I. Introduction
According to the renowned French criminalist Edmond Locard, “every time someone enters an environment, something is added and something is removed from it”. What Locard meant was that in every crime scene, there is some physical evidence left behind that can help identify the unknown suspect (Kalyan & Waghamode, 2014). Since people commit crimes one of the most common types of physical evidence that is left behind id biological material or materials produced by the human body. Indeed, one of the oldest forms of biological evidence that criminalists and police have used in crime investigations is the fingerprint.
II. History
The use of fingerprints as a means of identifying a person is not a new concept; in fact, it has been in use for thousands of years (Rudin & Inman, 2002). As early as 222 B.C. the Chinese were known to have use fingerprints to show the authorship of documents (Rudin & Inman, 2002). Despite its long history however, using fingerprints as a means of investigating crimes did not formerly occur until the mid-1800 and the work of William James Herschel. Herschel, who worked as a British government administrator in India, had grown distrustful “of all the evidence tendered in court” (Herschel, 1916). At some point during his time there, he entered into a contract with a local businessman. As insurance, in case the businessman later “repudiated” the contract, Herschel had him attest to the contract with his palm and fingerprint (Herschel, 1916). The success of that fingerprinting use in keeping the businessman honest, lead Herschel to continue experimenting with the use and benefits of fingerprint over the next two decades. By 1877, Herschel who was now a magistrate in charge of the criminal courts and prisons of his district. Based on his prior research and experimentation with fingerprints, Herschel began instituting its used, especially for the jails as a means of identification (Herschel, 1916). Thus began the first widespread, formal use of fingerprint as a means of uniquely identifying an individual. Herschel, ever the advocate for fingerprinting, facilitated its spread through his writings and speeches on its benefits. Over the next several years, Herschel’s theories and findings were advanced by a number of scientists, fingerprint researchers and hobbyists, including Sir Francis Galton. In 1892 Galton published his book Finger Prints, which detailed his study of the fingerprint. One of Galton’s key findings was certain aspects of a person’s fingerprint were unique and persistent, meaning that they did not change over time (Polson, 1951).
It was not until the late 1880s, however, before the concept of using fingerprint, which had been shown to be a permanent and unique identifying factor of a person, began to be used as a means of identifying criminal suspects. To be sure, the first criminal case recognized as being solved through fingerprint analysis occurred in 1892 in Argentina. A year prior, La Plata, Argentine police statistician Juan Vucetich combined Herschel’s idea of recording the fingerprints of criminals for identification with Galton’s finding that everyone had unique fingerprints to design his own classification system (Polson, 1951). One of Vucetich’s students was Inspector Eduardo Alvarez. In 1892, Alvarez was called to investigate the murders to the children of Francisca Rojas. Rojas told Alvarez that her former lover was the culprit. The suspect, however denied any connection to the crimes. Understanding the basic theory of fingerprint analysis that he learned from Vucetich, Alvarez compared a bloody fingerprint obtained at the scene with those of Rojas finding substantial similarities. Realizing that Alvarez had found her out, Rojas confessed and admitted to the crimes.
Despite the positive results that the Vucetich method of fingerprint identification and analysis, for those criminal investigators that were interested in using forensics to help solve crimes, fingerprinting remained secondary to anthropometry, or the comparative study of human body measurements. The rise of fingerprinting to forensic investigatory dominance began in 1894, again in India. Sir Edward Richard Henry, who was the Inspector General for the Bengal Police Force became interested in the idea of using fingerprinting for criminal investigations after a visit with Galton in 1893 (Polson, 1951). After returning to Bengal, Henry began experimenting system of fingerprint classifications. He also began instituting fingerprint identification as a supplementary tool to the traditional anthropometric methods normally used in criminal investigations in the forces under his control. Eventually, Henry was able to develop a system of classifications that he felt was superior to anthropometric analysis and sought confirmation of his belief. Consequently, after an official British government comparison was conducted, in 1897, the government concluded that fingerprint classification as a means of identifying criminals was indeed superior to anthropometric analysis and would from then on would be the sole means of identification (Polson, 1951). Henry’s classification, which became known as the “Henry Classification System” soon spread back to England, where it was quickly adopted as the standard identification method, and ultimately to the United States.
III. Characteristics, Types and Classifications
Fingerprints, as shown through its history of use, are useful in individualization and identification for two fundamental reasons, namely their uniqueness and permanence (NFSTC, n.d.). First, what Herschel, Galton, Vucetich and other found through their research was that, unlike other aspects of a body, no two people, or two fingers for that matter, has precisely the same pattern to their fingerprints. To be sure, over the hundreds of years of fingerprint research and analysis and millions of fingerprints tested, research has yet to find two fingerprints from two different people that are the same. Second, research has shown that once fingerprints are formed as a fetus approaches viability, they are permanent and will remain the same throughout the individual’s lifetime unless they are intentional or accidental changes such as through scarring
In terms of analysis and identification, a fingerprint refers to the areas of a finger that have ridges and furrows (NFSTC, n.d.). This is commonly known in forensics as friction skin or friction ridge skin because these ridges and furrows are used to provide a hand with traction for gripping objects and items (NFSTC, n.d.). There are three general types of fingerprint patters that are commonly found on people. The loops refer to a pattern in which a ridge begins low on one side of the finger and gradually curved upwards before descending, wrapping back towards the entry point and exiting the finger near to where it began. Whorls refer to ridges that enter the figure from both sides and form a circular pattern similar to the eye of hurricane if observed from above. Lastly, archers refer to patters that start out like a loop, but rather than the ridge wrapping under the upwards curve, it continues on to the other side of the finger where it exists. In addition to these three common patterns there are other types of patterns that are not as commonly found in people. These patterns include ending ridges, bifurcation and dots. Ending ridges, as the name suggests, refer to ridges that follows a unique path then suddenly stops. Bifurcation refers to a ridge that some point along its path splits into two distinct ridges. A dot refers to ridge that is not connect to anything but rather sits as a permanent point surrounded by other rides.
Generally speaking, there are two main fingerprint classifications, namely patent and latent prints. Patent prints refer to fingerprints that are visible to the naked eye such as fingerprints left behind in dried blood, ink or paint (NFSTC, n.d.). Patent prints are formed after a finger contacts a transferrable media and then touches another surface. Latent prints refer to fingerprints that are invisible. Latent fingerprints are formed when the “body’s natural oils or sweat are deposited on a surface” (NFSTC, n.d.). In order to detect and obtain latent prints, criminalists will need to use special powders, chemicals, lights and materials.
IV. Future Developments
One developing method of obtaining and analyzing latent prints is through the use of nanotechnology, which studies matter on a “atomic and molecular scale” (Hallikeri et al., 2012). Indeed, research is being done to see if nanotechnology can be used to differentiate what is an actual fingerprint and what is other material such as dirt that might also be on the surface that is being examined. The hope is that nanotechnology will provide researchers with a clearer, accurate and precise picture of the latent print then is currently possible (Hallikeri et al., 2012).
Another way that nanotechnology is being experimented with in latent fingerprint analysis is to use engineered nanoparticles to help determine the contents of the natural oils and sweat that make up the latent print, such as whether or not the sweat or oils contain cocaine, nicotine or alcohol (SCAFO, 2011). To be sure, when nanotechnology is employed in this way not only will investigators has a better change of obtaining a clearer print from difficult surfaces but once the fingerprint is obtained; they will also have the ability of understanding if the person the fingerprint belong was using drugs, alcohol or is a smoker.
V. Conclusion
As the crime and criminal investigations enter the Twentieth Century, the advances made in fingerprint analysis and its use for individualization increasingly expanding from mere identification of prisoners or criminals to uses involved in the identification of unknown suspects and as evidence to prove a person was guilty of a crime. Over the early decades of the 1900s, the fingerprint quickly became one of the major means of individualization for criminal case. To be sure, fingerprinting today remains one of the most accurate forms of biological evidence possible in a criminal investigation.
References
Hallikeri, V.R. , Bai, M. & Kumar, V. (2012). Nanotechnology – The future armour of forensics: A short review. Retrieved from http://www.jscisociety.com/temp/JSciSoc39110-8331249_230832.pdf
Herschel, W.J. (1916). The origin of finger-printing. Retrieved from http://galton.org/fingerprints/books/herschel/herschel-1916-origins-1up.pdf
Kayyan, J.L. & Waghamode, R.H. (2014). Role of physical clue at crime scene. Retrieved from http://researchdirection.org/UploadArticle/152.pdf
National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC). (n.d.). A simplified guide to fingerprint analysis. Retrieved from http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/SimplifiedGuideFingerprints.pdf
Polson, C.J. (1951). Finger prints and finger printing: An historical study. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3850&context=jclc
Rudin, N. & Inman, K. (2002). Forensic science timeline. Retrieved from http://plaza.ufl.edu/jhefner/forensic_Timeline.pdf
Southern California Association of Fingerprinting Officers (SCAFO). (2011). Prototype hand-held drug testing device launched. Retrieved from www.scafo.org/images/theprint/THE_PRINT_VOL27_ISSUE_3-2011.pdf
