This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of Forensic

Jim Fraser, Robin Williams

Fingerprints

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 Christophe Champod, Paul Chamberlain Published online on: 01 Jul 2009

How to cite :- Christophe Champod, Paul Chamberlain. 01 Jul 2009, from: Handbook of Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781843927327.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 kn uh s at, lses n sas a as b seen. be also tothe may scars and blisters Trauma warts, shapes. as distinctive such particularly skin have permanent, may are flexures) which with of associated features (some when other Creases are observed. there be addition may In 3.1). that (Figure details and pores other to or 3 Level edge and ridge path) ridge the of deviation large (or minutiae to 2 Level categorised ridges, the of often flow ridge general are the to relating features 1 Level levels: described three into above The and shapes. shape distinctive in with vary themselves pores The relative position along the ridge. The edges of the ridges are eccrine also irregular, dermis. often from the sweat of in secretion embedded the glands allow to is function Their regarding summit. terminology their spurs The or ending). The standardisation. endings) ridge lacks formations latter and these ridge bifurcation connected a two from opposing (formed by two by (formed (formed islands lakes as bifurcations), can such Minutiae arrangements used. combined also form are points also Galton or characteristics, points, These as dot. such a than more little termed are forming events latter sometimes length, in limited be may points focal key around articulated are that bythe called systems are formed ridge patterns of These defined. conjunction be can whorls and loops arches, and movement pressure, to skin the the vibration. of increase sensitivity to mechanical is surfaces the surfaces. these volar and of the grip function surfaces biological these the that call We believed is feet. It the of onthe soles also and and , palms, and the be of can phalanges It distal surface. the skin on the observed in folds by formed furrows, and ridges has which term The terminology and Introduction lsr npcin eel ta te igs a bek bfrae, n, or end, (bifurcate), break may ridges the that reveals inspection Closer The core(s) general flow general Chapter 3 Christophe Champod andPaulChristophe Chamberlain Fingerprints rcin ig skin ridge friction and delta(s) of the ridges forms various patterns. Three main categories: main Three patterns. various forms ridges the of minutiae . refers to a specific type of skin, the surface of thesurface of skin, type specific a to refers in this chapter, although various other terms other various although chapter, this in ridges bear pores indented in indented 57

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 58 skin. ridge friction the of representation perfect near as a are to prints referred commonly scanner digital a livescan (essentially process device inking optical an an using or either conditions controlled under and cooperation a convention a Likewise, . a of area 3.1 Figure Handbook of h term The Lake (Maltoni ) Ridge endings Focal points Major ridgepathdeviation

Core lutain f h tre ees f details of levels three the of Illustration

Forensic Science print Delta Level 2 Island t al et s hn rfrne rm kon ape ae with taken sample known a from reference a then is 20) Bcue f hi pitn aqiiin conditions, acquisition pristine their of Because 2003). . Bifurcation ees o n mrsin et y fito rde skin ridge friction a by left impression an to refers am print palm Spur Loop (totheright) Loop (totheleft) Main categoriesofgeneralridgeflows s n mrsin rm h pl. By palm. the from impression an is Level 1 Level 3features Ridge edge Whorl Arch Pore Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 itr o cmons rgntn fo ecie n sbcos lns The glands. sebaceous and residues.sweat with contaminated ‘stamp’ areaherea skin acts as ridge friction eccrine from originating compounds of mixture refer We surface. as any impressions with these contact to direct into comes it when characteristics be traced to the turn of the twentieth century. At that time the anthropometric the time that century.At twentieth the of turn the to traced be investigators. for information provide to police individual an to to froma scene come recovered marks have palm they or finger if attribute to establish Second previously. notice to of identification example, the for for criminal method individuals, the a arrested is within that ways biometric, a distinct as First but system. related justice two in used are Fingerprints UK the on focused perspective historical Short individuals. of of identity of result issues address the to helps as impressions damage skin ridge reform friction heavy of comparison will isthe attributes, above there the configurations ridgeedge of Because where trauma). such or (except that exactly pores and less time or more with minutiae, change insequence, not do details ridges of configurations used); often that term (the ‘uniqueness’ or specificity of level high a have features competency. to trained practitioner a mean called appropriate in circumstances 3.2). taken uncontrolled (Figure deposition the when their to of quality due vary high may of marks be whereas conditions, to tend Prints ridge surface. friction actual skin the with compared print) a or mark a (either impression (superimposed). overlaid or mark, the of appearance the changing thus by distorted flow; pressure which may sometimes cause the residue ridge to be pushed into the furrows, visible broken to with rise fragmentary longer gives be This may for times. marks contact differences: multiple in surface same be the may on residue, placed shortperiod or of avery time transfer for the reducing thus on asurface time of be placed may finger The reproduced. that detail ridge marks friction of of term The proportiontechniques. detection large of application the the without designate seen be to cannot used been often may reader has The latent term area. the skin across ridge come friction have any also of impression alone an mark to term refer the will otherwise established, been has in area skin as ridge qualified friction is mark term the marks If finger prints. the to compared of quality often are varying marks deposition, the of uncontrolled the By footwear. or gloves without object an touches one when adventitiously left then are Marks h fito rde kn ra a as lae rpeetto o its of representation a leave also can area skin ridge friction The The systematic use of fingerprints for identification purposes in the UK can UK the in purposes identification for fingerprints of use systematic The fingerprint of configurations that is examination fingerprints all of basis The aregenerally incomparison engaged practitioners fingerprint UK the In term The be not may flow ridge the of sections complete; be not may Marks fingerprint experts fingerprint or quality am marks palm s n seset f cuay f h rpeetto o the of representation the of accuracy of assessment an is s lo oeie encountered. sometimes also is . Here we will use the term fingerprint examiner to examiner fingerprint term the use will we Here . marks i mas ht h crepnig oiin n the on position corresponding the that means it , Te ae ae f wa rsde, complex a residues, sweat of made are They . latent ak pit r mrsin Te term The impression. or print mark, Fingerprints area 59 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 60 the on (depending marks on and techniques) deposition) acquisition the on (depending prints 3.2 Figure Handbook of Mark detectedona sheet ofplastic adhesive sideofatape Mark detectedon Forensic Science Illustration of the range of quality obtained for the same finger on finger same the for obtained quality of range the of Illustration Inked impression the Mark detectedona sheet ofpaper (resolution: 1000dpi) Livescan device Mark detectedona sheet ofplastic adhesive sideofatape Mark detectedon (resolution: 500dpi) Livescan device the Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 olwn: 1 bn lnts ean osat uig dl ae bt 2 vary (2) but age, adult during constant remain lengths identification, (1) personal following: the of were principles method The . photographic biometric developing the prevalent alongside of the circumference of arm, was length etc.), finger, index head of (length body human the of measurements specific using ) in Bertillon by 1881 in (developed system fingerprints as a means of personal identification became established and became established of use identification recently. the fairly ofpersonal century, until unchallenged remained twentieth essentially early ameans the in as science fingerprints of virtues modern new (1905). documented: well are donors its identify ofpersonal method main UK. the the in from as identification fingerprints fingerprints adopt of to committee set Troup the particular persuading in a instrumental was of development classification This . retrieval large Galton-Henry extremely and This storage colleagues). the Indian allowed his by (helped Henry Edward by improved greatly then was method The individuals. of collections types. basic three large handle to ofpermanence unsuitable judged into was Galton of method classification first patterns The fingerprint notion classifying reliably the of the suggested possibility are also He uniqueness. which and data), 1892 and fingerprinting, work in Herschel’s on presented (based of He axioms Galton. operational Francis basic main forensic of the The work the from characteristics. came core contribution on and based pattern system classification flow a designed ridge Faulds that, to addition As crime scenes. natural at a be detected could for fingermarks fingerprints as use purposes, to investigative 1880 in proposed Japan, in missionary medical a then Strathclyde), of University the (now Glasgow who in College Faulds, Andersons at Henry studied time, same the At permanence. of concept the also supported years 30 some over work His employees. identify to use Cole his of prisoners, result a especially as 2001; India, individuals, identify in (Beavan to fingerprints administrator monographs of colonial use the recent a proposed Herschel, in William covered 2003). Sengoopta well 2001; is Henry E. F.Galton and W.Herschel, in H. Faulds, scientists British namely fingerprinting, of of prepare work development the and The method government. Bertillon’sUK the of for merits recommendations the assess to tasked were Belper) scenes. of crime absence on the left and instrumentation ‘traces’ body anthropometric expensive) the of (very need the the the (4) and of in subjects; quality non-cooperative measures or the training, the of lack of variations to inter-operator distributions due (3) features; uneven between correlation limitations (1) the (2) The were:population; increased. technique databases of this size of the also as evident was becoming were method classification addressed It limitations its although great success with identification of characteristics. increasingissues the A distinctive these structure measurements. to colour order iris’s in developed precise the of 11 description the of combined use the reasonable proposed with Bertillon measured be precision. can they (3) and individual to individual from u t tee al scess n cmie wt a tog eif n the in belief strong a with combined and successes scenesto early oncrime these left to Due marks useof the of UK the in cases first The (Troup and committees government specific and England, in Galton Francis Jackson 10) and (1902) Stratton Fingerprints brothers 61

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 fingerprint in respect of particular investigations existed. Outside ofthe Outside to existed. powers investigations additional ofparticular although befingerprinted, offence respect an in would with fingerprint arrestee charged Each when Office). generally SCRO by Record Scotland for Criminal maintained (Scottish was collection similar a whilst , 62 landmark a be Office to Home considered the of be programmes research can the (1983) subsequently review and Morris The publication area. and this Goode in by innovation pioneered paper have UK residue. them the sweat the of combining in Researchers by compounds specific increased of targeting been allowing have sequence, in techniques the of selectivity Both sensitivity examined. be and can that surfaces of range the as well as marks recover to ability technique the extending introduced been powdering have to reagents chemical But other original use. techniques of ease and The of sensitivity reasonable its marks. of complexity view in used scene and widely remains crime range therecover in and increase detect an been has there both extension its 2005). in andWhitaker offering (Suman capabilities search IDENT1, print palm to and finger now moved has search NAFIS national first facility. the provided that NAFIS the particular of in and introduction systems Scotland the AFIS however New was to It ability. restricted searching and albeit the prints extended systems, Yard, single videotape for of system advent coding The a marks. introducing by further ability system finger this single extended Battley the 1930s thiswas the In although intensive. labour accuracy highly with reasonable was system searching coding such Henry allow the to Originally refined scene. crime a from mark a search technologies. mobile using latterly and suites custody in first development devices), livescan the (using with fingerprints of scanning electronic new of of use increased the seen Recent have database. years national the of maintenance shared undertook forces individual police NAFIS of advent the in With system. followednational truly first was the System), This Identification Fingerprint searching.Automated (National NAFIS national of networked roll-out the of a by 1996 degree purchased a forces of allowed consortium that a system 1990s NewScotland early the the (2002). In by Blain systems. 2005), (Komarinski outlined stand-alone purchased forces provincial systems briefly several and serves system a is Yardintroduced AFIS UK Komarinski forensic the to by in introductiondevelopment book good The a developed. as were technologies Identification Fingerprint Automatic Systems) speedof (i.e. method, AFIS 1980s filing the the In as increased. access used still was classification Henry the whilst previous prove to retained and prisons convictions. in taken were held Sets were notice. individuals to the come when previously had individual the to if searched and determine classification Henry the to according Each coded offices. was department. record received criminal set fingerprint the of police heart local the formed the collections national for The one and collection national one for the taken, were fingerprints of sets two area Police Metropolitan London Handbook of ni te 90 Nw ctad ad anand h ntoa fingerprint national the maintained Yard Scotland New 1990s the Until In parallel with the development of fingerprint comparison techniques, comparison fingerprint of development the with parallel In to ability the required investigation for collections these of utilisation The and videotape to moved was Yardcollection Scotland New the 1970s the In Forensic Science Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 Scientific Development Branch, the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science techniques. Forensic of development ongoing to the Police significantly contributed have the Metropolitan Service Science Forensic the and Branch, Development Scientific prints using scanners or more commonly through direct capture of the fingers the of capture direct through commonly more or scanners using prints agencies. other and police benefits clearly devices mobile various to coupled when which system identification round-the-clock accurate a allows being This intervention. human is without allowed ‘call’ identification be the make will to out’ systems computer ‘lights the that means of This that, investigated. concept actively such the now prints, are accuracies comparing system is when AFIS produced correspond. respondent to single found the that generally such is conditions controlled under taken fingerprints searching when systems of accuracy The wish. palms they should and an fingers all review search to opportunity the will have Examiners for technology comparison. fingerprints of selection AFIS a present proceedings then Current and database no against acquitted. print inquiry were was at charge there individual where only the destroyed taken or subsequently system, were and the fingerprints replaced whereby caution It Scotland, or 2005. in Act force Justice in Criminal still the in new relatively included a change is arrest on and Fingerprinting technology. IDENT1 AFIS called using database accessed ofan national a the arrest in on permanently retained taken individual, are fingerprints Wales, and England in Currently, prints to Print practicesand hereinafter. them inoperational on concentrate will mostprevalent we the far by are uses two first The marks to Mark marks) to (Prints prints to Mark prints to Print beidentified: can processes fingerprint Three investigations in fingerprint of Use Ten-print forms are input to the system either through the capture of inked of capture the through either system the to input are Ten-printforms : : : o sals a connection. a establish to recoveredmarks fromdifferentof offencescomparison The prints) palm and marks. (unresolved) finger of database of the set against control a to refer to used term a is (ten-prints ten-prints the of of set new searcha from features the meaning possible, of individuals. also is such) collection converse as circumstances The declared reference (or in a known from with left prints of investigation mark an a to interest of comparison the The from versa. vice undertaken or known the be to material unknown prove can to comparison individuals, The from identity. such) as declared known (or of an unknown database prints a against from dead) or fingerprints (living individual the of comparison The Fingerprints 63 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 is often subject to the loss of certain areas of the finger and palm, particularly palm, and finger the of it areas certain prints: of ten loss the of to subject set often quality is high a obtain to experience and training of operator degree a requires still apparatus of kind this However, system. AFIS the to device transmission direct this by scanner,searched rapidly be specialised can which a images, digital captures Essentially devices. livescan by palm and 64 will that comparison. then techniques and of search sequence the allow or method suitable a by recovery their and yet not is such system, comparison automatic feasible. fully a conceive of to development possible is the it although However, traditional examiner. the the replaced and have examination systems AFIS that It misconception list increases. common the candidate a on is likelihood the place the first on improves in appearing based accuracy match actual value systems the score of the a As datasets. generating the and of database, similarity the in prints ten from the obtained templates with mark lines enquiry the similar from dataset broadly a on candidates. comparing by work potential systems of AFIS list all a but provide exist but systemsVarious mark the AFIS magnifier. ‘identify’ handheld fact in a not using do examiner an has print by and hit compared mark the be a for to practice Where common still marks. is it quality AFIS, using lower achieved been of features to the sophisticated detect sufficiently not automatically Unlike are marks. programs the encoding of quality prints, lower quality the good of result a as prints that against than prints lower is of prints against marks searching AFIS in accuracy The time. this at use regular in Some not computer- are but exist do systems used occasionally. comparison screen on are based the handheld a Within Enlargements and place. common. photographs size is take life magnifier using still of traditional approach does traditional the work the comparison UK such extent a Nonetheless for certain suspects diminished. a potential has nominating to agencies police and AFIS of of widespread use practice individuals), the become years of recent has number Over system. limited systems AFIS the a with to the conjunction in example scope or for the (when reduced prints has against investigation manually either searched are Marks marks) to prints (or prints to Mark but dooccur. rare are these as such Errors etc. fingers of poorlytaken as: duplication individual, wrong the suchactivities to to associated being fingerprints related to fingerprints, not but are errors however, the comparison, of fingerprint Most the error. without be to should considered process be identification the not maintenance standard, crime highest the the of and to are processing identification database the the in of of important accuracy be the impacton Whilst little may marks. has but scene latter The facility palms. search of ten-print area the centre the and fingers of tips Handbook of The use of marks requires the detection of the marks on items on marks the of detection the requires marks scene crime of use The Forensic Science Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 lo e omd n uh usacs s ut pit r lo. aet ak are marks Latent . or paint dust, as substances may such Marks in visible. formed readily be not also are that substances other or residue sweat of be may marks scene Crime techniques detection marks Finger dacs n h dtcin ehius r rvee eey he yas o the for years three every reviewed are techniques detection (Champod the elsewhereon advances details in covered are and chemical therefore is persistence of theitem. Their handling abrasion. the subsequent by to influenced pronesignificantly are markson surface thecontrary, On non-porous surface. a the by fixed and absorbed being residue . serious for reserved often and routine significant not is a recovery of have safety and likelihood the maximise to sequences in techniques time many of use The influence. examination availability, as such issues practical although technique the of effectiveness the on made are Judgements • • • • on: detect to techniques. detection ability certain the for time and of function deposit a as the vary may since marks time, the with some Also only. degrade that donors will ‘good’ implies residue for variation successful This prove age, donor. may diet, the techniques the detection of kept, condition been physical has the surface and as: such ridge variables, friction of the number which large in a conditions on depends residue individual of an amount by The left squalene. acids, and amino cholesterol , salts, water, inorganic acids, mainly fatty of composed is residue deposited The area (Bowman in this publication influential 2004). most the as considered be aswell can various techniques of ( publication main safety.Its their the efficiency on data significant provided have programmes in research influential long-standing Their is utilised. and are techniques police which UK the to body advisory used. research main currently the those have forms HOSDB improve universities and of techniques new number develop a to programmes, and Service) Science Branch), Development (Forensic Scientific FSS Office (Home HOSDB the marks. as these visualise such to Agencies techniques of range a in made been has investment Considerable detection. against precautions some taken has offender the where crimes planned particular in investigation, criminal in encountered often more eeto tcnqe my e ral ctgrsd no pia, hscl or physical optical, into categorised broadly be may techniques Detection the decades, for persistence shown have surface porous a on left Marks item; the on to technique the ability of effect the detrimental potential versus the laboratory the site; on to directly technique items a deploy the transport to ability the object); wetted outdoor scene, (fire circumstances case the non- or surfaces); semi-porous paper, and glass as as such such porous – (porous substrate the of nature the based reagents choose to is marks of detection the for adopted strategy The ridges. of surface the on left sweat from formed generally are marks Latent patent , i.e. visible to the naked eye or eye naked the to visible i.e. , Manual of Fingerprint Development TechniquesDevelopment Fingerprint of Manual t al et latent 20b. The 2004b). . Fingerprints , formed , 65 ) Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 ak tesle, hs loig h ue f olwu dtcin techniques. detection follow-up of use the allowing thus themselves, marks the on effect adverse any without often contrast, suitable a produce to surface (Champod 2007). Symposium Science Forensic Interpol 66 2007). Reis raw 2001, the (Russ maintain trail audit appropriate and an with images record optimised subsequent therefore and the image must alter process significantly or to system ability the Any is image. technology digital A any backgrounds. with remove issue to Transform)key Fourier (Fast FFT as techniques such use may systems sophisticated Some images. optimise and capture to tools of of content 3.3). specific (Figure specific residue other the require or proteins surfaces heme, adhesive the target on to increase techniques or to detection blood impressions in glued the left of Marks visibility. staining their dye surfaces by on non-porous followed method often efficient is very that a is It ridges. the on polymer of white a form constituent and residue the (a on preferentially polymerise to tend superglues) heated as from (such Fumes components developer). lipid surfaces. physical at targeted porousthe techniques for by choice followed specific of be methods may under They the visible are product These fluorescent light. a of wavelengths or compound purple visible a the form to acids of amino with react constituents DFO or moreanalogues) its (and or Ninhydrin residue. one and reagent the between reactions chemical substrate. the and mark the between residues, contrast mark in only latent resulting bears it are when surface a they on differently condense Occasionally to tend lifter). adhesive or Metals deposition. metal vacuum is technique physical Another photographed. gelatine as (such appropriate an on medium transferred then and simplicity. powders of using advantage developed are the Marks have they sensitivity, limited with and surfaces non-porous on only effective adhere Generally residue. the to of components tendency fatty the a to have Powders colours. and shape particle size, particle materials, differing in available are powders commercial of powder.number A the on ruler a example). for (using itself, scale image a carry should image recorded defined Each (as previously). quality view its close-up optimise to a resolution as sufficient with well itself as mark marks, the of other the to relationship its object, the mark on detected the of position the indicate should documentation written photographic and case, any In image. usable a obtain to technique. knowledge photographic chemical or sound require physical others however, photograph; each to easy relatively after are marks Many or examination at the either applied of marks, outset of the process detection are successful These techniques a of cornerstone conditions. the inluminescence or etc.) dark examination, mode, (fromfield (diffuse/reflective conditions wavelengths illumination different different using infrared), searched to be can surface The Handbook of Optical techniques take advantage of the interaction between light and the and light between interaction the of advantage take techniques Optical Increasingly digital imaging systems are being used. These provide a range a provide These used. being are systems imaging digital Increasingly specific reagentsrelyon These available. also reagentsis Achemical of range of use the is detection physical of form common most and oldest The Forensic Science t al et 20a Becue 2004a; . t al et . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 (1) twofold: are identification skin ridge friction of premises The premises Basic conclusions associated and comparison of Method 3.3 Figure sticky side powder side sticky sticky side powder side sticky Detected with a with Detected The discrimination is drastically increased by the specific arrangements specific the by 2007). increased known(Kücken drastically are is flow discrimination The general the influencing epigenetic) and on observed patterns (genetic factors The cent. the per 60 for account loops of some whereas fingertips, cent per 5 roughly than represent less frequent be Arches general others. may however the patterns for Some infinite. classes afair not possible is allow The pattern of will number that the sources. variation although presents discrimination different friction alone the flow of General from morphogenesis skin. the ridge in arrangements misused). rooted is often examiner capability between an is discriminating of term capacity distinguish this the in that to expressed feel is we power but discriminating The probably ‘unique’, would term examiners the (fingerprint use donors between variability the are arrangements skin ridge Friction Detected with Detected Detected with a with Detected black powder black Detected with Detected black powder black

xmls f ak dtce wt vros eeto techniques detection various with detected marks of Examples Mark in blood with blood in Mark superglue fuming superglue Mark in blood with blood in Mark superglue fuming superglue Detected with Detected Amido Amido Detected with Detected Amido Amido black black xrml discriminating, extremely Detected with Detected Detected with Detected Detected with Detected Detected with Detected ninhydrin ninhydrin DFO DFO n reflect and Fingerprints 67 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 68 1 level similarity.(from initial features some All showed that form a from print a or search AFIS an from candidate potential a of output print the The constitutes comparison. either side-by-side a of form the takes It interest. of print the available. be source be to expected is mark the not to or as whether concludes stage the instances, some In AFIS). using or forms of the be regarding to examiner mark the the from of decision capacity a Another quality. is limited stage veryanalysis the of of is case outcome print contemporaneous or mark writing the by when especially phase is notes, It analysis observed. the is area document blurred a to example advised for when print, the to assigned also the be then on may out Tolerances carried work). comparison be any will undertaking analysis (without similar print a poor, is print the of quality the the When correspondence. potential a set considering for allow to to have will examiner help will account these Taking into used. technique factors detection the and of residue and of substrate the amount of pressure, nature distortion, the as such factors and mark used the quality the be of of may assessment an that allows featuresalso analysis skin The comparison. ridge further friction for the locate and assess to order separation, orclear-cut distinction, little find stages. its to between common is (and practice UK it the a In elsewhere), print. and mark or stands a between that comparison methodology the to acronym stages ACE-V an the is ACE-V to for 1999). subscribe (Ashbaugh protocol examiners comparable most general In comparison:ACE-V print to mark a for Protocol identity. inferring for standard’ ‘gold gained of has status skin the ridge friction that persistency and variability this to due is It (2) Handbook of

Comparison Analysis f igs n eune s xrm t te on ta n to individuals two no that point arrangements the these to extreme of is variability sequence in sources ridges between of The and Wertheim 2002). 1999; (Ashbaugh Maceo sequences either and with bifurcations) end or (ridges lengths endings various with epigenetic arrangements highly to is leads ridges and of morphogenesis The sequence. in ridges of eeeae codn t te tmlt’ ed n h dri (ae 2005). (Maceo dermis the on held ‘template’ will the skin to according ridge regenerate friction the otherwise incident, of the the by when exception damaged only is permanent the dermis are Scars (with growth). natural respects of result all the in as size permanent remain arrangement will the death, ridges after of tissues of until life foetal of are arrangements skin ridge Friction also is pores of position relative and discriminative. form very the as well as edges ridge of shape the Finally, found. been ever have arrangements same the showing analysis eurs h eaie t eaie h mr wtot h pit in print the without mark the examine to examiner the requires

, Forensic Science comparison en lctn te orsodn faue fo te ak in mark the from features corresponding the locating means , evaluation compared and gis kon rns a iie number limited (a prints known against verification persistent tolerances identified

1 . From about the 25th week 25th the about From . n ipis or distinct four implies and should the corresponding the should o budre) ht the that boundaries) (or Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 t s ny hn h gnrl atr i wti tlrne ta te comparison the that tolerances within is pattern documented). general being the (and when care only with is made It be only should mark, the to print the from process, reverse The print. the in location their by followed mark the in features of observation entail always should comparison The features particulars. to general from starting phase, that for considered be should 3) level to as it precludes the trier of fact from having the advantage of potentially very potentially of advantage the having from fact of trier the precludes approach it as cautious a such adopted of has issue profession the the address that regret help Weidentity. to potential its of despite attention System the Justice to Criminal brought the rarely is impressions skin ridge friction on based ‘certain’) than less (i.e. type this of between Corroborative print. and correspondences mark the probative be highly perhaps to and significant deemed are there is submitted is source another from print match impossible. a a such for if probability the happen that to so print the with agreement offriction in ridges (clarity) quality sufficient shows mark the when concluded then and is training his/her involving through comparisons in observed experience he correspondence of the level Ina exceeds that highest features) legible observes of levels below). examiner three the the (see (across agreement when level identification a reached be for will standards individualisation the the nutshell, to reference in features identification. for prerequisite a is discrepancy irreconcilable any of absence during defined Logically,the reached. tolerances be will the conclusion exclusion an of then stage, light analysis the the the in and reconciled mark the be the between cannot as observed that area is print difference skin a ridge as to soon friction as examiner same fact, an the In mark. enable from will being pattern)from print whorl the a exclude showing print the and loop a being mark has the example exclusion) (for flow ridge indicates or in differences Observed Inconclusive reached. (individualisation been conclusions source. previous same the the of the have neither that not that means do exclusion print(s) An the donors. and potential mark other all of exclusion the source identical to an have print the and are mark the that that means individualisation conclusions three are an discipline: There the conclusion. in a used commonly of formulation the to wewould and stage. comparison cases the disputed of documentation in systematic advise difficulties to of lead form may any documentation absence produce The of 3.4). Figure to given is practice example (an common information the not record due to is chart sparse it sometimes and is constraints stage time crucial to this of Documentation dissimilar. that featuresas the described been ofhave that features the documentation and correspondence in a is found been tohave stage comparison lead The should allows. and mark factual the of essentially of shape quality furrow the the if and then edges and ridge and sequence) pores every and compare length to their advised comparatively (assessing is it during process, minutiae on comparison focusing the of Instead arrangements. ridge with continues o al te css te oprsn il e emd icnlsv’ vn if even ‘inconclusive’ deemed be will comparison the cases, other all For corresponding the weigh will examiner the dissimilarities, of absence the In Evaluation identification s h fnaetl neeta se o te rcs. t il lead will It process. the of step inferential fundamental the is ), exclusion and inconclusive individualisation non-matching otn termed (often niis A identification An entities. gnrly eerd o as to referred (generally nt identified’ ‘not Fingerprints . An ). 69 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 70 process comparison the during of retained close-up features 3 a level bottom, the the of On some correspondence. in with found features minutiae 2 the middle, level of the and indication sequence In an in right). ridges the of terms on in print agreement the the of and illustration left the on mark (the annotation without 3.4 Figure Handbook of

xml o a oprsn hr. n h tp coeu o te comparison the of close-up a top the On chart. comparison a of Example Forensic Science Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 h rlvne f rbblsi eauto. ned ot xmnr wud feel would examiners most Indeed evaluation. probabilistic accept of to examiners relevance of the majority the of unwillingness the from and categoric, be evidence. must evidence fingerprint fingerprint that misconception the of from traditional arises situation potential This This the limits 2001). approach Evett conservative very and and (Champod evidence corroborative strong ai fr s a a imti to. oee, hn eln wt mrs from marks with dealing when However, tool. asuitable biometric a provides as and use fingerprints is for of This basis fingerprints. sets same complete the for have true to undoubtedly found been have individuals two no can follows that section scenarios. The both to comparisons. distinction without prints apply to mark or prints to print consider we whether same the essentially are identification for standards The identification for Standards skill. more to service equates longer that concept the by dominated is and error of possibility is the to that receptive not assurance is environment working of the where degree particularly is the This required. provide further adding not of process may simple checks the fact quasi-independent in but failsafe, a as hailed much check is identification third check ofthe The practices. also UK third the it A in rooted manpower, arevalued. still is of identification theoutcomes terms inwhich in this way the for reflect reasons may Whilst practical marks. be non-identified workloads. well of case may checks heavy there regular are have there departments where few or Also isdifficult departments review small in ofindependent ensure concept to reached whole the conclusions the However, and expect first. details the would by examination we the regarding world, wouldhave information to ideal second examiner no the failure that an meaning of beblind, In to cases stage conclusion. verification in original adopted departmental the to are the verify to weight which related The procedures, directly opinions. is operating mechanism dissenting standard quality handle this to to given place be in means needs processes department the importance have that and Such to documented fully measure. be to assurance needs stage quality this that verification ultimate the Comparison the use the Analysis, as will departments stage Most following protocol. examiner, (ACE) first Evaluation the and the called of is conclusion process the examination This conclusion. review independently to examiner another for is objective Its stage. verification same the in resulting evidence. additional potential the and process objectivity the of introduction of the strengthening through the by outweighed opinion, no identification) our in or is, (identification approach white or black simplistic evidence its fingerprint removing down’ by ‘water way some in will this that perception The disciplines. forensic other to similar conclusions, of spectrum the a of development to tools necessary the provide will below) discussed (as models statistical ofa of or otherwise terms in of development the that is judgementview differentOur sources.or common source of likelihood informed definitive an providing the from refrain to would as but opinion mark, an express to ease at The basis of identification is first empirical and founded on the factthat onthe andfounded empirical first is identification of basis The Verification is defined as the examination by another qualified examiner qualified byanother examination the as defined is Fingerprints 71 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 o en ht mr hs en trbtd o priua idvda t the to individual ‘Others’ way. particular this in a articulated seldom to is it attributed although others, been all has of exclusion mark a that mean to fingers single questioned. from be quality, can poor basis this are representations, partial nature and very their by that scenes crime 72 Bertillon by paper the that discovered and 1980s mid the in rule 16-points andthe crime experience’. ‘significant aserious had was examiner it be where identifications to full agreement as determined in be to agreement in minutiae minutiae 10 16 of marks single and and identification full 10 a as Laterguidelines reported between same. the with were marks two mark the allowed that and ofconfidence fingerprint were the someThese there degree were of have source where to the but anexaminer met cases. be for in serious not minutiae sufficient could threshold presented the where were comparisons identifications’ called ‘non-provable so partial) time of (or aperiod For basisfor Association individualisation. IAI(International be nonumerical fingerprint a to 1973 there the declared that of resolution Identification) reflection for a been have may This although force. legal given population never was standard world 16-points the that the Note 1911). of (Balthazard court inverse in argument an such make the to never advised were examiners than smaller give would probability configuration 16-point a a probabilistic such crude that show rather to A used 1914)). was (Locard calculation Locard Edmond reference of with work 12 the adopting thanthose to countries higher (many was world It the UK. in elsewhere the of applied in concept and identification accuracy fingerprint The the of in apparent. robustness belief unfounded practitioners, were the reenforced decisions standard fingerprint 16-points erroneous the by substantive unchanged no remained since it however, regularly was standarddiscussed; The identifications agreement. in twofingerprint points acase 15 of and 12 respectively following made with in1953, was evidence agreement fingerprint working the Office where Home a became 16 of in 10 number The 1950s. the only before flexibility with used was that see recommendation a was could standard examined This 16. he to Having standard this that increased consequently department. and decided agreement fingerprint Collins Yard Superintendent Scotland material the the to sent of was agreement head in minutiae the 16 show to charted and individuals two from allegedly prints two of Bertillon Alphonse by submitted to reproduction photograph a apoor-quality of safe after 1924 was in it adopted which was above It identification. threshold claim an numerical a for purposes, required and was,to intents was a standard, all print termed although a standard, and 16-points The mark ’identification’. a between discrepancies) (without identification. the of value evidential perceived presumably interesting the claim, increase greater therefore to much a is make It to need population. the felt restricted have examiners or that smaller much a from may source] claim be [or a suspect the such scenarios, few fact a In but all dead. in as or unnecessary living be may world, the in human any to often refers Handbook of Fingerprint identification in the UK and around the world isunderstood world the and around UK the in identification Fingerprint The undertook a full review in England and Wales ofthe Wales and inEngland review afull undertook Office Home The standard. the of application the in seen was variation some 1970s the During agreement in minutiae 16 that required practice UK 2001, to Prior Forensic Science Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 certain practices within the fingerprint community associated with the use of use the with associated community fingerprint the within practices to certain attention drew which Williams and Evett by report landmark a in dissimilarities resulted of importance the to (Champod similarities gross attention of than more draw to was text) (and image original the of purpose The misunderstood. largely been had above, mentioned rdtrie mnmm ubr f etrs o te olwn main following the for features of number reasons: minimum predetermined greater of features. assignment certain the to through weight perhaps or present trauma skin or a visible is clearly there is pattern the where example for standard; rigid the bypass to mechanisms found have agencies although points), 17 to 16 with exception positive a establish to order in identification.’ impressions two in present ridge be friction must of features number minimum basis predetermined a ‘Noscientific that requiring whichstates: for exists (1995) Israel in Ne’Urim, slightly modified resolution, 1973 IAI the to adhere all which countries, Nordic the and Australia reached. conclusion assess the ‘independently’ examiners two other whereby process verification a safeguard is Theultimate (without be declared. determines is sufficient will he/she identification an features then If discrepancies) fingerprint experience. corresponding of examiner’s number the trained that the with therefore solely identification rests of determination The thresholds. numerical arbitrary any by unfettered opinions their give could experts fingerprint that meant This 2007. approachin non-numerical same the adopted whereasScotland 2001, July in Wales and England in abandoned was standard 16-points The programme. assurance quality and with training approach strong a holistic by supported or profession non-numerical fingerprint a a of favour 16- in the and of abandonment standard the points in resulted that party working a initiated Wales etc. creases detail, edge UK. ridge the positions, influence to pore began as other such of mark use the growing of the and elements methodology a as ACE-V of development the America North In eight. just with McAteer of than16minutiae case the in fact less in agreement; with in evidence fingerprint accepting courts the find we casesof the McAteer In Thomas v. R 16 points. without identifications accepting court in decisions trials. blind of and audits file way experts, of efficient testing performance an as: such not explored be should was mechanisms other standard quality; ensuring 16-points the that concluded review The questionable. clearly became ‘standard’ a of concept the that large so was annotated minutiae of number the on variation of range The mark. one any in examiners by that seen minutiae of indicated number the in report variation considerable The was there 1996). Williams and (Evett standard numerical the rm lgcl esetv, hr i n agmn t rcmed any recommend to argument no is there perspective, logical a From the is (Italy 12 generally is standard minimum the Europe, of rest the In America, North in practice the with line in fully is approach holistic This and England for Officers) Police Chief of Association (the ACPO 1996 In many with disuse into fallen had standard 16-point the 1990s the By (1993), R v. Craig Eyre Craig v. R et al et and . 1993). The Home Office review Office Home The 1993). . Ian Andrew Reid v. DPP v. Reid Andrew Ian Fingerprints (1996) 73

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 (3) (2) (1) 74 this in analysed regularly are universally marks that not unlikely is is fashion. it risk, and UK this the minimise in seen would which analysis, and clear A documented investigators. police the and examiners the between relationship working close the given pronounced more Clearly be may risk. that here the dangers are mitigate there to critical is stage comparison The a and with analysis protocol examiners. distinct ACE-V the to adherence offingerprint strict a that believe We comparison. making contextual decision of impact Dror final by studies the of the awareness full on a information of need the and existence the Dror 2006; Charlton and Dror Dror 2005; (Dror progress recent be significant may made examiners has which susceptible to bias potential the identifying at aimed Research identifications fingerprint in errors and Bias challenge. the see to to open police wish be would may of court the employ that independence the maintain to in ability necessary examiners most for With established examiners. been courses long-serving development for have exist lately plans Only although introduction. departments its fingerprint UK all across employed is scheme proficiency or competence uniform no writing of time the At verified. externally not yet as arestandards fundamental the but procedurescoveredare the than rather management ISO9002 and policy the Thus ISO17025. as such assessments throughdepth in more systems management the on been has date the UK. in identification fingerprint for policy a as adopted been has that approach holistic this is It 1999). (Ashbaugh as to referred is identification process the in for accounted be to features of range whole the Allowing Handbook of ult mngmn sses ae en nrdcd u te mhss to emphasis the but introduced been have systems management Quality hn ult alw, ml faue sc a pr pstos n shapes and positions pore as such features small allows, quality When iuie rqec vre gety s fnto o ter ye n their and type their of function a as greatly varies frequency Minutiae patterns. general between distinction a make not would system standard numerical A whorls. than more times 10 donors potential of toclass. population the reduce would class arches of from types greatly Some varies flow general of frequency relative The rcs. o ueia sadr wud con fr hs third-level these for account would standard details. numerical No process. identification the to add can ridges the of edges the of topography the and (Neumann profiling DNA with compete thediscrimination involved probabilities match random toconfigurations The minutiae. down three of even that high, very shown is fingermarks have partial by offered statistical fingermarks of partial studies of Recent perspective. evaluation statistical a from cannot of points supported be addition fixed a suggesting system any Hence position. Forensic Science et al. et are mainly focused on the final decision arising from the from arising decision final the on focused mainly are ridgeology t al et t al et and has been promoted by David Ashbaugh David by promoted been has and 20; Neumann 2006; . 20) Ti eprcl eerh highlights research empirical This 2006). . t al et 2007). . t al et 2005; . Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 oe 20) s ugsig ht hs css ersn te i o te cbr, the iceberg, the of tip the represent cases Although these 2006b). that suggesting Cole is 2005; (2005) Cole (Cole misidentifications of of publication cases the 22 to led of has accounts area the fraudulent in or interest intentional academic of Recent exception evidence). the (with outcome possible a not was (1) areas identified: critical been Four have 2006). Division Review and Oversight the – of General Office Inspector and Justice of Department States (United released been also has (Budowle profession fingerprint al the review facing scientific issues main Aninternal the explored team procedures. and policies verification more decision-making and stringent mark, the documentation latent a regarding of value casework comparative SOPs the determining to when and process revisions Procedures) revisions procedures, and Operating detailed policies (Standard policies, SOPs evidence-acceptance to to revisions programme, review theinternal (Smrz were of team recommendations main The Mayfield. Brandon one of of reports Various 2004. in individualisation wrong the of discovery Spain, the followed have importance Madrid, critical in attacks terrorist the to related a is examiners between consistency of was lack McKie This fact. worrying case. that this claim in declared have to exclusion majority the an continue whereas mark, disputed examiners the of source print the indeed latent of minority A parliament. committee Scottish 1 Justice the and the of Office by Record undertaken Criminal been Scottish has and Service the (McKie Fingerprint of thumbprint Scottish book inquiry recent the full a a to by and Scotland covered 2007) is in Russell case scene McKie a The on McKie. Shirley found of mark a of agreement) in 1998). December 17 Division, Criminal Appeal, of Court The ( S2, verdict Appeal 9704481 The original No. of Court the individualisation. by for aside set sufficient was not was mark the maintained others that features), of sets different on based were conclusions their onthe (although print McNamee’s to mark that identified tocomment experts Some identification. his called man During were experts Police. fingerprint the numerous in Metropolitan 1998, in device as the appeal explosive from identified an examiners from fingerprint been recovered by battery had London a on He thumbmark a explosions. left cause who to conspiracy for misidentification. as accepted is neither and are UK two the cases, from 22 these Among unknown. remains statement this of accuracy 20) A eot f h ofc o te npco Gnrl eadn thiscase regarding General Inspector the of office the of report A 2006). .

The fingerprint profession claimed for numerous years that a misidentification The other famous case of known misattribution is the FBI misidentification FBI the is misattribution known of case famous other The points 16 allegedly (with misattribution supposed the is case second The 1987inEngland in wasconvicted who McNamee is against case first The ih h tu source; true the with correspondence) in as described be could minutiae (10 similarity of degree a showing was Mayfield Brandon from impression known the that fact the et al et . 2006; Stacey 2004): revisions in the latent print training print latent the in revisions 2004): Stacey 2006; . 2 n hs ae tee s o a opee consensus. complete a not is there case, this In v Glet hms arc McNamee Patrick Thomas Gilbert v. R Fingerprints 75 et ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 (3) (2) 76 beconsidered. to need that factors conflicting of availability number the the is and approach data of an such in limitation The wetted. been have why that items on to marks as finding of inference expectation the some example For draw found. were to marks possible no be may it item the to be can associated history some Where reports. and statements in clear made be not may This individual. particular the and surface or item the between contact no was there that ascertain to used be cannot mark any find detection to inability the the mark, and a of persistence the both affect that factors of number the mind in Bearing professionals. legal and investigators by misinterpreted sometimes aspects. both on facts of the trier activity of the the inform duty to and the is then marks witness events), expert the of of sequence source or (handling the them both with to issues associated relation real the in when are that case activity believe the We in the object. the regarding touched opinions who than person informative rather the association moreof of for that potential to evidence the the explore limit to tendency a fingerprint is many Thereopinions. such that provide to unwilling observe are elsewhere) (and to UK the interesting in examiners is It propositions. consider to possible important therefore all is It marks. observed the in activity result one than could more that be will there mark scenarios many the in when provide course, Of to the made. of was possible position the is or activity it the on cases either opinion, certain an In placement. mark of interpretation ridgesand the differences. distinct as show may are possible pores hand the determinations on Such already victim significance. the of blood of clearly blood the is the in of made deposition by was or mark victim, a a of whether example, For identity. other of evidence surface. that significant the than provide on blood, left in was those allows mark particularly the that marks, which Patent method in scientific timeframe no of is estimate or reliable there surface a present, a the At and prerequisite. with donor a individual the is an between item contact of A item. association or the surface allows particular marks of examination The issues to activity issues identification From the and exists misattribution a this. recognise should for procedures ridge operating standard possibility friction doing The laboratory individualisation. any by skin considered be should reports These (4) Handbook of iial, hr n mrs r fud e id ut otn ht hs factis this that often quite find we found are marks no where Similarly, the is activities criminal of detection the in interest particular of area An h nme o mrs eeld dul tp r ueipsto) n a to and regards superimposition) or with tap stage (double revealed analysis marks the of number from the conclusions misleading the first; was impression known visibility the their the on whereas established of mark the examiners on convinced features distinctive have of could presence reasoning circular that fact the the conclusions of the first examiner when the mark was checked bythe of waschecked mark the knowledge next. the by when examiner first caused the of stage conclusions verification the the of bias potential the features; 3 level on reliance questionable Forensic Science Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 hs dprmns r esnily uooos lhuh nraigy hy are they increasingly although autonomous essentially are departments Walesthese and England In forces. police to attached bureaux) called (traditionally The majority of fingerprint examinations in the UK are provided by departments the UK in services fingerprint of Provision a nt e s ossety ih s a evsgd Te loih supplied The envisaged. was as high database consistently the as into be filed not being images may of quality the However, rapid. fairly is individuals of identification biometric the that ensure helped has This stations. andupdate records new create necessary. as records fingerprints, criminal police the search who to the police local the departments by handled are link directly areas force a in taken Fingerprints and computer. national database fingerprint national The the NPIA. to the access by managed provide that is departments force It the of each use). within terminals general comprises system in still is term this although casework. contracted some undertake expertise and defence fingerprint years the deliver for recent to formed In been development. have companies and FSS smaller research several The of agencies. programme government a and maintains forces also police to recovery and detection specialist including services of range a provides FSS the and force police a with association in services fingerprint provides Alliance LGC/ services. fingerprint and transparent investigation. tobalanced the of pursuit and regard reporting with influences conflicting to subjected the be as therefore may important and organisations more police the within work all examiners of be majority may studies terms Such in basis. science forensic philosophical of a concept of general the is training the may in What missing embedded. be still is competence of measure some as utilised be can has years five thereforeexperience of and service of length that idea the although removed been ‘apprenticeship’ traditional The Authority. Scottish final the Services within a Police from provided and and is training prepared skills Scotland comparison is In presentation. knowledge, work court basic of covering portfolio undertaken A is trainer. assessment local department own a student’s by the mentored within basic provided provide training to in-house given and is skills instruction Central (NPIA). Agency Improvement Policing been National the by has provided is consistency training Wales and of England In degree achieved. a therefore issupplied and organisations centralised Training Branch). by Development Scientific Office (Home HOSDB often more forces. some are larger other are that and Police There investigations Metropolitan the force. terrorist by undertaken particular police in the this, of to area exceptions geographical the within crime to case). to McKie unconnected the not to regard merger with (a debate the 2007 into in amalgamated Authority Services were Police departments Scottish fingerprint the the Scotland In up set ACPO. Board Fingerprint by National the of direction and policies the to subject The Home Office has invested in Livescan technology for all charging for technology inLivescan invested has Office Home The NAFIS (formerly IDENT1 as known is system AFIS national UK The provide also organisationscommercial of number a police, the to addition In by development and research of terms in supported are services police The relating submissions with deals department each Wales and England In Fingerprints 77 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 ehooy ihu cek y n xmnr uig oie ehoois are technologies mobile using checking. identity examiner) for possibilities an future opening on by solely is check (based France)) identifications without automatic Group, technology that (SAFRAN point the Sécurité to effective, (Défense highly SAGEM by recently most 78 decision): the (extracts from decision his in guidelines following the down laid ACPO. Rose Justice under Lord undertaken process review associated the and standard points 16- the of aspects been historical the had correspondence, of evidence points 16 without fingerprint admitted where UK the in cases previous 159, the reviewed LB SJ In 143 division, ‘reliable’. criminal term the suggested evidence, fingerprint the but of qualifier a as ‘infallible’ term the using accepting in In USA years. the recent in arisen indeedsimilar have is challenges notable This however, jurisdictions; time. other to some considerable for identification of fingerprint validity the to made was challenge conditions significant social no the However, as or prevailed. UK that the system in systems legal the of accepting reflection a by perhaps is fingerprints to This identification. of grounds response sole the as admissible and legal infallible’ ‘practically the of tone use, and the future 1909) 74, for R precedents App Cr necessary (3 the century. provide earlytwentieth to the served from date case, first fingerprints The for successes first The court in Evidence Fingerprint Handbook of (b) (a) (v) (iv) (iii) (ii) (i) the all particular: in on including depend case, the will of circumstances exercised is discretion the How evidence. the admitting of favour in discretion her or his exercise not may or may judge a characteristics, ridge similar more or eight are there If evidence. such adduce to the seek circumstances, not should isexceptional prosecution admit wholly to it in discretion save characteristics, his and, exercise evidence ridge willsuch similar judge a eight that than unlikely highly fewer are there If Forensic Science s maig r contamination. or smearing as such possible factors on, as well of as relied print, the left consideration item who person the example, the to injury on for print involve, the may of which clarity and a quality in the and print; compelling entire an more of in than number print be of same fragment may the that characteristics in ridge on, relied similar print the of size the characteristics; dissimilar are there whether characteristics; ridge similar of number the witness; the of expertise and experience the Hamilton v Stratton v. R te ih or o Jdcay lal rfand from refrained clearly Judiciary of Court High the , M doae . Hamilton v. Advocate HM h Times The 10) s el ouetd Bt w cases two But documented. well is (1905) . . .. Buckley R.J. v. R. 2 a 19) ter Lordships their 1999), May 12 J 1 93. hs set These 1933). 1 (JC Cut f Appeal, of (Court v Castleton v. R

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 assessment of the field: on balance the probative benefits outweigh therisks, outweigh benefits the probative balance on field: the of assessment under evidence fingerprint accepting while gave, Court Appeal the 2004)), April (29 02-2859 No. [2004] Circuit Third the for Appeals of Court in Later, 2004). (Steele community legal the from reactions and coverage press unprecedented with literature scientific the in area fingerprint the in in interest and ruling of scrutiny increased Appeal to of led due decision Court mainly UK the evidence, of the consideration admitted the and to decision, opinion,Judge his his reversed to reconsider later Asked Pollack findings. these of significance the of assessment the court the to leaving print, the and correspondences mark the the between outlining observed to his limit and expert ofidentification the that anopinion required give not could Pollack expert Judge fingerprint a 98-362-10,11,12), that No.held Criminal [2002] Pennsylvania of District limited that decision Plaza first the 2002 In made. was identification fingerprint January on testimony expert (briefly) In courtrooms. US in evidence (Berger evidence scientific of admissibility the 2000). for guidelines new the setting of follow-up the in especially courts Daubert US the corresponding in arguments polarised of the number the 2003). (Reneau when published been have adequate limited individualisation very of is areminutiae of print corresponding Cases alleged the quality. and edge mark and pores the as such if details 3structure level invoking made but be minutiae, can on point focused similar heavily a is argument above fingerprint The crime. Hence significantly deterring minutiae. very in contribute six may for coincidence of million points eight a below in evidence one and minutiae 10,000 in four one obtain Wefor thousand. a in one of order the in probability match a with population the in observed be will minutiae three with configuration a of terms (in (Neumann marks minutiae) of limited number very of contribution evidential high the establish similar of that studies number statistical recent to referredearlier we Indeed particular characteristics.’ ridge any to reference without discretion, of matter a as as receivable properly quality be will it to evidence, fingerprint limited established of integrity been the have maintain very protocols may new sufficient of ‘It when future, said: marks the Rose in that of Justice be Lord use As whereas 1995). the (Champod observed, to evidence are corroborative door minutiae the corresponding opened eight Locard to least limited been at has where evidence cases fingerprint of the admissibility with 1914), the (Locard that rule exception tripartite Locard’s to similar very is ruling This (c) Until January 2002, all 2002, January Until with contrasts UKcourts in evidence fingerprint regarding debate The ( S . lr Paa Aot ad Rodriguez and Acosta Plaza, Llera v. US ( eemn wehr ul i poe i te ih o al h evidence. the all of light the to in proved the that is for only, guilt is whether opinion it determine that evidence and is conclusive not itwill it for is opinion that evidence, expert’s jury the expert the is admitted, all warn to to judge relation the evidence in as fingerprint necessary, be where generally case every In abr v Mrel o Pharmaceuticals Dow Merrell v. Daubert Daubert hearings led to the admissibility of fingerprint of admissibility the to led hearings et al et . 2006; Neumann 2006; . Mitchell S itit or o te Eastern the of Court District US ( 19] 0 U 59 decision 579) US 509 [1993] v. Byron Mitchell Byron v. States United et al et . 2007). On average, On 2007). . v Buckley v. R Daubert US v.Llera US Fingerprints , a fair a , That . 79

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 n Kelr 05 Zbl 20; Harmon 2005; Zabell 2005; Koehler and (Saks commentators and scholars from attention critical receives still evidence sufficiency. for criteria the ill-defined of the concept by marred is debate the and standards clear lacks field the but 80 will evidence fingerprint where time a to experience his/her and with expert associated of mainly the is opinion admissibility the of the strength fromthe the where regarding moving situation current USA) profession the fingerprint the response We foresee in sought-after evidence. (mainly and fingerprint debate adequate current an the represent to also may research Such given. be can evidence which on marks of number a the extending indicate for studies potential Recent matches. features low evaluate to models statistical rapid offering identifications. standard, of become turnaround also will scenes crime from transfer images Wireless future. mark the of in far too be not may use biometric for checking system. justice criminal the to benefits bring also may of marks aging as such research associated Other marks. reveal may types that the surfaces in of extension some expect may one therefore and continue will This recoverfingerprints. to technologies in largeinvestment a be to Therecontinues future The documenting within the factually practice document to of common community fingerprint a transparency the is the There questioned. Thus be common. may process longer examination no is the agreement demonstrate to in print and features mark the charting of practice has The conclusion drawn. the how been opinion on detail the limited offer rather provide than and more examiner the little of do statements these general, in However, basis. its and conclusion the of issues records detailed process, and notes ofademonstrable contemporaneous of lack lack and examiner the the of competence ongoing to relating example of aftermath for the case): in Mayfield (especially appropriate the be may that questioning other of of number lines a are there fact In examiner. the discrediting occasionally or evidence of chain the on attacks the access, devalue legitimate to to claims through try evidence to of tend lack therefore defence a The be expertise. may defence there adequate Second public media. the the by This reinforced amongst and safe. consistently perception is is irrefutable view general evidence the fingerprint that First is judiciary) twofold. (including be may this for reasons The identification. the challenge not do part most the for and standard 2006b). Cole 2006a; latent Cole 2005; in Cole 2004b; weaknesses Cole 2004a; critical (Cole some identification fingerprint out pointing papers of series a published Handbook of The scientific status of identification evidence and in particular fingerprint and inparticular evidence of identification status scientific The u poal te ot motn dvlpet il e h dsg of design the be will development important most the probably But out’ ‘lights of acceptance the and improve to continue technologies AFIS rules. prevailing the with accordance in statements supply Examiners non-numerical the accept courts UK the that is situation present The Forensic Science why gvn ocuin a be drawn. been has conclusion given a t al et 20) Smn oe n particular in Cole Simon 2006). . what has been done without done been has Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 eu, . Capd C ad agt PA (07 ‘igrak, ieak ad other and Bitemarks ‘Fingermarks, (2007) P.A. Margot, and C. Champod, A., Becue, evn C (2001) C. Beavan, hmo, . Lnad CJ, agt PA ad tioi, . (2004b) M. Stoilovic, and P.A. Margot, C.J., Lennard, C., Champod, Champod, C., Egli, N. and Margot, P.A. (2004a) ‘Fingermarks, Shoesoles and and Shoesoles ‘Fingermarks, P.A.(2004a) Margot, and N. Egli, C., Champod, Balthazard, V. (1911) ‘De l’identification par les empreintes digitales’, empreintes les par l’identification ‘De (1911) V. Balthazard, hmo, . Lnad C ad agt PA (93 ‘lhne etlo and Bertillon ‘Alphonse (1993) P.A. Margot, and C. Lennard, C., Champod, hmo, . 19) Lcr, ueia Sadrs n “rbbe Identification’, “Probable” and Standards Numerical ‘Locard, (1995) C. Champod, towards transparency and accountability that will bring the fingerprint field fingerprint the bring will that accountability and transparency towards move a is It future. the in evidence fingerprint regarding debate the dominate process the comparison. a of from documentation conclusion a full draw to a used and models statistical by supported be sbuh DR (1999) D.R. Ashbaugh, References 1 Notes types. evidence forensic other all as standards same the to held be to Champod, C. and Evett, I.W. (2001) ‘A Probabilistic Approach to Fingerprint Evidence’, Fingerprint to ApproachProbabilistic ‘A I.W. (2001) Evett, and C. Champod, Bowman, V. (ed.) (2004) V.(ed.) Bowman, Identification’, Palm ‘Automated (2002) B. Blain, Expert of Admissibility the on Trilogy Court’s Supreme ‘The (2000) M.A. Berger, 2 uol, . Bsala J ad cwrz ela, . 20) Rve o te Scientific the of ‘Review (2006) R. Perlman, Schwartz and J. Buscaglia, B., Budowle,

mrsin (aeot Er, is – Rve’ Spebr 04Jl 2007). 2004–July (September Review’ A Symposium Science – Forensic Interpol 15th Lips) the of Proceeding Ears, (Barefoot, Impressions mrsin, ie mrsin, a Ipesos Tomrs Lpak, Bitemarks (2001–2004). Lipmarks, Review Toolmarks, A – Impressions, Ear Impressions, Tire Impressions, ht anhd oesc Science Forensic Launched that e sacs e ’cdme e , des l’Académie de séances des te Rde kn Impressions Skin Ridge other Dactyloscopy’, ora o Frni Identification, Forensic of Journal o ai ad dacd Ridgeology Advanced and Basic to but print, a against compared is mark a where case the to presentation our Welimit ora o Frni Identification, Forensic of Journal ahntn Fdrl uiil etr 9–38. Center, Judicial Federal Washington: (ed.), Center Judicial Federal in Testimony’, Finally the terms quality assurance and proficiency testing will tend to tend will testing proficiency and assurance quality terms the Finally www. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/reports.htm process. the is difference only The prints. against compared are prints when same the essentially remains protocol the fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/research/2006_01_research02.htm Forensic/ idns n Recommendations’, and Committee Identification: Findings of Means a as Comparisons Skin Ridge Friction for Basis Branch. andDevelopment Research Scientific Office interpol.int/Public/Forensic/ IFSS/meeting15/ReviewPapers.pdf. ora o Frni Identification, Forensic of Journal igrrns Te rgn o te rm Dtcin n te udr Case Murder the and Detection Crime the of Origins The – Fingerprints ulttv-uniaie rcin ig Aayi – n Introduction An – Analysis Ridge Friction Qualitative-Quantitative Manual of Fingerprint Development Techniques.Development Fingerprint of Manual rceig f h 1t Itro Frni Sine Symposium Science Forensic Interpol 14th the of Proceeding quality . oa ao: R Press. CRC Raton: Boca . e ok Hyperion. York: New 5 132–159. 45: 1 101–122. 51: . of the information on one side of the comparison the of side one on information the of oa ao: R Press. CRC Raton: Boca 8, , Science Forensic IFSS/meeting14/ReviewPapers.pdf. 5: 1862–1864. 152: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Scientific on Manual Reference 3 604–625. 43: 8 102–107. 28: Whorld, Fingerprint , www.interpol.int/Public/ . Sandridge: Home Sandridge: igrrns and Fingerprints ope rendus Comptes http://www. Fingerprints 81 , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 oe SA (04) Gadahrn Eiec: igrrn Amsiiiy Rulings Admissibility Fingerprint Evidence: ‘Grandfathering (2004b) S.A. Cole, Historical System: Justice Criminal the and Identification ‘Fingerprint (2004a) S.A. Cole, (2001) S. Cole, 82 and A. Anthonioz, N., Egli, D., Meuwly, R., Puch-Solis, C., Champod, C., Neumann, Bromage- and A. Anthonioz, N., Egli, R., Puch-Solis, C., Champod, C., Neumann, (2007) M. Russell, and (2003) I. S. McKie, Prabhakar, and A.K. the Jain, in D., Scars Maio, of D., Persistence Maltoni, and Uniqueness the digitales’, for Basis empreintes ‘The (2005) les A.V. Maceo, par judiciaire preuve ‘La Formation’, (1914) Pattern E. Fingerprint Locard, for ‘Models (2007) M. Kücken, (2005) P. Komarinski, Questions ‘Letters: (2006) M.M. Houck, and G. Langenburg, B., Budowle, R., Harmon, Origin, their of Review A Fingerprints: ‘Latent (1983) J.R. Morris, and G.C. Goode, to Standard Fingerprint Points Sixteen the of ‘AReview Get (1996) I.W.Williams,R. Evett, and Emotions ‘When (2005) D. Charlton, and S.-L. Hind, A., Péron, I.E., Dror, Errors’, Experts Renders Information ‘Contextual (2006) Make A.E. Péron, and D. Charlton, Dror,I.E., Experts ‘Why (2006) D. Charlton, and I.E. Dror, Don’ts’, & Do’s technology: and ‘Experts (2005) I. Dror, by Conviction Wrongful of in Causes Potential of Reliability and Prevalence ‘The (2006b) Fingerprint S.A. Cole, Valid? Latent Identification in Fingerprint Error ‘Is for (2006a) S.A. Cole, Zero: than ‘More (2005) S.A. Cole, Handbook of avr: I Pes 63–90. Press, MIT Harvard: (ed.), Lazer D. in Debate’, DNA the for Lessons Press. University Harvard Bromage-Griffiths, A. (2006) ‘Computation of Likelihood Ratios inFingerprint Ratios ofLikelihood Three Minutiae’, of Configurations for Identification ‘Computation (2006) A. Bromage-Griffiths, ofMinutiae’, 54–64. Number Any of Configurations Identification inFingerprint for Ratios ofLikelihood ‘Computation (2007) A. Griffiths, Ltd. Birlinn Recognition Skin’, Ridge Friction pathologique et normale psychologie de 321–348. 29: et légale médecine de criminelle, d’anthropologie International, Press. Academic response)’, (with Science Forensic About Weapons Atomic UK: Aldermaston, 022/83. Detection’. No. Report AWRE Establishment, for Research Methods and Composition Wales’, Matching and England on in Processing Top-Down Contextual of Effect The Fingerprints’, us: of Better the 74–78. Identifications’, Erroneous Making to Vulnerable Identification 7–9. Evidence’, Fingerprint Discourse’, Proponents’ Fingerprint Identification’, 1189–1276. from 1255–1266. Jennings Forensic Science .

5: 600–616. 56: , e ok Srne Verlag. Springer York: New upc Iette: Hsoy f igrrnig n Ciia Identification Criminal and Fingerprinting of History A Identities: Suspect 7: 85–96. 171: to ple Cgiie Psychology Cognitive Applied h Junl f rmnl a ad , and Law Criminal of Journal The lr Plaza Llera Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) Systems Identification Fingerprint Automated igrrn World Fingerprint odn ae nvriy a Review, Law University Gate Golden ora o Frni Identification Forensic of Journal n Bc Again’, Back and hre MKe Te rc o Innocence of Price The McKie: Shirley a ad Policy, and Law 3: 147–161. 31: , Science 1: 799–809. 19: , DNA and the System. Justice Criminal the and DNA 31 607–610. 311: , mrcn rmnl a Review Law Criminal American oesc cec International, Science Forensic 8 109–135. 28: ora o Frni Sciences Forensic of Journal ora o Frni Sciences Forensic of Journal imti Tcnlg Today Technology Biometric 4: 49–73. 46: , 7 39–105. 37: 5 985–1078. 95: adok f Fingerprint of Handbook ora o Forensic of Journal oesc Science Forensic . .

Edinburgh: e York: New Archives 156: 52: , 41: , 51: , 13: , . ,

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 13:16 27 Sep 2021; For: 9781843927327, chapter3, 10.4324/9781843927327.ch3 Saks, M.J. and Koehler, J.J. (2005) ‘The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic in Shift Paradigm Coming ‘The (2005) Koehler,J.J. and M.J. Saks, (2001) J.C. Russ, Examinations’, Print Latent ‘Unusual (2003) R.D. Reneau, (2007) G. Reis, e ol lk t tak érc emn fr omnig n h dat n Flore and draft the illustrations. on the with commenting us helping for for Dessimoz Neumann Damien and Cédric Bochet thank to like would We Acknowledgements Evidence’, ‘Fingerprint (2005) S.L. Zabell, Pattern and Ridge Friction of Stage Critical ‘The (2002) A. Maceo, and K. Wertheim, –Oversight General Inspector the of Office and Justice of Department States United Accuracy Search Operational the ‘Benchmarking (2005) G. Whitaker, and A. Suman, Fingerprints’, to Challenge Defense ‘The (2004) the L.J. in Steele, Individualization Fingerprint Erroneous the on Report ‘A R.B., (2004) Stacey, R.B. Stacey, R., Fram, C.L., Fisher, A., Einseln, S.G., Burmeister, M.A., Smrz, (2003) C. Sengoopta, 3 531–537. 53: Inc. Publishing, Formation’, redacted) and (unclassified Case (2006) Division Review and SPIE the of Proceedings System’, Identification National a of 213–240. Case’, Bombing Train Madrid Quality’, and Practices Processes Improve Unit Identification Print to Latent FBI Recommendations of ‘Review and (2006) B. Budowle, and C.E. Theisen, Macmillan. London: Science’, Science 5: 402–434. 56: , ora o Frni Identification Forensic of Journal htso® S fr oesc Professionals Forensics for CS3 Photoshop® oesc ss f iia Imaging Digital of Uses Forensic 39 892–895. 309: , Imprint of the Raj – How Fingerprinting Was Born in Colonial India Colonial in Born Was Fingerprinting How – Raj the of Imprint 57: 232–241. 5779: , Rve o te B’ Hnln o te rno Mayfield Brandon the of Handling FBI’s the of Review A .

ora o Frni Identification Forensic of Journal ahntn DC. Washington, Biometric Technology for Human Identification II, Identification Human for Technology Biometric ora o Lw n Policy and Law of Journal 5: 35–85. 52: , .

oa ao: R Press. CRC Raton: Boca Journal of ForensicIdentification of Journal .

ninpls UA Wiley USA: Indianapolis, rmnl a Bulletin Law Criminal 5: 706–718. 54: , 1: 143–179. 13: , ora o Forensic of Journal Fingerprints 40: , 83 . ,