The Use of Fingerprints in Identification

Transcription

1 Special Reprint The Use of Fingerprints in Identification G.T.C. Lambourne, Q.P.M. Identzjkation News, Vol. 31(j), May, I981 (From a paper- read at the Annual Scientiji c Meeting of the British Academy of Forensic Sciences, January, 1979) History of Fingerprint Identification The ability to identify a criminal, either to link him to his previous criminal history orto link him to a particular crime, is of paramount importance in any form of criminal investigation. Before talking about fingerprints, I think it is worth reflecting for a few minutes on how our predecessors coped with the difficulties of personal identification. Probably the first person in this country to make mention of some form of criminal records was Sir John Fielding, who established at Bow Street a central register of burglars, housebreakers and receivers in about These records were presumably of a local nature and, unfortunately, faded into obscurity after a while. A likely explanation for this was the large scale transportation of criminals to the colonies during the last half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth which lessened the need for such records. It was the Habitual Criminals Act of 1869 which first established the Habitual Criminals Register. This was the only agency especially established by Parliament and was intended for general use throughout the country in the work of identifying old offenders. This Act was very soon repealed and partially re-enacted by the Prevention of Crimes Act of Section 6 of the Act stated that: Registers of all persons convicted of crime...shall be kept in such form and contain such particulars as may from time to time be prescribed...by the Secretary of State...The Register for England shall be kept in London, under the management of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, or such person as the Secretary of State shall appoint. 41 (2), 1991 \ 121

2 At first the register included all persons convicted of crime, but it was soon found that the registration of criminals was being carried out on too large a scale, and that the results obtained were altogether disproportionate to the labor involved. A large proportion of the persons registered were not habitual criminals in any ordinary sense of the term; many of them were first offenders and children convicted of trivial thefts. The Prevention of Crimes Amendment Act of 1876 was therefore passed and power was given to the Secretary of State to determine what classes of prisoners should be registered. By Lord Gross Regulations of 15 March, 1877, the register was confined to every person convicted on indictment of a crime, a previous conviction of a crime being proved against him. The Habitual Criminals Register was published annually and contained all habitual criminals and convicts who had been liberated between 1 January and 3 1 December of the previous year. All the names were in alphabetical order and gave, in columns opposite each name, the prisoner s full description at the time of his discharge, including his distinctive marks, the particulars of his last conviction, his destination on discharge, and the number of his previous convictions with reference to entries in previous registers. From details gleaned from the Habitual Crimes Register, a Register of Distinctive Marks was also produced. This register was published annually, but contained details of criminals who had been released in the preceding five years. The entries in this register were classified by the position of the marks on the body under nine main divisions: the head and face, the throat and neck, the chest, the belly and groin, the back and loins, the arms, the hands and fingers, the thighs and legs, and, finally, the feet and ankles. These were again subdivided, for instance, under the arms were such headings as: loss of arms, tattoo marks, distortion from fracture or dislocation, loss of power, and scars from wounds or bums. The work of identifying criminals in the Metropolitan Police District was managed by the Convict Supervision Office, a department originally formed to deal with convicts and others under sentence of police supervision within the Metropolitan District, but which gradually increased its activities to deal with the whole of the crime records and other habitual criminals within the Metropolitan District. They maintained albums of photographs of all convicts and other habitual criminals. In the earlier volumes the photographs were arranged chronologically as they were received, but gradually the photographs were sub-divided according to the age and stature of the person concerned and the type of crime he committed. A very elaborate register of distinctive marks was maintained which, unlike the published version, was divided generally by the parts of the body, that is to say, all criminals who had distinctive marks on their right arm were logged together and so it continued through the various 122 / 41 (2), 1991

3 other parts of the body. Supplementary to this was an alphabetical register of tattooed initials and names. Although this method of identifying criminals had limited success, it was quite apparent by 1893 that there was a high degree of urgency to find a more effective method of identifying criminals. One Chief Constable was so impressed by the difficulties of identifying criminals that he volunteered the desperate suggestion that the only common sense method was to tattoo the arm of the criminal about to be discharged with a letter, number, and the year of his discharge. On 21 October, 1893, the Home Secretary, the Rt. Honorable H. H. Asquith, appointed a committee to inquire into (a) the method of registering identified habitual criminals now in use in England, (b) the anthropometric system of classified registration and identification in use in France and other countries, and (3) the system of identification by means of a record of finger marks as suggested by Francis Galton. The anthropometric system was devised by Monsieur Alphonse Bertillon and had been introduced into France in The principle of the system was to record certain measurements of various portions of the body of each prisoner. These measurements consisted of: height, span of arms, height of trunk (sitting height), length of head, width of head, length of right ear, width of right ear, length of left foot, length of left middle finger, length of left little finger, and length of left forearm. The cards on which these particulars were recorded were so classified that each could be found by means of the measurements and without the name of the person, and then by taking the measurements of any person arrested it was possible to ascertain his identity if he was already included among the records under any other name whatever. The fingerprint system suggested by Francis Galton was a development of the method first suggested by Sir William Herschel. Even as early as this it was recognized that a person s fingerprints remained unchanged throughout life and were quite individual. Although Galton was able to demonstrate that fingerprints could be divided into three classes, the arch, the loop, and the whorl, he was unable to demonstrate the ability to sub-classify fingerprints to deal with a collection greater than 2500 persons. The committee produced its report on 12 February, 1894, and recommended an amalgam of both systems, classification of prisoners by their measurements and identification by their fingerprints. Although it was recognized that this system was far superior to the methods previously used, for a number of reasons the system was not used as much as it could have been. 41 (2), 1991 \ 123

4 Meanwhile, in 1891, Edward Richard Henry, a doctor s son, was appointed Inspector General of Police for the Lower Provinces where Herschel s original fingerprint system was still in use. He was aware of Galton s work in this field. Having had his interest aroused, he set about the task of devising a workable classification system; by 1897 he had succeeded. The Government of India appointed a committee to investigate his system, which recommended that it should be adopted in place of the Bertillon system which had been introduced in In 1899, with the system well in use in India, Henry was invited to read a paper on his system to the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1900, his book, Classification and Uses of Fingerprints, was published, ironically at the request of the Government of India. On 5 July, 1900, the Secretary of State appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Belper to inquire into the working of the method of identification of criminals by measurement and fingerprints. The report was completed on December, This recommended that the present system (measurement and fingerprints) should be maintained for such reasonable time as may be necessary to enable the Department to decide how far Henry s system, with or without any modifications, could safely be adopted, and the present system gradually superseded, but that active steps should be taken towards the immediate introduction of the Henry system. The steps taken were active indeed. On 31 May, 1901, Henry was appointed Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Criminal Investigation Branch. On 1 July, 1901, the Fingerprint Branch at Scotland Yard was formed with three officers, Detective Inspector C. H. Stedman, Detective Sergeant C. S. Collins and Detective Constable F. Hunt. They tackled their task with enthusiasm and dedication. The Commissioner in his Annual Report for 1901 wrote, owing to the greater effectiveness of the new method, it has been found possible to dispense with the attendance of officers from Divisions at prison identification parades, much saving of time and men resulting. With a man s natural ingenuity, it was soon discovered that by applying a black powder to a hard smooth surface, a latent finger print could be made visible to the naked eye and recorded by a camera. Armed with a photograph of a fingerprint left at a scene of crime, the next obvious step was to search the fingerprint collection to identify the perpetrator of the crime. With such a system available, the method of criminal investigation took a mighty step forward. On 12 September, 1902, Henry Jackson gained a place in English criminal history. He had been identified by this thumb print found at the scene of a burglary. He pleaded not guilty when he was tried at the Central Criminal Court. However, after Detective Sergeant Collins had identified the thumb mark as that of Jackson, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and he was sentenced to seven years penal servitude. 124/41 (2), 1991

5 It was not until 1905 that fingerprint evidence was given in an English murder trial. On 27 March of that year Mr. and Mrs. Far-row were brutally murdered in Deptford. A cash box from the scene was examined for fingerprints by Inspector Collins. The thumb print he found on the box was not that of any of the people who could have handled the box legitimately. During police inquiries, suspicion centered on two brothers, Alfred and Albert Stratton. When their prints were checked, the thumb print on the box was found to be identical with the right thumb of Alfred Stratton, the elder of the brothers. Each brother denied that he had committed the murders and tried to blame the other brother. At their trial, evidence of the thumbprint was given by Inspector Collins. The brothers were found guilty and subsequently hanged. For many decades the fingerprint system varied very little except to adjust its collection techniques just sufficiently to keep pace with the gently increasing demand being made of it. The occasional break-through, such as developing marks with iodine fumes, silver nitrate, and ninhydrin, were added as and when they became available. In the 1960 s it became increasingly obvious that the increase in crimes being committed and persons arrested was fast outstripping available resources both in the manually maintained fingerprint collections and the limited techniques in crime scene latent fingerprint detectors. During the past ten years considerable research has been, and still is, carried out into many aspects of fingerprints, some of which I will try to desc ribe. Current Research A crime scene fingerprint can be made in one of three ways: 1. As an impression of the print in a soft substrate such as putty. 2. As a legible impression made by a finger which has been contaminated with paint, blood, oil, etc. 3. As a latent exploiting or invisible impression which ha.s been made visible by the nature of the mark i tself and the substrate it is on. It is the last category which has engendered a large amount of research. A latent impression weighs anything between 4 and 250 micrograms and consists basically of % water, the remainder being solids in varying forms. The make-up of sweat is so complex that the total spectrum of substances present still has not been fully identified, but the following have been found by scientific investigation: chlorides, amino acids, urea, ammonia, lactic acids, sulphate, sugars, phosphate, chlorine, and uric acid. The amount of these substances discharged by a person is not static, but they not only differ between individuals, 41 (2), 1991 \I25

6 but also from hour to hour and season to season within the same individual. Latent impressions on hard firm surfaces such as metal, glass, or paintwork can normally be made visible by the application of a suitable fingerprint powder, but it is in the area of two more difficult substrates that the research has been carried out. For some years researchers were engaged in the development of latent fingerprints by the vacuum deposition of thin metal films as it was known that fingerprints inhibit the condensation of metal films. Many metals were examined as to their suitability for developing fingerprints. As a result of the examinations, a number of metal and metal combinations were found to delineate fingerprint ridges on paper and fabric substrates. The single metals found to give readable marks in some cases were: gold, silver, copper, zinc, cadmium, aluminum, bismuth, chromium, magnesium, platinum, lead, and tin. Metal combinations were copper, gold, or silver followed by cadmium or zinc. The most promising results were obtained with lead as a single metal treatment or with silver or gold followed by cadmium or zinc. To develop marks by the gold/cadmium metal deposition technique, the article is placed in a chamber with the surface to be treated facing a pair of molybdenum boats which are loaded, one with a small amount of gold wire and the other with a quantity of cadmium. The chamber is then evacuated and, by heating each metal in turn to a point of evaporation, a layer of each metal is deposited on the surface of the article under examination. The process may be used on a variety of material for which conventional techniques do not yield good results. Examples of suitable surfaces for which this new technique may be used are closely woven fabrics, bank notes, and most plastics. The use of radioactive sulphur dioxide is being exploited primarily for two pertinent applications: the fingerprint examination of adhesive tapes and the non-destructive fingerprint examination of valuable articles. Gentian violet, a conventional operational reagent, is effective when applied to clear tapes like selotape and is ineffective on colored PVC tape of the type found a scenes of crime on articles such as axe handles and gun butts. This particular system has been, and continues to be, used to examine tape from terrorist devices. As this technique is non-destructive it is being evaluated for examining valuable articles. The process consists of exposing the article to be examined to a very low concentration of radioactive sulphur dioxide gas in an airtight chamber. The sulphur dioxide reacts selectively with the fingerprint. Although it is radioactive, the fingerprint is not visible and must be imaged by sandwiching it 126 / 41 (2), 1991

7 with X-ray film for a predetermined time. The film is then developed and the fingerprint is revealed. Although this equipment is at the present stage too complicated to be implemented operationally, it has been and will continue to be used for a limited operational service but for serious crimes only. A process known as 35 SPD, or, more commonly as a physical developer, has been produced to meet the needs of two problem areas often encountered in case work. These are the fingerprint examination of: (a) papers which have been wetted or have been subjected to high humidity conditions at a scene of crime, and (b) papers with highly patterned surfaces. In the case of wetted papers, conventional reagent systems are ineffective because most of the reagent-sensitive components of the fingerprint, such as amino acids, chlorides, urea, etc., are washed away. In the case of highly patterned papers, conventional reagent systems do not easily lend themselves to subsequent intensification treatments to allow sufficient contrast between the developed print and the patterned background. The system is essentially composed of two separate reagents which are used sequentially. The first reagent comprises a surfactant stabilized physical developer which results in a selective deposition of silver on the components of the fingerprint which are highly water insoluble and location stable, and are therefore unaffected by the wetting. The developed print is black in color and, in cases where the background is pattern free, the mark can be photographed without resorting to the second reagent. With patterned surfaces, however, photography is ineffective due to pattern interference. In order to obtain an image of the fingerprint, the silver which has been selectively deposited from the physical developer solution is made radioactive with a radio-isotope of sulphur. The now radioactive fingerprint is imaged by sandwiching it with X-ray film for a pre-determined time. The film is then developed to reveal a fingerprint free of pattern interference. This reagent system has undergone successful laboratory trials and an operational trial is currently in progress. If the trial proves successful, steps will then be taken to implement the process in operational work. Research has also been carried out into our collection handling techniques. The National Fingerprint Collection holds the fingerprints of 2.5 million convicted persons, 85% of whom are male and against which each day 200 fingerprint searches are carried out for people who have been arrested of crime in this country. (I feel that it is an indictment of the prevailing liberal attitude among elements of our present day society that the fingerprints of over 500,000 new criminals have been added to this collection in less than three years.) 41 (2), 1991 \ 127

8 Before 1976, all fingerprint comparisons on this collection were performed entirely manually. Fingerprint officers classified each set of fingerprints or marks by reference to their patterns and ridge counts, and then, using a magnifying glass, visually compared every existing fingerprint form held in the appropriate part of the collection. Since 1976, an index of codes of all fingerprints comprising the National Collection has been maintained on the Police National Computer. When a person is in custody and a complete set of his prints is available, their codes can now be fed into the Police National Computer to be automatically matched against the index. The Police National Computer responds with details of all possible matching prints leaving the fingerprint officer to draw only the specified fingerprint forms from the collection and carry out the final visual comparison. To complete our daily work, it is necessary to physically locate and make comparisons with approximately 90,000 fingerprint forms. Such paper records are extremely bulky and considerable time can be lost in consulting and handling them. They can be used by only one officer at a time and are susceptible to possible misfiling. To reduce the mammoth paper handling task, we have recently installed at New Scotland Yard a videofile system which will eventually mean that all fingerprints will be stored on videotape rather than in the present paper form system. It will take approximately two years to convert the whole of the national records. Without recourse to a paper file, the videofile can screen responses of fingerprint inquiries suggested by the Police National Computer or suggested by a nominal index which is maintained by the Fingerprint Branch at Scotland Yard. Additionally, it files and stores graphic images of finger marks found at scenes of crime, prints of people known to commit breaking offenses, and maintains a digital data base of inforrnation relative to the crimes committed and the people who commit such crimes. Videofile is made up of two systems, one of which deals with the National Fingerprint Collection and the other with scenes of crime operations. Each system has its own controlling computer, its own tape libraries, filing, storage, and displaying equipment. A front end processor acts as an index to the combined complex keeping its records in digital form on disc drives. This index maintains the videotape location of every graphic image stored and also the descriptive digital data of all scenes of crime records. The front end processor also controls the display automatic functions together with filing, selective copy, and display functions. Although fingerprint experts have been involved in many hundreds of thousands of investigations and subsequent identifications, only some of these cases catch the public imagination. Of all the cases dealt with in recent years, the Great Train Robbery is the one case best remembered. I do not propose to spend time in talking in length about this case. Over the years certain sections of the press, radio, television, book publishers, and record publishers have done 128 / 41 (2), 1991

9 their best to turn the Great Train Robbery into folklore and the perpetrators into folk heroes. It is my honest opinion that far from being heroes, these men are no different than any other common criminal who accedes to the rule of violence for gain. You may remember that it was about 3:00 A.M. on Thursday, 8 August, 1963, that the Glasgow to Euston Royal mail train was approaching the signals at Sears Crossing, Buckinghamshire, at 80 mph, when to the driver s surprise he found the signals were set against him. After stopping the train, he sent his fireman to investigate the cause. A few seconds after climbing down from the cab, the fireman was seized and the Great Train Robbery was under way. As soon as the robber s hideout at Leatherslade Farm was found, three fingerprint experts, including myself, were dispatched to examine it. Apart from eating and sleeping, we worked continuously for five days covering every part of the farm house and the out buildings, which housed three vehicles. Every item in the farm house was examined, including twelve dozen eggs, scores of tins, a bottle of tomato sauce, a canister of salt, and, of course, sacks full of paper wrappings torn from bundles of bank notes. The robbers would have everyone believe they were let down by a person who failed to destroy the evidence of their presence at Leatherslade Farm. We found very strong evidence that they themselves had tried to clean the farm using two very large sponges, but they were at a disadvantage; they could not see their marks, but we could. Within days of the first fingerprint identification that was made, many more were to follow. Altogether, nine of the train robbers were identified from marks found at Leatherslade Farm. I have often been asked what would have happened if Leatherslade Farm had been destroyed before we arrived. My answer to that is that all the robbers would have been caught and convicted - it would just have taken a little longer. With the exception of murder by terrorist action and murder in furtherance of a criminal act, the vast majority of murders in this country are of a domestic or emotional nature. This means that the murdered is usually well known to the victim, e.g. husband and wife or a part of an eternal triangle, and there is usually a good starting point for any murder investigation. It is in the murder case where there is no previous relationship between the murderer and victim that the investigating officer requires as much assistance as he can possibly get. Such was the case of the murder of Mrs. Lillian Johnson, a 65year-old widow, who resided alone in a ground floor flat at Nor-wood Road, SE24. On Tuesday, 4 March, 1975, her body was found in a bed in the rear ground floor bedroom of her flat by police who had been called regarding an alleged leakage of gas. It was found that the gas leakage had resulted from a pipe being fractured adjacent to the gas meter which had been forced and the contents stolen. 41 (2), 1991 \ 129

10 The victim when found was almost completely nude and had received extensive facial injuries from what appeared to have been a frenzied attack; the flat was in disorder. Furniture and other articles in the living room had been broken and there were blood stains on the floor and walls. An extensive examination of the victim s flat revealed many finger and palm impressions, most of which were subsequently to be identified from either the victim or her known associates. Attention was eventually focused on fingerprints found on the larder door and kitchen cabinet door partially in blood. At that time all available manpower of the Fingerprint Branch was concentrated on two major inquiries, the IRA bombing campaign and the Lesley Whittle murder. Although the blood marks only revealed the right forefinger, right middle finger, and right ring finger impressions, it was decided that the investigation should be assisted by searching these three fingers against 2,500,OOO sets of fingerprints held in the National Fingerprint Collection. On Sunday, 6 April, 1975, a team of fingerprint officers, who had voluntarily given up their rest day, was assembled. Their task was to make somewhere in the order of 300,000 comparisons in the National Collection. Their effort was rewarded when Charles Henry Derry, a fairground attendant, was identified. Derry was subsequently arrested some seventy miles away from the scene of crime in Northamptonshire, and although he pleaded not guilty at his trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. It has been said that one fingerprint is worth more than a thousand eye witnesses, a valuation I would not quarrel with. The value of a fingerprint against any eye witness can be demonstrated in the following cases where two bodies were visually identified. On 20 December, 1961, an Australian woman, whom I will identify as Miss A, and who lived in this country for a number of years, was reported missing from her Bayswater home. On 30 December, 1961, the body of a woman was recovered from the River Thames at Chelsea. It was later thought that this body could be that of the missing A. Consequently, on 16 and 17 January, 1962, her Bayswater home was examined for fingerprints. The fingerprints found were checked with the fingerprints of other unidentified female cadavers and an identification was established for a body recovered from the River Thames at Greenwich on 1 January, An inquest on the Greenwich body had been held six days previously on 12 January, 1962, where it had been identified as Miss B by a male friend. Her Majesty s Coroner returned with an open verdict and issued a burial certificate. Needless to say, we now had a conflict of identification. Her Majesty s Coroner was informed of the new development on 18 January, Fortunately, the body had not been buried and as a safety precaution it was fingerprinted again and was undoubtedly Miss A. 130 / 41 (2), 1991

11 Her Majesty s Coroner held an inquiry into the matter on 3 1 January, In the interim Miss B had been traced and was most certainly alive. She attended this inquiry and satisfied the Court that she was in fact Miss B and the matter was adjourned. The Coroner then applied for an order of certiorari as was necessary to bring Miss B back to life and to hold another inquest on the body which was undoubtedly that of Miss A. On 12 March, 1962, the Queens Bench Divisional Court quashed the inquest verdict and ordered a new inquest to be held. During this hearing the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, told Mr. Cumming Bruce, who applied for the Coroner: You must clearly leave to quash, but what is the procedure: Has anyone to be served with notice? Mr. Cumming Bruce replied, There is nobody to serve. The person who was pronounced dead cannot, if dead, have an interest in the proceedings, and, if alive, cannot have any interest in opposing the quashing of the inquest.. The new inquest on the Greenwich body was held on 23 March, The identification of the body as that of Miss A was accepted after fingerprint evidence and dental evidence had been given. The Coroner recorded a verdict of suicide. It is strange to relate that the Chelsea body, which was originally thought to be Miss A was also wrongly identified. On 19 January, the Chelsea body was visually identified by her landlady as Miss C, a German art student who had been reported missing since 17 December, To substantiate this identification the landlady produced Miss C s German identification card issued in the American sector of West Berlin on 27 December, 1949, which bore the holder s photograph and right forefinger impression - this impression was not identical with the Chelsea body. To allow for the possibility of a forged identification document, a bucket of modelling clay which had been used by the missing girl was examined for fingerprints. Many fingerprints were found - none of which were identical for the Chelsea body, but one impression was identical with the right forefinger impression on Miss C s German identification card. In the face of this fingerprint evidence, Her Majesty s Coroner rejected the physical identification of the landlady. The dead woman was recorded as unidentified and an open verdict was returned. Regrettably, the Chelsea body was never identified and is still known today as Body Reference 452, January 1962, Western Division. The cases I have illustrated are but the tip of an iceberg when discussing the involvement of fingerprints with police investigations, criminal or otherwise. Time does not permit me to talk, for instance, about two multiple killers, Cummings and McKay, or the murders of Muriel McKay and Lesley Whittle, or 41 Forensic Ident. (2), 1991 \ 131

12 the involvement of the Fingerprint Branch at New Scotland Yard IRA campaign; this alone would take several hours to do justice. with the last In this age of technology, people, irrespective of their particular expertise, automatically look forward to the next logical progressive step; in this, fingerprint experts are no different than anyone else. All present fingerprint systems rely on human participation, either wholly or in part, for its input, but technology has advanced to the point where it is possible to automatically scan a fingerprint by recognizing minute data and reducing the fingerprint to a compact numerical code. This is accomplished by listing each feature in order of occurrence and describing it by its X/Y coordinate, type, angle of incidence, and direction. It is further described by relating a feature to other features. There is no doubt in my mind that within the next decade scanners will replace technicians as far as input is concerned. Computers will then search this data and the only human intervention will be the highly skilled one of determining whether the machine-suggested matches are in fact fingerprints made by the same finger. 132 / 41 (2), 1991