematic. As it relates to friction ridge identification a random error could be typified as an imprecise observation due to distortion. When present, this phenomenon will vary from comparison to comparison, as the effects of distortion do. Systematic error however, is consistent. An example of systematic error as it relates to friction ridge identification would be pattern blindness or a similar visual imperfection which affects the ability to observe or perceive in some consistent way.
page 186 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 A logical error is the outcome of incorporating empirical and observational errors into deductive reasoning. Logical errors do not necessitate invalid arguments, but stem from unsound arguments which predicate themselves on empirical and observational errors. It is in this way that errors are expressed and constitute the measure of accuracy and precision when a subsequently reviewed in the Verification phase of ACE-V.
Errors as a function of the standards in the industry of friction ridge identification are governed by different sufficiency thresholds. Thresholds for individualization are higher than the thresholds for exclusion. As such, and in consideration of the empirical, scientific and logical aspects of errors, ACE-V is more error tolerant of exclusions because of the lower threshold in determining exclusion is justified.
Lastly, errors have real world implications. As it relates to friction ridge identification errors have ethical implications. In the criminal justice system it is more egregious to find and innocent person guilty of a crime than it is to let a guilty person go free. This is confirmed by the fact that there have only been five known false negatives determinations within the last 40 years.[4] Even critics of the friction ridge identification industry recognize as such when they say “The rate and occurrence of false positives, however, is more controversial.” [5] While this should have no effect on the decision making processes involved in friction ridge identification, it is a factor in the consideration of what constitutes an error.
Therefore, it is understandable given the cumulative failings of the various aspects and the high thresholds involved in the decision making process that falsely positive friction ridge identifications would be given the connotation of mistake that ‘error’ implies. This is less so however, for erroneous exclusions or false negatives as they are also known.
While it is valid to arrive at an ‘inconclusive’ determination, this decision is arrived at based upon subjective inabilities. Experience level and the interpretation of the industry standards play into this determination. If an examiner does not have the experience to be able to perceive the sufficiency requirements for individualization, then they must rule either inconclusive or exclusive. Some definitions of erroneous exclusion include inconclusive determinations when a definitive conclusion can be reached. [6]
Furthermore given the lower industry threshold for exclusionary standards, a false negative can be reached when an examiner is unable to articulate the reasoning behind a discrepancy. This is a sufficient basis for exclusion according to the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST). Further consideration to SWGFAST’s standards for conclusions, sufficient quantity and quality could be artificially reduced due to inexperience, resulting in an exclusion being incorrectly attributed to a latent impression.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 187 One last consideration regarding the inclusion of false negatives into the realm of ‘error’ is where in the process a false negative is discovered. There is a distinction to be made between an error that makes it into evidence where a conviction relies in part or solely on the testimony of a latent print examiner and one that does not.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that there are combinations of variables that can lead to false negative conclusions, very few of which show a causal relationship to the misapplication of fundamental principles governing friction ridge identification by an examiner. Generally speaking, individuals’ biases color how they view false negative results. False negatives can be viewed as part of the general iterative process that mirrors scientific methodologies to those who study science. They can be viewed as valid arguments with faulty premises to those who study philosophy. If you are a critic of fingerprints however, they are more likely to be characterized as failings contributing to the ‘unreliability’ of the case against a person for whom you are being paid to act as an expert. The bottom line is that as an industry the current accepted methodology is biased in favor of minimizing false positive errors and rightly so. This is by design, as the morals of our judicial system and society place value on evidence that discerns guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which friction ridge identification certainly accomplishes.! References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons 2. http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A73664.html © 1993-2007 David M. Lane 3. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35.htm © 2006 James J. Filliben 4. http://www.fprints.nwlean.net/e.htm © 2002-2007, Michele Triplett. 5. Simon A. Cole, "More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification," Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Volume 95, Number 3 (Spring 2005), pp. 985-1078. 6. http://www.fprints.nwlean.net/t.htm © 2002-2007, Michele Triplett.
page 188 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 WORK EXPERIENCE
TAKING A YEAR’S WORK EXPERIENCE IN THE FORENSIC SERVICES UNIT OF THE WEST MIDLANDS POLICE SERVICE by Jacqueline Townsend and Raul Sutton School of Applied Science, University of Wolverhampton
My name is Jacqueline Townsend and I am a 32 year old mature student with Wolverhampton University, studying a BSc (Hons) in Forensic Science. I completed a sandwich placement between my 2nd and 3rd year to gain work experience relevant to my degree.
In 2005, the University of Wolverhampton and the West Midlands Police Service agreed to trial a year-long work experience opportunity for undergraduate Forensic Science students to work in their Forensic Services Unit.
I had to apply for the placement by completing a CV and application form during my second year of study. I began a placement in October 2006, working for the West Midlands Police for four days a week, which enabled me to continue working in a part-time job that I have held for twelve years. The placement was unpaid, and entitled me to a reduced student loan only, which meant that I needed to carry on working as I am a single parent to a thirteen year old and have a mortgage to pay. During the first six months I worked with the Fingerprint Enhancement Unit, or FEU (now known as the Forensic Evidence Recovery Team) in the treatment lab alongside two fantastic laboratory assistants who were very friendly and helpful.
The job itself involves performing chemical treatments on exhibits that are taken from crime scenes, in order to enhance any fingerprints. The exhibits are sorted into ‘Serious’ and ‘Volume’ crime, and then by the chemical treatment that they should receive; cyanoacrylate vapour (superglue); diazafluoren-9-one (DFO); and ninhydrin. These three treatments are routinely used but other treatments, such as the use of physical developer (PD), can be performed rarely.
During my period in the lab I learnt how to: prepare the chemicals and reagents for the various treatments; check the exhibit labels and bags; enter everything onto the Exhibit Management police computer system.
On quiet days in the FEU, I was allowed to observe a technician working on various tasks. I was shown how they examine work under fluorescent light and how to label up the fingerprints that
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 189 are found. I was also taught how to use the digital cameras for photographing the fingerprints found as a result of the various treatments, together with the lifts that are sent to the department.
During my stay in the FEU I was lucky enough to be sent on a ‘Fingerprint Awareness’ training course for a week, which was run by the Fingerprint Bureau Training Officer. This course is given to all employees that work with fingerprints and involved an introduction to fingerprints, digit determination, comparison and identification.
In April 2007 I transferred to the Photographic Department and whilst there I was trained in every aspect of the job, which included booking in the work, processing, numbering and binding photographs, and printing. ‘Booking in’ refers to logging in the work that arrives in the internal despatch from the Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs). This again involves checking the details on each exhibit and entering it onto the police computer system. The work is then organised into various sections for processing and printing. Processing involved developing 35mm films: at the present time only a few Scenes of Crime Officers (SOCOs) still use film, together with the police photographer, as the use of digital cameras is more common. After processing the negatives are sleeved and sent back to the SOCO, unless they contain fingerprints, footprints, or a body, in which case they are placed for printing and sent to the relevant departments: SICAR (Shoeprint Image Capture And Retrieval), Fingerprint Bureau or Coroner’s Office. I also numbered and bound crime scene photographs into books for court. This involves placing them into the order requested by the SOCO, numbering them with a sticker, and finally binding them with a ‘West Midlands Police’ cover sheet.
After being shown how to complete all the other jobs in the department, printing was the only aspect of the department’s work that I had not experienced. The photographic lab contains two printing machines that are in constant use. As there are a lot of separate steps to machine printing, I was trained in one particular aspect at a time and I learnt to complete the printing steps in the following order: ‘indexing’, ‘footwear’, ‘fingerprints’, ‘Coroner’s photographs’ and ‘colour printing’. As I gained experience I was able to replace the chemistry and paper if it ran out, and was eventually able to do such tasks without supervision.
During my stay in the photographic department I spent three days with Scenes of Crime and a day at the Forensic Science Service, where I got to experience their procedures and methods.
The working duties of the FEU gave me a valuable insight into the importance of ensuring that the correct procedures with packaging are maintained at all times to preserve the integrity of the evidence. I also learned to appreciate the importance of the procedures and methods for retrieving and collecting evidence for court use.
page 190 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 Completing a year’s placement with the Forensic Services Unit was a tremendous experience, allowing me to acquire many skills used in the different departments, as well as learning West Midlands Police procedures and methods of handling evidence. I gained a good working knowledge of how a professional organisation operates, together with an excellent insight into the typical real-world Health and Safety procedures.
Despite the financial difficulties, I am glad that I completed the placement because the overall ex - perience was fantastic, and I made many friends that I am still in touch with. The work has also helped with my final year at University as I can use the experience to help me with coursework in, for example, a module entitled ‘Laboratory Management’. Also, with the help of Darren Riley, the Fingerprint Bureau Training Officer, I am completing my final year project and dissertation (on the ‘Enhancement and Analysis of Earprints’) where I hope to eventually construct a database for keeping earprints.
In addition I hope that the skills and knowledge that I have acquired by completing the sandwich placement with West Midlands Police will be beneficial to my career aspiration in forensic science, as I have seen how few jobs in forensic science there are.
The pilot project was extended to cover the 2007-8 academic year with the West Midlands Police Service taking on two students for work experience. Further details on the scheme can be obtained by contacting Raul Sutton.
Jacqueline Townsend [email protected]
Raul Sutton [email protected]
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 191 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE MVC ™1000 New bench top cyanoacrylate fuming cabinet features fast processing cycle Developing latent fingerprints using the cyanoacrylate fuming process is now faster with the new, compact MVC™1000. G Processing cycle of only 30 minutes G 600 x 600mm bench top footprint G Both automatic and manual operation G Self-contained fume cleansing system G Comprehensive safety features G DNA decontamination lamps DCS ™4 New system for latent fingerprint capture and enhancement features comprehensive audit trail The new DCS™4 offers the examiner a complete solution to the examination of latent fingerprints, from capture to enhancement to the presentation of court room evidence. G Image capture using a high resolution digital camera G Audit trails detailing image processing from capture to printout G Image enhancement and validation software G Casework management with image archiving Foster & Freeman Ltd. G Court Charts for the clear presentation of evidence 25 Swan Lane, Evesham, Worcestershire, WR11 4PE To fully appreciate the benefits of the MVC1000 and DCS4 please contact Andrew Bliss at... +44 (0) 1386 41061 +44 (0) 1386 765351 [email protected] www.fosterfreeman.com [email protected]
page 192 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE MVC ™1000 New bench top cyanoacrylate fuming cabinet features fast processing cycle Developing latent fingerprints using the cyanoacrylate fuming process is now faster with the new, compact MVC™1000. G Processing cycle of only 30 minutes G 600 x 600mm bench top footprint G Both automatic and manual operation G Self-contained fume cleansing system G Comprehensive safety features G DNA decontamination lamps DCS ™4 New system for latent fingerprint capture and enhancement features comprehensive audit trail The new DCS™4 offers the examiner a complete solution to the examination of latent fingerprints, from capture to enhancement to the presentation of court room evidence. G Image capture using a high resolution digital camera G Audit trails detailing image processing from capture to printout G Image enhancement and validation software G Casework management with image archiving Foster & Freeman Ltd. G Court Charts for the clear presentation of evidence 25 Swan Lane, Evesham, Worcestershire, WR11 4PE To fully appreciate the benefits of the MVC1000 and DCS4 please contact Andrew Bliss at... +44 (0) 1386 41061 +44 (0) 1386 765351 [email protected] www.fosterfreeman.com [email protected]
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 193 CSI ARCHIVES
CSI ARCHIVES Les Brown
On Saturday 17th Feb 1979, I was a detective chief inspector in charge of 'F' division Strathclyde Police when I received a telephone call to my house by the back shift duty detective Brian Brock; his message was brief and dramatic. "The Clelland Bar in the Gorbals has been blown up by a bomb: there is a car on its way to pick you up."
On the way I reflected that although experienced in the investigation of over 200 murders this was different, how on earth does one investigate a pub bombing? then it struck me, I will treat it as a murder inquiry.
On arrival I saw that the roof had been severely damaged. Uniformed cops had the premises controlled and I learned that six customers had been taken to the Victoria Infirmary but none were seriously injured.
Whilst awaiting the arrival of the bomb squad in the rain, I decided that there might be a second device so suggested to the shift inspector that we withdraw and return first thing in the morning. On the way home I called at the Infirmary, to be told that the injured men had been and gone, and were heading for the Plaza Ballroom. Going there an announcement was made requesting that the men injured in the Clelland Bar exposion make themselves known to the police at the reception area, which they did. When asked why on earth they were there they responded with, "Its grab a granny night, thats why!
On returning to the pub the next morning I arranged that every table in the premises be numbered. On each table the remaining glasses were each given the same number as that table and so on. Forensic Officers were actively engaged doing their thing whilst I spoke to the manager. Had he noticed anyone acting suspiciously the previous evening? and he had! A stranger had entered the pub with a holdall, which he had placed between the 'one armed bandit' and 'the juke box'; the exact seat of the explosion. Did he have a drink? I asked, Yes he had a pint of heavy and a glass of sherry. Where did he sit? I asked, he stood at the bar was the response. We both turned and saw on the bar a sherry glass undamaged. I took possession of the glass and had it taken there and then to Police HQ for FP examination.
A perfect fingerprint was found on the glass and as the pub was believed to be used by Catholics (later found to be an incorrect assumption). I spoke with the Special Branch and obtained a list of members of the local branch of the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force). Those that were on file were examined against the print on the sherry glass and a perfect match was made. This was all within 24 hours.
page 194 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 Arrest and search warrants were then obtained and two days later 16 houses were raided by teams of six which included a special branch officer and two uniformed officers. I took charge of one of the teams and at the appropriate pre-arranged time knocked on the door of the house at 16 Heron Street, the home of the alleged leader William Campbell. I am 6'1" yet he towered over me.
I opened with my name and referring to the warrant I held in my hand told him that I had to admit that the warrant might be illegal as it gave the address as 16 Heron St but the number on his door was 1690. "That was the battle of the Boyne" he told me and when I asked who won he replied, "us."
On entering the house I told Campbell that I had been warned that he could become very violent so if that was the case would he do so now and lets get it over with but I warned him "we have a slight advantage, we are armed”. He sat down.
Nothing incriminating was found but the special branch officer appeared from a room carrying a Rangers supporters scarf. When I asked why, he stated that it showed Campbells 'leanings' I responded with, "We will need to go to my house; my son has one of these." Campbell visibly relaxed.
One of the orher teams had found 10 cwt of sodium chlorate in a garden shed, to be told by the suspect, its great for getting rid of weeds.
At the forthcoming trial at Glasgow High Court all were convicted and sentenced to massive terms of imprisonment. The strange combination of drink ordered by the bomber had solved a very serious crime very quickly, and thus prevented who knows what.
Footnote. Just before the above the UVF used a Hall in Landressy Street, where they regularly attended for meetings and the like. In the centre of the floor was an old fashioned stove with the chimney going straight up through the roof. The cleaner had arrived early and before going to the shop nearby for milk and rolls decided to light the stove.
What she didnt know was that the previous night someone concealed exposives inside the stove and whilst she was in the shop there was an almighty explosion and the Hall was no more.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 195 ARTICLE
A TEXAN PIONEER John Edward Berry. B.E.M, F.F.S.
The main bulwark of the fingerprint system of identification is the fact that from birth to death ridge detail on the digits and palms does not change, and for this vital prerequisite we are indebted to Sir William Herschel. He frequently recorded his finger impressions from 1859 to 1916, and during this 57 years his sequence of ridge characteristics did not undergo any alteration.
Fingerprints technicians are now aware that when a digit is slightly injured and scarring does not occur when the injury has healed, ridge detail usually replicates identical characteristics which were present prior to injury.
On pages 20-23 in THE BLUE BOOK OF CRIME, written by T.G. Cooke and published in 1945, an illustrated account is given concerning an experiment 90 years ago to prove that ridge detail 'grows back to its former original and identical design.'
George Lacy was in charge of the Identification Bureau in Houston. Texas, U S A. and performed an experiment on himself to prove that ridge detail was not altered after injury.
He placed a heated iron on his right thumb ( as he was a Texan, this was presumately without anaesthetic) causing 'a blister to rise'.
This truly dedicated pioneer then cut off the blister, thus forming a scab. He was convinced that 'when Nature has restored new ridges they will be formed on entirely new skin.'
Consequently, Mr Lacy took numerous impressions of his right thumb, from prior blister stage thence during recovery , and finally one month later; ridge detail was shown to be exactly as it was, prior to branding.
page 196 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 ILLUSTRATED HEREWITH ARE EXAMPLES OF MR. LACY'S RIGHT THUMB IMPRESSION IN SEQUENCE OF RECOVERY.
Print taken before demolishing or Print taken Nov. 8th, 1919, burning off the ridges right after demolishing or burning
Print taken Print taken Nov. 12th, 1919 Nov. 24th, 1919
Print taken Dec. 9th, 1919
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 197 ARTICLE
LOOKING BACK AT THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY G.T.C Lambourne Q.P.M Honorary member of the Fingerprint Society and Former Commander in Charge of the Fingerprint Department, New Scotland Yard
1963 will be remembered by some people for a variety of reasons; Astronaut Gordon Cooper’s twenty-two orbits of the earth, President Kennedy’s stirring speech at the Berlin Wall or, the shock of his assassination later in the year; The Beatle’s first success; the Cabinet Minister John Profumo scandal; and the appearance of postal codes, Weightwatchers, Instamatic cameras were just a few of the items which made the news that year.
I shall remember 1963 for some of these but mainly for one event with which I was personally involved – The Great Train Robbery.
When at some point in the twenty-first century someone writes the history of twentieth century crime in England I have no doubt that The Great Train Robbery will be featured. It is my hope that this historian will look objectively at the criminals involved and that he, or she, will cut away the current myth of folk-lore surrounding them which has been fostered by some sections of the press, radio and television over the last forty-five years and simply record them as being in essence no different from any other common criminals who accede to the rule of violence for gain.
Much has been written and said about the Train Robbery and it’s participants. Yet, despite the fact that finger and palmprints were the backbone of the investigation and subsequent trials, their valuable contribution received very little public recognition. A familiar, if not altogether acceptable, set of circumstances with which most fingerprint experts are faced from time to time.
For the benefit of our overseas readers and those too young to remember it I will describe the circumstances of the robbery.
The train involved was the Royal Mail train which left Glasgow at 6.15pm on the 7th of August 1963 To make the normal nightly run to London . On route it stopped at various stations to pick up mail, both ordinary and registered. The train left Rugby at 2.17am, this being the last official stop before London .
The twelve coaches of the train consisted of a baggage van at the front, then the high value packet coach which held 128 mail bags containing money from various banks in Scotland , Wales
page 198 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 and Northern England sent by registered post to their head offices in London . Post Office staff in this carriage, which was in the charge of Frank Dewhurst, worked through the night sorting the mail. The remaining ten coaches carried ordinary mail, some sorted and bagged, the remainder being sorted by more Post Office staff. Although these ten coaches had a communicating corridor throughout, there was no access from these coaches into the high value packet coach.
The whole train was pulled by diesel engine numbered D326, driven by Jack Mills, who with his fireman, David Whitby, had taken the train over at Crewe at 12.30 a.m. on the 8th August.
Two and a half hours later as the train, travelling at seventy miles an hour, approached Sears Crossing, the driver was vaguely surprised to see the distant signal was showing amber and reduced speed in anticipation that the next signal would show red, which it did. As he brought the train to a halt at Sears Crossing he noticed the next signal down the line was showing green. This indicated to him that a signalling fault may have occurred, so he asked his fireman to use the telephone on the signal gantry and query the red signal with the signalman.
David Whitby could not use the telephone because the wires had been cut and was returning to the train when he was seized by two men dressed in boiler suits and face-masking balaclavas. They returned to the waiting train with him where he saw that Driver Mills was bleeding from a head wound and was surrounded by a number of men similarly dressed. Both Mills and Whitby were pushed into a passageway behind the driver’s cabin and handcuffed.
While this was happening other members of the gang disconnected the rear ten coaches from the front two. Shortly after, the driver was brought back into the cabin and told to drive the train forward. As he was already suffering from the initial attack, and fearing a further assault, he felt he had little alternative but to comply. He was told to stop the train about a half a mile further down the track at a road bridge named Bridego Bridge . The stopping point was clearly marked with a piece of white material stretched across the track. Mills and Whitby were taken from the train, handcuffed again and told to lie face downwards on the embankment.
The high value packet coach was then violently attacked by the gang armed with coshes and an axe. The resistance of the postal staff was soon overcome and they were made to lie face downwards on the floor. The robbers formed themselves into a human chain and passed the mailbags from the coach, down the embankment to vehicles waiting alongside the road below. In this way, one hundred and twenty mailbags holding six hundred and thirty packets which contained two and a half million pounds were stolen. The driver and his fireman were then taken to the plundered coach and together with the postal staff told not to make a sound for half an hour.
Less than a mile back up the track, the guard, Mr. Miller, puzzled by the long delay eventually left his compartment and walked along the track towards the diesel unit only to discover it was missing along with the two front coaches. He, like Whitby , also found he could not use the telephone. Realising the vulnerability of the ten remaining coaches he wisely placed detonators
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 199 on the track to the rear of the coaches and then set out to walk to Cheddington Station. On the way he came across the hi-jacked front portion of the train. By good fortune he was able to stop another train which took him to Cheddington Station where, at 4.15a.m. he raised the alarm which started one of the most intense police manhunts seen up to that time.
The top priority was to get Driver Mills to a hospital in Aylesbury where he had seventeen stitches put into a very nasty injury to his head. While this was being attended to, messages had been sent to all police in the county and all the surrounding forces which led to many road blocks being set up on the various exit routes from the area.
It was soon discovered that the robbers had interfered with both the distant and home signals. The green light of the home signal was shrouded in a mans glove and the red light was connected to portable dry batteries which could be operated by a simple on/off switch. The distant signal had been similarly tampered with to produce the cautionary amber signal, the only difference being that the green light had been removed.
When police searched the embankment at Bridego Bridge they found the white marker, a mailbag, a pickaxe handle, some crowbars and a railwayman’s cap. It was later established that the latter items had been stolen from a gangers hut.
Realising the size and scope of the crime committed in his county, The Chief Constable of Buckinghamshire, Brigadier John Cheney, after a discussion with his head of C.I.D., Detective Superintendent Malcolm Fewtrell, asked for the Yard’s assistance. Later that afternoon a conference, attended by representatives of all the interested investigative agencies, was held in London.
There was little doubt that the train robbers were London criminals, nor was there any doubt that the robbers had a hideout somewhere in the vicinity of the robbery. The first assumption was based on the skill and cunning employed to effect the robbery. The second was that such an experienced team of criminals would know that a series of road blocks would have been set up once the police knew the crime had been committed. The most time the gang could guarantee before the alarm was raised was about thirty minutes, and thirty minutes was not very much time in which to transport about two tonnes of mail from a crime scene.
After the meeting the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Crime, George Hatherill, sent a most experienced officer, Detective Superintendent Gerald McArthur, to the Buckinghamshire Police Headquarters at Aylesbury to take charge of the search and handle the county end of the enquiry. He was accompanied by Detective Sergeant Pritchard. The London end was initially shared by Detective Chief Superintendents Ernie Millen and Tommy Butler.
As a result of a request for a fingerprint examination, Detective Chief Superintendent John Godsell, Head of the New Scotland Yard Fingerprint Department, directed Detective
page 200 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 Superintendent Maurice Ray, Detective Inspector John Chaffe and myself to undertake this task. Our examination of the train and signals failed to produce any fingerprints which would assist the enquiry and we returned to the Yard to await the next development. We did not have long to wait.
Three separate rewards, totalling two hundred and sixty thousand pounds were announced for information leading to the arrest of the robbers and the recovery of the money. As can be imagined the police in London and Aylesbury were inundated with calls offering various forms of information. One call among many hundreds to the police at Aylesbury, was made by John Maris a thirty-three year old herdsman, who lived at Oakley, some twenty miles from the crime scene. He had become suspicious of a number of people who had been to and from a place named Leatherslade Farm during the few days immediately before the robbery and after. He had walked up the dirt track, which was about a quarter of a mile long, and had seen a number of vehicles parked there. On the 13th of August he told the local policeman at Brill, P.C.Woolley, of his suspicions and together they made a closer examination of the farm which at that time was unoccupied. The policeman effected an entry into the farmhouse and in the cellar found mailbags and bank wrappers. Shortly after, a number of policemen arrived and threw a cordon around the main farm buildings. The purpose of the cordon was to keep unauthorised people away until a thorough fingerprint and forensic examination had been carried out. Shortly after lunch we loaded our equipment into our transport and together with our photographer, Ken Creer, we made our way to Aylesbury.
The location of the farm buildings was ideal as a hideout. Set in a hollow on rising ground it could not be seen from the few roads in the vicinity. The ugly farmhouse was a functional two storey building consisting of five rooms of varying sizes, a kitchen, a bathroom and a cellar. Outside, opposite the farmhouse was a large covered, but open fronted barn-like structure. Inside was an Austin lorry which had been crudely painted yellow. It was covered with a large tarpaulin. To the side of the lorry, in an enclosed area under the same roof, was a generator which was used to provide the farm with electricity. To the right of this structure were the remnants of a bonfire. Many half burned tin cans which had contained a variety of substances from soup to beer still remained recognisable. In a shed, behind the farmhouse, was a khaki coloured Land Rover. It had been driven so far into the shed that it had pushed the back of the shed out. Just down the drive was another shed, also housing a Land Rover, only this one was green in colour. For some reason best known to the robbers both Land Rovers carried the same index number – BMG757A.
Having completed our preliminary inspection of the areas to be examined it appeared logical to us to start our examination in the farmhouse, but the weather, with rain forecast, made it necessary to complete the examination of the outbuildings and vehicles first. When we moved the tarpaulin from the lorry we found that a secret compartment had been built between the chassis members. Our examination revealed a number of prints, both finger and palm, on all three vehicles, including a palmprint on the outside of the near-side door of the green Land Rover and a palmprint on the tailboard of the yellow painted lorry which, incidentally, had a pick axe handle stowed away behind the passengers seat.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 201 As we were examining the vehicles, a team of laboratory officers removed all the mail bags, wrappers and etc. from the cellar. Included in this material were various newspapers whose front pages were devoted to graphic descriptions of the robbery. A number of board games including ‘Monopoly’ were also found.
The external examination completed we turned our attention to the farmhouse. Considering a large number of men had been using the kitchen it was strangely tidy, almost as though a woman had been present keeping it under control. It appeared from the amount of provisions in the larder that the recent occupants had intended to stay longer than they did. All the items were neatly laid out -: thirty-four tins of fruit salad, thirty-eight tins of soup, eighteen tins of pork luncheon meat, sixteen two-pound packets of sugar, forty tins of baked beans, seven wrapped loaves, fifteen tins of condensed milk, nine tins of corned beef, eighteen one-pound packets of butter, as well as cakes, jam, biscuits, tea, coffee, potatoes, apples, seventeen packets of toilet rolls, forty candles, a Johnson first-aid travel kit and a bottle of tomato ketchup. As one senior officer put it, the shelves were stacked like a supermarket. In the kitchen cupboards were eating and cooking implements plus dozens of eggs. On the floor was a two-ringed camping stove. Two metal containers with water in them stood in the bath and in other rooms were sleeping bags, lilos, pillows, various items of clothing and towels.
Although we were to find a miscellany of prints throughout the house, there is no doubt that the kitchen and the larder were, as far as finger and palmprints were concerned, to be our ‘Aladdin’s Cave’.
It was claimed later that someone let the robbers down by not destroying the evidence at Leatherslade Farm after they had departed, but there was strong evidence that the occupants themselves had tried to wash away traces of fingerprints using two large sponges we found in the kitchen. In fairness to them they were at a disadvantage, they could not see their prints but we could.
The first arrests came when we were still at the farm. The information leading to those arrests came, ironically, from a policeman’s widow, Mrs. Clark, who lived in Bournemouth . Her suspicions were aroused when a man came to rent her garage. He insisted on paying three months rent in advance and pulled a thick roll of banknotes from his pocket to pay her. After he had left she
page 202 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 phoned the police and told them of her suspicions. By the time the police arrived the man had returned with a friend and driven his vehicle into the newly rented garage. The police officers questioned the two men and, as they were not satisfied with some of the answers given, detained them both.
At the police station they were searched. On William Boal they found one hundred and eighteen pounds and a receipt which indicated that he had recently purchased a car and paid cash for it. On the other man, Roger Cordrey, they found one hundred and sixty pounds. When police returned to the garage and opened the car, using a key found on Boal, they found two bags filled with banknotes. They then went to a flat where Cordrey had been staying and to a garage where he kept his car, both were searched and more money found. From the three locations a total of one hundred and forty-one thousand pounds was recovered. Both men were later transferred to Aylesbury Police Station and charged.
We completed our examination of the farm on Saturday the 17th of August and returned to the Yard to start the mammoth task of sorting out the mass of finger and palmprints we had accumulated. During the sorting we noticed that some of the prints were repeated on different articles. A fingerprint on a blue edged plate, found in a cupboard, had been made by the same finger that had left a fingerprint on the cellophane wrapper of a Johnson’s travel kit which had been on a shelf in the pantry. From their positions it was deduced that they had been made by a right middle finger. A search was made in the single fingerprint collection and the owner of the fingerprint was identified as Roy John James, a twenty-eight year old silversmith. A second pairing up of marks, one on a part of a ‘Monopoly’ box lid, the other on a Heinz Tomato Ketchup bottle, were searched in a similar manner and led to the identification of a thirty- four year old carpenter named Ronald Biggs.
We set up two teams. The first dealt with the chemical treatment of all the torn wrappers and packages recovered from the cellar at the farm. They eventually added many hundreds of finger and palmprints to those we already had. The second team dealt with all the checking of finger and palmprints both for the persons suspected and those with legitimate access to whatever the prints were on. For instance, the finger and palmprints of over two hundred railway employees who had access to either the diesel unit or the railwayman’s cap found at Bridego Bridge were checked. As were the prints of over two-hundred postal employees who either had access to the high value packet coach or had received postal packets at various post offices. Over two hundred bank employees from various banks in the north of the country, Wales and even the Isle of Man were printed for checking with the prints developed on the torn wrappers and packages. All told over eight hundred sets of elimination finger and palmprints were taken and checked.
It was apparent from the outset that the robbers were highly skilled, top echelon criminals, if that is the right way to describe them. At any one time it is extremely unlikely that there are more than two hundred criminals of this calibre operating in the British Isles outside Her Majesty’s Prisons. The detectives investigating the crime soon began to suggest various members of this criminal hardcore as possibilities.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 203 By the middle of September five of the wanted men were in custody. One by one the people who had been at Leatherhead Farm were identified. Charles Wilson, a thirty-one year old bookmaker and greengrocer, whose right palmprint was on the window sill in the kitchen and whose right thumb print was on both a drum of salt and the Johnson’s travel kit, the latter being the same article which bore the print of Roy John James, Marks on a torn envelope stamped Barclay’s Bank Ltd., Pwllheli and dated the 6th of August 1963, which had been found in one of the mailbags, were identified as being made by the right middle and right ring fingers of Ronald Edwards, a thirty-two year old club owner. The palm mark on the near-side door of the green Land Rover had also been made by his left palm. James Hussey, a thirty-one year old painter and decorator was identified by his right palmprint on the tailboard of the Austin lorry. A palmprint on the handrail of the bath was identified as being made by the left palm of Thomas Wisbey, a thirty-four year old bookmaker. Palm marks on a pipkin of Friary Draught Bitter, found in a cupboard next to the back door, were identified for the left and right palms of thirty-five year old Robert Welch. A palm mark on a copy of the Oxford Mail, dated the 9th of August 1963, which had been in one of the mailbags was identified as being made by the left palm of James White, a forty-four year old café proprietor. Prints developed on two ‘Monopoly’ tokens and on the Heinz tomato ketchup bottle, previously mentioned, were made by various fingers of Bruce Reynolds, a thirty-two year old antique dealer.
Running parallel with these operations was a constant demand for examination of vehicles and premises believed to have been used by the missing robbers. Co-operative county forces also submitted photographs of marks found in circumstances that could possibly assist the investigation.
On the 15th of August at Dorking, over one hundred thousand pounds was found in four cases which had been abandoned in a small wood at Boare Hill and a few days later a caravan at Box Hill was examined and over thirty thousand pounds was found hidden behind the panelling. Fingerprints found in the caravan were identified as those of James White. Needless to say White did not return to the caravan.
In early December 1963 a policeman called at 71 Handcroft Road , Croydon where he had seen a ladder leaning against the wall by a bedroom window. The young woman who answered the door seemed reluctant to allow them inside the house to ensure that everything was alright. When they did finally enter they were confronted by a man and the young woman explained in an embarrassed manner that her husband was away. The policemen left but rapidly returned when they realised who the man was. They were too late. Bruce and Franny Reynolds had gone. A fingerprint examination of the premises revealed, among other things, that they had been visited by Roy John James.
A few days later James was arrested as he tried to escape from Ryders Terrace in St. John’s Wood. In his hand was a holdall which contained twelve thousand pounds. Once again a full fingerprint examination was required to identify his associates.
page 204 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 While we were busy finding out who was involved in the train robbery, other officers were find - ing out the manner of their involvement. The history of the farm and the vehicles was well and truly probed.
The Austin lorry had been purchased at an auction in July for three hundred pounds. The purchaser, who paid in cash, gave a false name and address. One of the Land Rovers had been purchased quite legitimately, the other had been stolen in London eighteen days before the robbery and fitted with false plates. It was pure chance that Leatherslade Farm had become available to the robbers. Earlier in the year, Mr. Rixon, having made the decision to sell the farm, gave instructions to this effect to three estate agents. On the 27th of June 1963, Leonard Field, who professed an interest in purchasing the farm and Brian Field (they were not related)who was a managing clerk to a solicitor named John Wheater, attended the farm to view it. The owner was pleased when a little later a purchase price of five and a half thousand pounds was agreed and a cheque for the deposit of five hundred and fifty pounds was sent from Wheater to his agent. He was later informed by his solicitor that the balance of the money would be made available on the 13th of August. However, the purchaser was keen to take possession of the farm some two weeks earlier, on the 29th of July if some suitable settlement could be arrived at. This eventually took the form of an agreement by the purchaser to pay 7% interest on the balance until completion of the purchase. Satisfied with this, Rixon vacated the farm on the date agreed. Although they were to claim that their actions were quite innocent the two Fields and the solicitor Wheater were, at a later date, found guilty of conspiring to obstruct the course of justice.
When photographs of some of the wanted men were published in the press it created bedlam for the fingerprint staff involved in the enquiry. Members of the public phoned police in all parts of the country to say they had seen this wanted person or that wanted person in a variety of locations – a boarding house, a pub, a car and etc. Police responding to these calls ordered, where necessary, a fingerprint examination of the premises or vehicles and sent the resultant prints to the Yard for checking.
After nearly two million finger and palm print comparisons had been carried out the first of a number of trials, which were to take place during a five year period commenced at Aylesbury on the 20th of January 1964 and lasted three months. Nineteen defendants were arraigned before the court including all but three of the men identified at Leatherslade Farm. The missing men were White, Edwards and Reynolds. One hundred and fifty witnesses were called and over six hundred exhibits produced.
Of the ten men finally convicted for the actual robbery, as distinct from those found guilty of conspiracy to rob, only one did not leave his finger or palmprints behind at Leatherslade Farm.
I found it interesting that not one of the accused denied the identity of their fingerprints.
Biggs claimed that he went to Leatherslade farm with a friend before the train robbery,
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 205 ostensibly to join a team in a criminal venture. At that stage they did not know the nature of the crime to be committed. They prepared a meal for themselves and this, according to Biggs, explained how his fingerprints came to be on the bottle of tomato ketchup and the pyrex plate. They stayed the night at the farm and it was not until the next day’s meet that they discovered the planning for the intended crime involved the stopping of a Royal Mail train. They decided not to take part in it and returned to London . Buster Edwards claimed he was paid ten thousand pounds to clean up the farm after the robbery. He went to the farm and collected his money but did not clean up. This would account for his fingerprints being on the bank envelope and his palmprint being on the outside of the nearside door of the green Land Rover. Unfortunately for Edwards evidence was given which stated the near-side of the Land Rover was so close to the shed wall that it was not possible for Edwards to have put his palmprint on the door whilst it was in this position. This meant the print in question must have been placed there sometime previously.
The most complicated defence was a combined effort by Welch, Wisbey and Hussey. They claimed that Ronnie, who was a friend of Hussey, had been commissioned to drive a lorry containing foodstuff to a destination in the country and leave it there. He, Ronnie, had invited Hussey to go along with him in order to give him a lift back to London afterwards. While they were discussing this Wisbey and Welch appeared on the scene. Hussey told Ronnie that his mother was ill and that he would have to remain at home to look after her. He did suggest, however, that if Wisbey and Welch had nothing better to do they might like to accompany Ronnie and drive him back after he had delivered the lorry. This they agreed to do. Before they left Hussey said he would like an apple. He lifted the tarpaulin at the back of the lorry and reached in for an apple. In doing so he held on to the tailboard. Ronnie and his two companions drove to a farm and while they were there Wisbey went to the bathroom to wash his hands where he stumbled and grabbed the handrail of the bath to maintain his balance. Meanwhile Welch happened to examine a pipkin of ale because he was very interested in the new cans.
The defence for a tenth man identified at the farm by his fingerprints on ‘Monopoly’ tokens recovered from one of the mailbags successfully claimed that he had only played monopoly with friends in London and was quite unable to account for the presence of these tokens at the farm. On the direction of the Judge the jury formally found the tenth man not guilty.
Two references to the fingerprint evidence have afforded me a certain amount of amusement. In her book ‘The Robber’s Tale’ Peta Fordham touchingly refers to the prints left by Roy James in this way:-
‘At the day of judgement, whatever his other sins – and he has many – James will score a point here. The stray cats left about the farm found in him a friend to feed them. There were three of them. It was Roy James fingerprints on a pyrex plate, put out to feed these cats, that connected him with the robbery. Poor little innocent betrayers of a friend!’
page 206 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 Piers Paul Read in his book ‘The Train Robbers – Their Story’ presumably referring to the left and right palmprints left on a pipkin of ale by Robert Welch, writes:-
‘As if to equal Dr Holden, Detective Superintendent Maurice Ray now came up with his most spectacular piece of fingerprint evidence. On one of the cans of beer he found a fragment of a fingerprint, made through a pin-sized hole in a glove, which he matched with the prints on file of Bob Welch.’
My only comment is – what pin-sized hole? I knew Maurice Ray was good but I didn’t know he was that good.
Two post robbery, but related, occurrences made me wonder about our human values.The first took place on Tuesday the 14th of February 1969 when a public auction was held at Measham in Staffordshire of the equipment discarded by the robbers, most of it from Leatherslade Farm. The prices paid for some of the items bore no relation to their value if purchased new. For instance a frying pan was sold for thirty pounds and an aluminium teapot was purchased for sixty pounds. Even the Austin lorry which had been purchased at an auction, just before the robbery for three hundred pounds was sold for one thousand, one hundred and fifty pounds. A man who purchased an item for forty-five pounds is reported to have said “My wife will be proud that I have bought this. We shall be able to boast about it all our lives and then pass it on to our grandchildren.”
The other occurrence related to the driver of the train, Jack Mills, who never fully recovered from his injuries. He died in February 1970 from leukaemia. It is sad but true that quite a lot of people made a lot of money out of the Great Train Robbery. The notable exception was its human victim, Jack Mills.
Copyright – Gerald Lambourne.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 207 LETTERS
Dear Editor,
I have just received my latest copy of Fingerprint Whorld and the first such copy edited by you. May I at once offer you my sincere congratulations to you on producing an issue that is outstanding, not only in its general appearance, but also on its well-balanced and diverse content: an excellent read, containing technical, historical and legal articles, peppered lightly with items of a jocular, but pertinent flavour, I see this as the sort of publication that operational officers, (that is those who still aspire to get identifications and results, rather than those who meddle with obtuse scientific issues, often far divorced from what is expected of the job description), will readily identify with, and more important will both enjoy and find educational. The front cover was particularly striking and I look forward to your next creation. In my opinion, this is one of the finest issues ever produced.
I have sometimes been described as a dinosaur, a description I vehemently reject, for I was the first fingerprint examiner to introduce an operational palms AFIS into the UK; implemented the first use of superglue as a fingerprint development process in the Hertfordshire Fingerprint Bureau, despite Home Office opposition and as far as I’m aware was the first FE to use fingerprint powder on the hands of cadavers, way back in the early 70s: not least, with my colleagues I was a Founder Member of this noble organisation. I make these claims not in any way to appear vainglorious, but to stress that I have always supported innovation; but any innovation has to be both relevant and useful. Nothing is more of a turn-off to me than to see a plethora of articles in Fingerprint Whorld splattered with pie-charts, graphs, and Einsteinesque formulae associated claptrap. There is much truth in the proverb: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” I realise that there is a most important place for scientific research and without the likes of Sandridge the Fingerprint Service in the UK would be much less effective and productive. Furthermore, FEs and scientists should, and do work in close tandem in order to improve the manner in which we can achieve better and faster results. I sometime wonder just how many identifications some of the authors of this type of article have ever effected: perhaps none – probably none.
So, to return to the current issue of Fingerprint Whorld. I understand that it will be the Editor’s policy to ensure that each issue will be well – balanced and will contain articles covering the whole wide vista of fingerprints and associated methods of personal identification: you have made a good start and as far as I’m concerned, it was worth the wait. I have only heard complimentary comments on it. A truly informative and professionally produced journal such as this can only take the Society forward and enhance its rapidly improving image.
page 208 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 I was fascinated by Ex-Commander Lambourne’s letter, with which of course I am in complete agreement. The quite undeserved and churlish quotation from Allan Bayle leaves me astounded. This man, who promotes himself as “the UK’s leading authority on forensic ridgeology” – whatever that may be, has the gall to suggest that UK’s fingerprint experts are not well trained and up to the job, when ironically he was a fingerprint trainer at the Metropolitan Police College, Hendon for several years and boasts to having helped author the training notes. I rest my case.
In closing, may I say how much I enjoyed your first issue and I look forward reading and enjoying many more in the years to come.
Martin Leadbetter FFS RFP Dip. Eur. Hum. (Open) BA (Hons)
CROSSWHORLD PUZZLE NO. 001 Answer Key
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 209 MISCELLANY
WHAT A CHORE!! (or I Just Don’t Have the Time) MARTIN LEADBETTER
What a chore! What a bore! Something more, Whatever for? It is the law, So don’t ignore. We need for sure, Fully rolled with core, Plus plain prints four, Palms too, we do implore So over them we can pore Through eyes so sore, With crusted eyelid gore, Getting idents galore, Helped by the AFIS store Of data clear and raw. Bad ‘prints we always do abhor; Don’t take any that are poor, Even from a drunken whore. We need these prints the experts roar, Well taken prints we all adore, As we saw in days of yore, Before Live-scan came through the door And taking ‘prints was not a chore- Alors! LIMERICK MARTIN LEADBETTER
Grew practised morphology, And Purkenji, physiology, Herschel was persistent, Old Faulds most insistent, But tell me, what is forensic ridgeology?
page 210 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 NB. The crossword uses American spelling First 5 correct Crossword Solutions picked will win a Fingerprint Society USB Data stick! Send your correct solutions by the end of December to: Nick Mitchell, Leicestershire Constabulary, Scientific Support, St Johns Enderby, Leicester LE5 9BX
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 211 page 212 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 REIKI By Gisela Stewart
Stress and hectic life-styles are well known to cause or contribute to many of today’s health problems. Yet, living in the 21st century, it can sometimes be hard to create even a temporary oasis of peace and quietness, which allows our minds to unwind and experience the deep state of relaxation during which the body begins to renew itself and heal.
Mikao Usui, who created the Japanese energy healing art of Reiki in the 1920s, understood the importance of the mind-body connection well ahead of his time. Having healed people completely of their physical conditions, he found that the same people would often reappear with similar problems a few months later. He then realised that it is ultimately our state of mind and negative mental habits, which cause disease.
Like anything in Reiki, the remedy he came up with was extremely simple: Focusing your attention on five fundamental principles every day - Do not get angry. Do not worry. Be grateful. Do your duties. Be kind to others - even if only briefly, would help to create the balanced mind that can sustain health.
The idea is so simple. If you act out your anger, you will harm others and yourself. If you hold it in, it will make you ill. We’ve always known the answer: Just count to ten! You will not be able to improve any situation by worrying about it. If you make time to become quiet, a creative solution to act on your problem may just present itself to you. Gratitude- the silver lining we can find in any situation - transforms your world into a friendly place. Then you can do what you need to do without wasting your energy on resistance. Being kind to yourself and others will naturally follow from there. Why not try the benefits of this practice for yourself? Just sit quietly, with your spine straight and your shoulders relaxed. It helps if you focus on your breathing, bringing the breath all the way down into your abdomen and then releasing it through your mouth.
Reiki, a physical healing method that works on accumulations of toxins in the body, is now being taught in its original simplicity by Tadao Yamaguchi. He was lucky not to have needed many doctors in his life. Yet he was a sickly child. It is thanks to his mother Chiyoko’s frequent Reiki treatments that Tadao’s health stabilised completely. Like his mother before him, Tadao grew up with many impressive, and sometimes life saving experiences of the healing power of Reiki. He has now made it his mission to share his knowledge and experience with people around the globe in his Jikiden Reiki seminars. Thanks to Mr Yamaguchi, Westerners have access now, for the first time, to the authentic Reiki system in its unaltered form.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 213 ‘Jikiden’ means directly passed down, and it is a privilege to have learned from someone who has such genuine knowledge and understanding of Reiki. Tadao’s mother successfully used it for commonplace ailments and first aid as well as treating serious conditions for more than 65 years’, explains Gisela Stewart, who has trained with Tadao Yamaguchi on four occasions and now teaches Jikiden Reiki in seminars all over Scotland. “I highly value the simplicity and clarity of Jikiden Reiki. Nothing has been added and the full depth of understanding of the original Japanese healing system has been preserved”, Stewart, also a Western Reiki master, comments on her Jikiden Reiki training. “The beauty of Reiki is its efficacy and the fact that anyone can learn how to do it. Practitioners channel the life-force energy or ‘chi’ through their hands. Thus Reiki re-awakens the natural healing process by focusing energy on the areas where it is most needed. It is that simple!”
For further information contact:- [email protected], 01896 870781, www.jikidenreiki.co.uk
THE FERRT AWARD - DAVID CHAPMAN
The Fingerprint Society are very proud to sponsor a prize at the National Policing Improvement Agency Awards to the best student attending the Forensic Enhancement Recovery and Recording Techniques (FERRT) course.
The 2007 Award has been presented to David Chapman at a ceremony held at Durham Castle.
PICTURE - David Chapman receiving his award from Society President Vivienne Galloway.
page 214 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 A SELECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE FINGERPRINT SOCIETY’S 33RD ANNUAL EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE
JOHN SEVIOUR D. SUPT. MIKE GRADWELL
TOM WILKINS
DAVID MILLS
DCI MARTIN ANDREW CHRIS MORGAN
MOTHER GOOSE
THE GOSLINGS TOP TABLE
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 215 JOHN DIXON TREVOR JOHNSON JANE ASTON
MR HOGAN-HOWE
OUR OVERSEAS DELEGATES
FUNKADELIC (FULL IMAGE) JIM LAMBIE 2002 Courtesy of Jim Lambie and The Modern Institute, Glasgow
page 216 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 CONFERENCE
The Fingerprint Society Application for 2009 Annual Conference MANCHESTER, ENGLAND
Personal Details
1. Surname: 2. First name(s): Title:
3. Address and postcode: 4. Telephone no. (work):
5. Telephone no. (home):
6. Email Address:
7. Membership Number:
8. Employer / Organisation:
9. Vehicle Make / Model / Registration: (For security purposes associated with venue)
Accommodation Requirements
Preferred Room Type (Subject to availability) Single Occupancy Single Shared Occupancy Twin Non-Residential Double Partners Rate Gala Dinner Only
Additional Information (i.e. If you are sharing; name of that person)
Dietary and Accessibility Requirements
Please list any additional requirements relating to diet (i.e. vegetarian / vegan / allergies)
Please list any additional requirements relating to access (i.e. wheelchair access / ground floor room)
Is a packed lunch required for the Sunday afternoon?
The details supplied in this form will be used for the sole purpose of this conference and will not be used for any other Fingerprint Society correspondence or passed onto any other parties.
FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008 page 217
The Fingerprint Society 2009 Conference Fees
Members Only (Valid at time of booking) Single Occupancy Shared Occupancy Full Package £200 £180 Early Booking Discount £180 £165
Other rates: £120 (Non residential) £65 (Partners Rate) £30 per day (24 hour conference rate) £50 Gala Dinner Only
Lectures (inc lunch & B&B Gala Saturday refreshments) (Fri & Dinner* Dinner* Fri Sat Sun Sat) Full Package Non Residential Partners Rate 24 hour Rate or or Gala Dinner Only
* The Gala Dinner and Saturday Dinner and entertainment will be taking place off- site. Transport from and returning to accommodation will be provided.
On site accommodation is limited and will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis. Alternative accommodation will be provided and courtesy transportation to and from the conference venue will be supplied.
The last date for Early Booking Discount is Wednesday 31st December 2008
Applications from non-members will be considered after 1st January 2009 and will be subject to availability and a surcharge of £40.
Payment Options
ONLINE www.fpsociety.org.uk/Manc2009 You can pay by debit / credit card by completing the online booking form and following the instructions to our secure payment system.
POST Complete the booking form which can be found in Fingerprint Whorld or downloaded from the relevant pages on The Fingerprint Society website (www.fpsociety.org.uk/Manc2009). Forward the completed form together with the appropriate payment to: The Fingerprint Society Conference Team, Greater Manchester Police Forensic Identification Services, 3 Bank Street, Clayton. MANCHESTER. M11 4AA. Cheques / Postal Orders must be made payable to “The Fingerprint Society”.
BACS Payments by bank transfer must be accompanied with a booking reference number. You can request this number along with an invoice by emailing [email protected] or phoning 0161 856 6615 and asking for a member of The Fingerprint Society Conference Team. Payments can be made to the following account – The Royal Bank of Scotland, 1 Dale Street, Liverpool. L2 2PP. Sort Code 16-24-06. Account Number 10299165
CANCELLATION POLICY Cancellations received before 1st March 2009 will be subject of a £20 administration fee. Cancellations received after 1st March 2009 will not be refunded. A change in attending delegate can be made at any time, subject to approval by The Conference Team.
THE FINGERPRINT SOCIETY CONFERENCE TEAM, GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION SERVICES, 3 BANK STREET, CLAYTON, MANCHESTER. M11 4AA Tel. 0161 856 6615 Fax 0161 856 6629 e-mail [email protected]
page 218 FINGER PRINT WHORLD Vol 34 No 133 July 2008